Shoot ‘Em til They Drop Theory…

[Brian@ITC]

A common teaching in firearms training is that you will be able to get your gun out and use it and immediately stop the threat in their tracks. This type of training is based upon things going perfectly. Exactly how many times in your life has anything gone perfectly?

Even if you do land rounds (including multiple rounds) on the threat, do you really expect them to just fall down and die? A large number people die from the mental aspect of being shot as opposed to the physical aspect. According to Lt. Col Dave Grossman’s teachings, most people who are shot don’t know they are shot because the body shuts down all secondary senses such as pain. So, even if you are able to inflict one or more fatal gunshot wounds on the adversary doesn’t guarantee that they will drop on the spot. The reality of what this means is that more than likely the attacker is still going to be in the fight and possibly causing serious harm to you and or your loved ones.

The common teaching of you will be able to get your gun out and you will be able to shoot the attacker and they will fall down and die on the spot is something that is going to get people injured or killed because they are going to expect it to happen and when it doesn’t they haven’t trained for it, so their chances of survival are probably not good. You will react how you have trained to handle a situation whether or not you want to believe it—it is a proven fact and Grossman’s teachings back this up. If you don’t train on a regular basis, then your chances of pulling something off in a life or death situation are slim at best. And, if you spend most of your time training at the shoot ‘em to the ground (or dead) theory, then how do you think you will react in the real deal when things don’t go perfectly?

Personally, I feel the training mindset of shoot ‘em to the ground is more counterproductive than productive because it is placing high expectations in people’s minds. I don’t believe that most training should be negative training, but students should be placed in “no win” situations because this is reality. People learn more from mistakes than from success—it is just human nature. By placing students in no win situations they won’t always expect things to go as planned. Can you survive a “no win” situation in real life—absolutely.

If the shoot ‘em til they are down (or dead) theory actually worked as well as people would like to believe, then the murder rate and the number of people killed by guns in self-defense shootings would rise greatly. The numbers for attempted murder (with guns) and those injured as a result of someone using a firearm in self-defense would decrease significantly. The truth of the matter is that people (both victims and criminals) are living through multiple gunshot wounds by the numbers. To complicate statistics more, how many people who die from being shot die hours or days later?

What I am not saying is that it is impossible to shoot someone til they drop. I’m just saying that it is probably unlikely that it will happen and you shouldn’t expect to. HOPE for the best and TRAIN for the worst! That way you will be prepared when reality kicks in during a life threatening situation.

Just remember that in a fight that marksmanship is a hopeful skill, FIGHTING skills are a must!

How do you feel about the shoot 'em til they drop theory?

__________________________
Brian K. LaMaster
Innovative Tactical Concepts
Modern Warrior Talk
Your mind is the weapon. Your body is simply the delivery system for the tool you choose to implement into the fight.
Marksmanship is a hopeful skill, FIGHTING skills are a must!
"What you don't know won't hurt you - it will KILL you!" General Gerry Prather, USAF, XOK (1982)

 

[Bubbajms]

I think that kind of theory has been ingrained by horror movies the world over. The story differs, but at some point, there's the bad guy, laying in a pool of blood, and the victor walks away - we, the observers, see the bad guy's hand twitch, and WE know it isn't over..

 

[jeremy]

2 shots center mass in a controlled pair. If that does not work, it will have certainly bought you time to put one into the melon.

Cheaper than the shoot till he quits twitching school of thought.

 

[finity]

I don't necessarily think that there is something inherently wrong with the theory. It is a departure from some other schools of thought that states "2 to the chest then 1 to the head (or not)" then pause to see what happens. Like you stated, that's not guaranteed to stop the fight. If however you decide immediately that you will "shoot them to the ground" (i.e. the threat is eliminated) then you will be ahead of the curve...as long as you're not solely counting on even that to finish off the BG. If you make that pause then that leaves an opening for the BG to exploit. It's the OODA loop in action.

That said, if I remember correctly, the vast majority of SD gun uses end with only 3 shots fired. The BG may not be dead but he will at least more than likely be leaving the area quickly, barring other extenuating circumstances (drugs, alcohol, particularly determined to do you harm, etc.). Self preservation is instinctual for the BG's, too

I guess the downside to the "shoot em to the ground" theory is that you may have fired until slide-lock. Then again, if you've had to go to that level and have not stopped the threat then you are now in the same boat that, I think, is the point of your thread. You have shot them & they are still coming. Now what?

 

[techres]

A common teaching in firearms training is that you will be able to get your gun out and use it and immediately stop the threat in their tracks. This type of training is based upon things going perfectly. Exactly how many times in your life has anything gone perfectly?

Rarely, especially as it will involve all the challenges of adrenalyne.

