Concealed Carry, Guide, Shooting Techniques

Debunking the Myth: “Why Not Just Shoot Them in the Leg?”

As a firearms instructor, I often encounter a common question: “Why don’t you just aim for the leg?” Many people think that by shooting a threat in the leg, they can avoid lethal force while still defending themselves. However, this idea stems from a misunderstanding of both self-defense principles and the physiological and psychological impacts of high-stress situations. Here, we’ll explore why “shooting them in the leg” is not a viable or safe strategy and why aiming for center mass is standard in self-defense training.

The Nature of a Deadly Threat

Consider a situation where you’re facing a violent threat—perhaps someone wielding a knife, demanding your wallet or making other threats against your life. Knives, unlike what some might assume, can be just as deadly as firearms, especially at close range. A single well-placed slash or stab can cause life-threatening injuries. In this situation, you’re looking to stop the threat as quickly and effectively as possible, and responding with proportional force, such as drawing your firearm, may be necessary to protect your life.

Aiming for a person’s leg under these conditions is not practical for one simple reason: it doesn’t guarantee an immediate stop. Center mass (the torso) contains major organs and arteries, making it the most effective target for quickly incapacitating an attacker. The goal of self-defense is not to kill, but to stop the immediate threat. Aiming for the leg, on the other hand, is not only less effective at stopping a threat but could lead to other unintended, lethal outcomes.

Psychological Responses in Life-or-Death Situations

When faced with a high-stress situation, the human brain shifts into survival mode, often resulting in psychological responses such as fight, flight, freeze, posture, or submission. Many people, especially those who are untrained, might freeze or submit in the face of danger. Those who are train regularly with firearms, martial arts and maintain situational awareness are often better prepared to engage in defensive actions if they cannot avoid the situation entirely. These responses happen quickly and automatically, without conscious control.

For those interested in further reading, Dr. Alexis Artwohl’s book, Deadly Force Encounters, offers an in-depth look into the mental aspects of surviving violent encounters. For more on the effects of extreme stress in these situations, you can explore Dr. Artwohl’s work on her website here. Another excellent resource is Lt. Col. Dave Grossman’s Grossman Academy, which provides training and resources on the psychology of deadly encounters and how to prepare for them under stress. You can find more about his work here.

Physiological Effects: What Happens to Your Body

Beyond the psychological responses, intense stress triggers significant physiological effects on the body. Under threat, an adrenaline dump floods the system, leading to an increased heart rate, which in turn affects motor control and other physical functions. According to Grossman and Artwohl, the physiological responses include:

  • Tunnel Vision: You may lose up to 70% of your peripheral vision, narrowing your focus to the immediate threat and decreasing awareness of surroundings.
  • Auditory Exclusion: This effect reduces your ability to hear sounds around you, focusing your attention solely on the threat.
  • Loss of Fine and Complex Motor Skills: As your heart rate climbs beyond 155 beats per minute, complex and fine motor skills deteriorate. This means that aiming accurately—especially at a smaller target like a leg—becomes extremely difficult.
  • Time Dilation: Many people report that time appears to slow down during high-stress events, but this can distort perception, making it even harder to respond accurately.
  • Loss Of Perception: In high-stress situations, loss of perception can distort your sense of distance, movement, and even time, making it difficult to accurately assess the threat and respond with precision.
  • Tremors: As adrenaline surges, the body often begins to tremor or shake, further impairing precision and stability.

These physiological responses make the concept of carefully aiming at a leg unrealistic. Aiming at a leg is not only extremely challenging but also unreliable in a moment where split-second decisions and quick actions are necessary.

The Skill Level Required for a Leg Shot

For those still considering a leg shot as a “safe” alternative, it’s important to understand the skill required. Shooting a moving leg accurately while under intense stress requires exceptional proficiency. Here are just a few skills that would need to be mastered:

  • Excellent Trigger Control: Achieving a clean break and reset on the trigger is essential for accuracy.
  • Stable Grip: Maintaining a firm grip while aiming and firing is challenging when adrenaline affects your body.
  • Sight Alignment and Target Alignment: Ensuring that your sights and target are aligned precisely is critical to effective shooting, but becomes challenging under stress.
  • Accounting for Movement: In a real-life encounter, both you and the attacker are likely moving, making a precise shot at a limb incredibly difficult.
  • Environmental Awareness: You must also consider your surroundings, including any obstacles, bystanders, or other potential interferences.

