Further to the subject of shot placement, sustaining multiple gunshot wounds etc:
The human body, as fragile as it is, is surprisingly resilient. In a defensive situation you want to survive as unharmed as possible and the two main ways this will happen is if your attacker runs away or if he falls down on the ground. Assuming that he is not simply scared into running away, you need to put your attacker on the ground. With a firearm there are four main ways this can happen:
1) Psychologically - The pain and shock of being shot may cause your attacker to mentally lock (or give) up and fall down. This is not uncommon, sometimes people go over as if hit by a freight train from only a grazing wound. But neither is it uncommon for people to remain standing and functioning after even multiple gunshots. Often people do not notice they have been shot, or report only that it felt like they had been punched - painful, but not enough to stop them. Some will suffer excruciating pain but fight through it anyway, and still others will be numb from drink or drugs. This kind of effect is most common when passive individuals are shot e.g. a cop is writing a ticket when out of nowhere he gets shot in the shoulder. When people are aware they are being shot at their fight or flight response, if nothing else, is usually enough to override the effect at least for a time.
2) Mechanically - If the pelvis is shattered your attacker will fall down because he has no skeleton to hold him up - it's physically impossible. Equally he may fall down if his ankle, knee etc are shattered (though it is possible he could remain standing on one leg). This may be well and good if he is armed with a knife, bat, ligature etc, but it will not do if he is armed with a gun since he can still shoot back from the floor.
3) Cardiovascularly (!) - If the heart is destroyed then incapacitation will occur almost immediately and death a few seconds later. Nicks or minor damage to the heart will be slower and it may take tens of seconds for incapacitation to occur. Major damage to the lungs or throat can also incapacitate almost immediately with death following in tens of seconds or perhaps significantly longer (lung shots can potentially be survived for some time).
4) Cerebrally - If the brain stem is destroyed then it is instant game over. If the upper brain is destroyed then motor function may continue for a few moments. Glancing shots or minor penetration may not even kill - especially given the resistance of the skull to gunshots.
Killing, from a practical point of view, may not be all that difficult. But stopping is another matter. It doesn't help you if your attacker dies five minutes or three weeks after he has killed or maimed you. It may not matter how many times you hit an attacker or how big or fast the bullet is, unless it does sufficient damage to very specific areas of the body there's no reason he will necessarily fall down. So one area that deserves a lot of attention is shot placement and learning to shoot accurately - and to do so quickly and under a variety of non-ideal conditions.
barney57 wrote:You can or should fire AIMED SHOTS ONLY and only as many shots as is neccessary after giving a warning...
If the perp turns and runs or drops any weapon that he/she might be carrying once you have given a warning,,,,then the threat is no more,,,,that means if that happens you cant shoot him/her legally...
SO BEWARE!!
There is no blanket legal requirement to give a warning. Police officers are required to give a warning before shooting a fleeing suspect where practical - but there is no requirement (for police or civilians) to give a warning when shooting in self-defence or defence of another. Of course it is preferable, legally and for many other reasons, to give a warning but this very much depends on the situation. In some states there is statute law which says a warning must be given where feasible so in these states it is of extra importance but obviously not always necessary.
Suppose you come downstairs to investigate that bump in the night and find two intruders rifling through some drawers. You ought to be using verbal warnings e.g. 'get back,' 'stay away,' 'don't come any closer,' etc. If you did shoot them straight out then you'd be on extremely shaky legal ground and of course possibly killed some people when you might not have had to. If they run off, great, but if they come at you then you are on much firmer ground in shooting them.
But suppose rather than discovering placid intruders you find yourself the would-be victim of a smash and grab. You hear a tremendous crash, you grab your 12 gauge from the corner and pie out onto the landing to investigate - coming off the top of the stairs towards you are two masked men with claw hammers. In this situation you would be quite right to give no warning but simply shoot them. They are not just potential threats but actual and immediate threats. If you should happen to go to trial (which would be extraordinary if, as described, there were multiple armed attackers) and the prosecution asked, as they surely would, whether you gave a warning your answer would be that you had no time to give a warning because your life was in immediate danger. So, you should be able to justify why no warning was given, but there is no requirement to warn - or in states where there is some sort of requirement, it is only required 'when feasible' which it is clearly not when you are in immediate danger.
Equally, outside of the home, if someone is acting in a way that makes you uncomfortable - leering, being verbally aggressive, or to some extent threatening, pushing and shoving, walking quickly towards you etc - you can't legally just shoot them. Again, you would need to tell them to stay back etc and only when you are actually attacked such that you fear crippling injury (or sexual assault) can you use lethal force. You may of course be justified in using less-lethal force in the meantime. But if a threat presents itself immediately e.g. you are sitting at lights and suddenly your car door is pulled open and a man brandishing a knife appears - you are on solid legal ground when you shoot him without warning because your life is actually in danger.
As for aimed shots, it depends what you mean by aimed. Firing blindly around a corner at an attacker is probably a bad idea since 1) It's not very effective and 2) you're much more likely to send bullets god knows where - and if those bullets kill some innocent person you have to live with that and are probably going to jail or at least getting sued for every last penny you have. But firing
directed shots without using your sights is often the only practical thing you can do. How could you possibly use your sights if your attacker is within arms reach? There's literally no room to get a full extension so as to see your sights. Even if your attacker is further away, there may be no time. It's less likely in home defence situations since you will have your gun drawn and at a low ready or even looking down the sights, but in an outside-the-home encounter where you need to draw as well as shoot there's a time between getting the gun out of the holster and getting the gun out to full extension that you may not be able to afford.
Depending on the situation you may have to shoot from the hip, from a compressed grip (butt of the gun on your chest), or from a partial extension. From the first two, you will not see your sights at all. From the last of these you will see your sights but you won't have a sight picture. You would use these firstly because you don't have time to get a full extension and proper sight picture, but also because a full extension puts your hands and gun closer to your attacker. When he is close, keeping the gun near to your body may be preferable.
You are quite right about fleeing intruders or would-be attackers though. The exception being if they are armed with firearms - a fleeing gunman can and often will still fire behind him as he runs so you are likely to be justified in continuing to shoot. But other than that there is no justification which is why Tony Martin and the Hussain brothers went to prison.