Shoot to Disable? Shoot to Kill?

I recently posted a short critique of the mantra: We need guns to defend ourselves.  In that post I wrote that: “If I am willing to shoot and to kill someone -even someone intent on breaking into my home - it means that I value my life (and my property!) more than another human being.” 

But a friend on Facebook challenged me today saying: “That's a well crafted question, and a trendy one at that. Many gun law activists refuse to believe guns can be used to disable criminals in the act, and insist they are used purely for murder. So rephrasing the question to read 'would protecting your property/family be worth disabling a criminal?' would be more practical, it wouldn't carry quite the subliminal punch intended to demonize gun owners.”

His argument is that firearms can be used to disable – rather than kill – attackers and intruders – thus using a gun in self defense isn't about shooting to kill someone. And this would seem like a decent argument except that handgun self defense classes don’t teach “shoot to disable.”  They teach “shoot to kill.”  For example: 

This article on SelfDefense Pistol 101 from the American Rifleman, encourages handgun users to practice “head” and “torso shots.”

This guide from Keepand Bear Arms.Com  encourages gun owners to load their weapons with hollowpoint bullets in order to inflict maximum damage to your attacker.

This article advocates putting “well-placed hits on as many vital organs, in the shortest span of time possible.”

(These articles were among the first returns in a Google search for “handgun self defense instruction.”)

Why, if handguns for self defense are to disable rather than kill, do target practice silhouettes put the highest value on head and chest shots instead of arm or leg shots?

No. I do not believe that the primary use of firearm in self-defense is to “disable.”  They are designed for killing and responsible gun owners are taught to shoot to kill.

But even if the argument could be made that using handguns in self defense is about disabling rather than killing the hypothetical burglar breaking into my house to steal my property, I do not believe that my response – as a Christian – involves disabling him.  Indeed, we are instructed to give away our possessions and to not demand them back (Luke 6:30) and certainly not instructed to shoot someone over them.