Unlike scenes in Hollywood films, real-life self-defense situations are chaotic and unpredictable. Shooting accurately in such conditions demands far more skill than most people have, and it’s unrealistic to expect precision shots under duress.

The Risks of a Successful Leg Shot

Ironically, even a well-placed leg shot can be just as deadly as aiming for center mass. The femoral artery, one of the largest blood vessels in the body, runs through the leg. If this artery is severed, the person could bleed out in less than two minutes, creating an unintentional fatality. To effectively manage this, you would need extensive training in first aid and the use of a tourniquet—skills that most civilians don’t have.

From a legal perspective, aiming for the leg is still considered the use of deadly force. The law does not differentiate between aiming for the leg or the chest; any time a firearm is discharged with the intent to incapacitate, it’s legally classified as deadly force.

Femoral Arteries and Veins

Conclusion: Why Center Mass is the Standard

In self-defense, the goal is to stop the threat in the quickest and most effective way possible. Center mass is the safest and most reliable target to achieve this. Attempting a leg shot is not only ineffective but also carries a high risk of either failing to incapacitate the attacker or causing unintended, lethal consequences. For anyone serious about carrying a firearm for self-defense, understanding these realities is crucial.

Using a firearm responsibly means recognizing that aiming to incapacitate through any means is inherently deadly force. If you’re carrying a firearm, it’s essential to be trained in self-defense best practices and to approach every decision with caution, understanding that in life-threatening situations, effectiveness, legality, and safety must guide your actions.


Legal Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal guidance regarding self-defense laws in your jurisdiction.

Fair Use Disclosure: This article references publicly available information and educational resources for commentary and educational purposes under fair use.

Concealed Carry

Understanding Colorado’s “Make My Day” Law for Gun Owners: A Guide to Your Rights in Non-Traditional Dwellings

Colorado’s “Make My Day” law, codified under CRS 18-1-704.5, serves as a bulwark for homeowners, affirming their right to defend themselves with deadly force against intruders. This legislation underscores a fundamental principle: the inviolability of one’s home as a sanctuary where citizens can expect absolute safety. However, as society evolves and our living arrangements diversify beyond traditional homes, many Colorado gun owners find themselves navigating a gray area when it comes to their rights in non-traditional dwellings such as tents, hotel rooms, motorhomes, and when staying at a friend’s or relative’s house.

The Law As It Stands

CRS 18-1-704.5 explicitly protects occupants of a “dwelling” who use any degree of physical force, including deadly force, under specific circumstances: an unlawful entry coupled with a reasonable belief that the intruder has committed a crime, is committing a crime and intends to commit a crime. Additionally, the occupant needs to have reasonable belief the intruder might us force against them or an occupant, no matter how slight. Legal immunity from both criminal prosecution and civil liability is granted to those acting within these parameters.

The Ambiguity

The term “dwelling” in the context of the law raises questions when applied to temporary or mobile accommodations. While the statute offers clarity and protection for traditional homes, condos and apartments, its application to tents while camping, hotel and motel rooms, Airbnb’s, motorhomes (not in motion), and camping trailers remains less defined. The law does not explicitly extend these protections to such places, nor does it deny them, leaving a notable silence on the issue.

Equally ambiguous is the law’s stance on defending oneself in a residence that is not one’s own, such as a friend’s or relative’s house. In these instances, the legal protections afforded by CRS 18-1-704.5 become murkier, leading to uncertainty among gun owners about their rights in such situations.