Even if you do land rounds (including multiple rounds) on the threat, do you really expect them to just fall down and die? A large number people die from the mental aspect of being shot as opposed to the physical aspect. According to Lt. Col Dave Grossman’s teachings, most people who are shot don’t know they are shot because the body shuts down all secondary senses such as pain. So, even if you are able to inflict one or more fatal gunshot wounds on the adversary doesn’t guarantee that they will drop on the spot. The reality of what this means is that more than likely the attacker is still going to be in the fight and possibly causing serious harm to you and or your loved ones.

People die from massive blood loss to vital organs. Some people stop for a variety of reasons.

The common teaching of you will be able to get your gun out and you will be able to shoot the attacker and they will fall down and die on the spot is something that is going to get people injured or killed because they are going to expect it to happen and when it doesn’t they haven’t trained for it, so their chances of survival are probably not good. You will react how you have trained to handle a situation whether or not you want to believe it—it is a proven fact and Grossman’s teachings back this up. If you don’t train on a regular basis, then your chances of pulling something off in a life or death situation are slim at best. And, if you spend most of your time training at the shoot ‘em to the ground (or dead) theory, then how do you think you will react in the real deal when things don’t go perfectly?

Ok, let me follow you here. You will fight how you trained. Got it. So how will you fight if you trained to shoot them to the ground? Pretty ferociously I would imagine.

Personally, I feel the training mindset of shoot ‘em to the ground is more counterproductive than productive because it is placing high expectations in people’s minds. I don’t believe that most training should be negative training, but students should be placed in “no win” situations because this is reality. People learn more from mistakes than from success—it is just human nature. By placing students in no win situations they won’t always expect things to go as planned. Can you survive a “no win” situation in real life—absolutely.

I do not understand here. I do not see how "shoot them to the ground" is at all requiring of the mind. It means, shoot until they cease to be a threat with a focus on the shoot. In fact the "shoot 2x and evaluate" idea may be far more taxing as such, mentally.

And as for the "no win" situation, can you help me with that? I am not sure what you mean there.

If the shoot ‘em til they are down (or dead) theory actually worked as well as people would like to believe, then the murder rate and the number of people killed by guns in self-defense shootings would rise greatly. The numbers for attempted murder (with guns) and those injured as a result of someone using a firearm in self-defense would decrease significantly. The truth of the matter is that people (both victims and criminals) are living through multiple gunshot wounds by the numbers. To complicate statistics more, how many people who die from being shot die hours or days later?

Most self defense shootings happen with people of nearly no training. So take nothing from stats on that. As for people surviving multiple gunshot wounds, that is true and so long as they were stopped, then they got the right number in them. If they continued, then there was a definite bullet deficiency and an argument for more of the shoot'em to the ground philosophy.

What I am not saying is that it is impossible to shoot someone til they drop. I’m just saying that it is probably unlikely that it will happen and you shouldn’t expect to. HOPE for the best and TRAIN for the worst! That way you will be prepared when reality kicks in during a life threatening situation.

I think the idea is to hammer them until they stop, by falling or leaving. Enough rounds accurately placed should do it. If not, you are facing a Zombie.

Just remember that in a fight that marksmanship is a hopeful skill, FIGHTING skills are a must!

How do you feel about the shoot 'em til they drop theory?

Personally, so long as I intend every shot and they are necessary to stop the fight, then I plan to do what needs to be done. The only problem with the idea is that each shot needs to be justifiable in court as well as to yourself so each shot needs to be intended.

 

[Plague421]

I personally blame action movies, the good guy places 2 rounds of a 9mm into bad guy center mass and he drops dead, never moves another inch. I have always found this to be unlikely, obviously the BG will be injured, but I think they would still have the ability to raise and fire their weapon with some accuracy.

My is if your attacker is running at you, lets say wielding a knife, shoot for the legs. I'm pretty sure a .45ACP in the femur bone will stop most if not all attackers right there, should at the very least buy you some time.

However I am by no means a ballistics expert, I am just using a little common knowledge I have about the human body.

Broken femur= Pain

 

[esrice]

My is if your attacker is running at you, lets say wielding a knife, shoot for the legs. I'm pretty sure a .45ACP in the femur bone will stop most if not all attackers right there, should at the very least buy you some time.

However I am by no means a ballistics expert, I am just using a little common knowledge I have about the human body.

Broken femur= Pain

"Shooting for the legs" or "shooting for the arm" is a bad idea IMHO. If you were trying to justify yourself in court, the prosecutor would paint a picture of you using deadly-force, but not "wanting to kill" someone, thereby making your look irresponsible. Its like "shooting to maim". Not to mention that accurating hitting a swinging arm/leg in the heat of the moment is going to be almost impossible. This is why COM is taught.

If the situtation has escalated to requiring deadly-force, then be DEADLY about it.

Now, on the other side of the coin, don't forget that we "shoot to stop" not "shoot to kill". Your goal is not to "kill" someone, but to "stop their attack on you", which can indeed lead to death in some cases.

I know these two paragraphs seem contradictory, but there is a balance that must be struck in-between.

 

[esrice]

So, even if you are able to inflict one or more fatal gunshot wounds on the adversary doesn’t guarantee that they will drop on the spot.

If the gunshot is "fatal" doesn't that, by definition, mean that they are indeed dead and therefore WILL "drop on the spot"? Unless we're talking Zombie hordes. . . Or maybe by "fatal" you mean "eventually fatal" vs. "immediately fatal"?



To be honest I'm very confused after reading your post. I'm still not quite sure of the "therefore".


The idea of "shoot 'em to the ground" is to rebut the folks that say "one well-placed shot should do the trick". I don't think "shoot 'em to the ground" is couterproductive at all. If someone is coming at you, and you attempt to "shoot 'em to the ground" and they continue advancing, then you simply transition into other tactics, such as moving, gaining distance, closing distance, open-hand techniques, other weapons, etc.

Byplacing students in no win situations they won’t always expect thingsto go as planned. Can you survive a “no win” situation in reallife—absolutely.

Again, by definition, one cannot surivive a "no-win" situation if you equate surviving to winning. Simplified:


If 'survive' = 'win', then "no-win" = "no-survive".


So no, I don't think you can survive a "no-win" situation.

 

[Sailor]

A man shot himself in the leg yesterday up here while cleaning his gun. He called 911 and died.

 

[dburkhead]

A man shot himself in the leg yesterday up here while cleaning his gun. He called 911 and died.

Gotta love that femoral artery.

Ah, and was that "cleaning his gun" or "playing with a loaded gun." Since the first thing I do with any gun I clean is to unload it (if not already unloaded--and I confirm that), and then immediately proceed to whatever takedown steps lead in the most direct fashion to removal of bolt or slide (depending on the gun), I'm not seeing the steps that lead to "shot himself while cleaning the gun).

 

[jeremy]

A man shot himself in the leg yesterday up here while cleaning his gun. He called 911 and died.

Yeah and when I was a kid we had a gentleman hang himself with the cord from his reading light. That he was sitting next to.

So either the guy who shot himself had help, or this was a Darwin act.

 

[indyjoe]

Ah, and was that "cleaning his gun" or "playing with a loaded gun." Since the first thing I do with any gun I clean is to unload it (if not already unloaded--and I confirm that), and then immediately proceed to whatever takedown steps lead in the most direct fashion to removal of bolt or slide (depending on the gun), I'm not seeing the steps that lead to "shot himself while cleaning the gun).

I'm with you on that one. The first step after unloading a weapon and checking, is make it not capable of firing. Then and only then does cleaning start.

The only immediate stop is nervous system. The only near immediate stop, but most likely only partially disabling is skeletal. All other stops are blood loss. I assume that the fight will continue until I have evidence that it has stopped. If 4 or 5 solid hits to COM hasn't stopped the threat, I would adjust aim to their head and continue. They have proven that they are not likely to stop rapidly without a nervous system stop.

I listened to an officer recount a shooting he was involved in. He managed to get what he thought were a couple good hits on the perp. The perp retreated to using a car as cover and setup kneeling behind the hood, firing off some shots that got the officer in the arm. The officer was pinned down and didn't move for a couple minutes, but never received any more fire. He saw the perp had him covered and was able to wait for backup. When backup arrived the man was still on the hood pointing the pistol. Dead. Femoral artery hit killed him a couple seconds after he got in position.

Stopping and Killing are two different things. You can stop without killing and you can kill (essentially) without immediately stopping.

 

[Hoosier8]

I read somewhere that only 20% of people that suffer gunshot wounds, die. I suppose that includes accidental shootings also.

Just remember to be absolutely sure of your situation. Even if you are not prosecuted for a self-defense shooting, that doesn't mean you won't be sued by the surviving relatives, then the "hand cannon" and "itching to shoot someone" and "why couldn't you shoot to injure" arguments come out. A good gun lawyer is essential in this case. Just hope you don't have to pull your weapon so you won't have to deal with this.

 

[antsi]

A man shot himself in the leg yesterday up here while cleaning his gun. He called 911 and died.

"Died before the EMTs could get there" is different than "died before he could shoot back," or "died before he could stick a knife in me."

Focusing on whether the assailant dies or not is misdirected. What we really care about is whether he is incapacitated - as in, unable to pose any further threat to me - and how fast that happens.

Or maybe by "fatal" you mean "eventually fatal" vs. "immediately fatal"?

Huge distinction.