Bridging the Gap

Addressing this legal ambiguity is essential for ensuring that Colorado’s gun owners fully understand their rights in all circumstances. There are two primary paths to clarification:

  1. Legislative Action: The Colorado General Assembly, in collaboration with the Governor, could enact new legislation that explicitly defines the scope of “dwelling” to include non-traditional residences or otherwise clarifies the law’s application to these scenarios. This would provide concrete guidelines for both gun owners and law enforcement, ensuring that the rights to defense are clearly understood across a variety of living situations.
  2. Judicial Interpretation: Alternatively, the courts could play a critical role in defining the law’s reach through case law. By adjudicating disputes involving the use of force in non-traditional dwellings, the judiciary can offer interpretations that help fill the legislative silence, gradually shaping a body of precedent that clarifies the rights of gun owners in these contexts.

Certainly, exploring hypothetical scenarios can help illustrate the complexities and potential legal ambiguities surrounding self-defense with a firearm in non-dwelling situations under Colorado law. Here are three examples that highlight where the law’s protection might be questionable:

Example 1: Self-Defense in a Hotel Room

Scenario: Sarah is staying at a hotel while attending a conference in Denver. Late at night, she hears someone attempting to force their way into her room. Believing the intruder intends to harm her, she uses a firearm to defend herself, injuring the would-be intruder.

Legal Question: Does CRS 18-1-704.5 protect Sarah’s actions, given that a hotel room is not her permanent dwelling but is her temporary residence? The ambiguity lies in whether the law’s provision for “dwelling” extends to temporary accommodations like hotel rooms.

Example 2: Defending a Campsite

Scenario: John and his family are camping in a secluded area of the Rocky Mountains. One night, they’re approached by an aggressive individual who threatens them and attempts to enter their tent. John uses a firearm to defend his family, deterring the aggressor.

Legal Question: Given that the incident occurs in a tent—an unconventional and temporary dwelling—does John’s action fall under the protection of the “Make My Day” law? The scenario raises questions about the applicability of the law to outdoor, temporary living situations where the boundaries of a “dwelling” are not as clear-cut as a house or apartment.

Example 3: Using a Firearm in a Friend’s Home

Scenario: Emily is house-sitting for a friend who is on vacation. During her stay, she encounters a burglar attempting to break in late at night. Fearing for her safety, Emily uses a firearm to stop the intrusion, injuring the burglar in the process.

Legal Question: Does Emily have the right to defend herself under CRS 18-1-704.5, even though she is not the homeowner but merely staying there temporarily? This scenario probes the extent to which the law protects individuals acting in self-defense in a dwelling that is not their own but where they have permission to stay.

These examples underscore the need for clearer legal guidance on the scope of self-defense rights in non-traditional dwellings and temporary residences under Colorado law. The ambiguity surrounding what constitutes a “dwelling” for the purposes of legal protection in self-defense situations highlights a critical area for potential legislative clarification or judicial interpretation.


Conclusion

For Colorado gun owners, understanding the extent of their rights under the “Make My Day” law in non-traditional dwellings is crucial. As society’s living arrangements evolve, so too should our legal interpretations to ensure that all law-abiding citizens can confidently exercise their right to self-defense, regardless of where they find themselves residing temporarily. In the meantime, gun owners are advised to stay informed about the ongoing legal discussions and potential legislative changes that could impact their rights. It’s also wise to consult with legal experts when navigating these uncertain waters, ensuring that one’s actions remain within the bounds of current legal frameworks while advocating for clearer laws that reflect the diversity of modern living situations.


Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. The information contained herein reflects the legal standards applicable in the state of Colorado, specifically regarding the use of physical force by security guards in defense of premises as outlined in section 18-1-704.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. It is important to understand that legal interpretations and enforcement practices can vary and may be subject to change due to legislative amendments or judicial decisions.

Readers are cautioned not to rely solely on the information presented in this article for any legal matters or decisions. The scenarios and explanations provided are simplified examples and may not encompass all aspects of the law or its application in specific circumstances.

Individuals or entities facing legal issues related to the topics discussed are strongly advised to consult with a qualified legal professional licensed to practice in the relevant jurisdiction. Legal counsel can provide advice tailored to the specific facts of a case, considering the latest legal standards and precedents.