The best kill shot I ever had on a deer was a .45 cal 260 grain projectile, Barnes MZ expander at about 1400 fps. Went straight through the heart. When I field dressed the deer, the heard looked as if it had exploded from the insides - it was totally shredded, with all four anatomic chambers completely opened up. Still this animal was able to leap over a five foot fence and run about 30 yards before dropping. Therefore I have no illusions about relying on a "one shot stop" to drop an attacker instantly.

An attacker can take a lethal shot - from which he eventually will die - and still be functional long enough to harm me.

I agree it is foolish to believe that any handgun round - or rifle round for that matter - can reliably incapacitate an attacker rapidly enough to ensure that one will not be harmed.

That doesn't mean it's all futile, though. First, criminals like other predators are looking for their best opportunity. Finding that their intended victim is armed and fighting back can change their thinking fast. Second, the fact that you're shooting back at them is going to distract/disrupt their attack to some extent and make it less effecient. The prospect of inflicting incapacitating damage before we ourselves are incapacitated can come in to play but this assumes a determined attacker who is willing to press his attack despite being shot. Running up against someone like this thankfully is rare in civilian self defense scenario - but the fact is that if we wind up facing this kind of determined attacker our odds of getting hurt just went way up.

The bottom line is, none of this changes how we should respond to a lethal attack. 1) try to avoid the situation or get out of it if at all possible 2) if avoidance isn't possible, fight back with the most effective means available 3) keep on fighting until there is no more threat to you or your family.

What's the alternative?

 

[Brian@ITC]

The bottom line is, none of this changes how we should respond to a lethal attack. 1) try to avoid the situation or get out of it if at all possible 2) if avoidance isn't possible, fight back with the most effective means available 3) keep on fighting until there is no more threat to you or your family.

Well said!

__________________________
Brian K. LaMaster
Innovative Tactical Concepts
Modern Warrior Talk
Your mind is the weapon. Your body is simply the delivery system for the tool you choose to implement into the fight.
Marksmanship is a hopeful skill, FIGHTING skills are a must!
"What you don't know won't hurt you - it will KILL you!" General Gerry Prather, USAF, XOK (1982)

 

[Steve MI]

I love the school of thought that you will be able to make brainshots during dynamic situations, the brain is small armored and moving, and its not going to be sitting still, yes 2 rnds com followed up by BB shot is going to solve all is false hood often enough we are moving and shooting shooting and moving while the BGS are most likley, the head now get this folks may be moving foward,reward. left to right right to left or looking like a pro running back ducking weaving and bobing, not stuck to a stake in the ground in front of you...on a nice calm range and is often only 3x3 inch area's as for legs shot dont fool yourself super hero if your looking down at the threat at a 2-4 inch wide area to hit under stress i say you get bat instead of a gun..
same for pelvic griddle shots its deep area to hit very small in size and often not where people think its located

 

[mercop]

Brian, good thought. You mean if I spend tons on money on the perfect gun, and hours of time pouring over ballistics before choosing the perfect round, that when shot my attacker will not burst into flames? I want my money back.

As it is with all things martial people are concerned with killing people eventually, no stopping the violent action immediately.

In our class in Miami over the weekend we did tons of force on force. After dozens of scenarios I believe we had two head shots using airsoft. During the live fire we had non....even with a target standing still.

The idea is to shoot and move, move and shoot. Not stand there and admire your handy work or the lack off. Great topic.

 

[fpdshooter]

My belief and what I train my guys to do is shoot until the threat is no longer a threat. Use as many rounds as it takes, but not more. Shoot at the center of mass presented to you.

If need be, conduct a failure drill or at least be prepared to do so.

These are very open to your interpretation. It is supposed to be so given the facts at the time of the incident.

 

[SigSense]

I have always been taught (military SOF) that you do just that: Shoot and continue shooting until the enemy is dead. You simply cannot have people alive and able to kill your team mates as you go through a house/bunker/building etc. Shortly after 9/11, we began to notice that simply putting three or four 5.56 rounds in bad actors didn't guarantee that they were incapacitated. So a new tactic was born: brain matter. If you see brain matter, the computer will not run. The computer (brain) controls the bodies movements, just like hard drives. No computer equals no problems.

 

[Lars]

[tongue_in_cheek]

Brian@ITC you've sold me.

My gun fighting skills are useless. I should stop carrying a Glock, and should immediately replace it with a bunch of melee weapons. Because guns don't win gun fights, sticks win gun fights.

[/tongue_in_cheek]

Do I expect every shot to stop a bad guy immediately? Foxtrot NO! Does that mean I shouldn't shoot them? Foxtrot NO! If somebody needs to be shot I'm going to shoot them. If they don't stop being dangerous I'll shoot them again.... Better.... And if they still don't stop being dangerous, I will shoot them again.

I'm not going to remain with my boots cemented in place while the above is taking place. People with bullet holes move slower than people without. They leak more too....