Strictly speaking, unless the person was absolutely determined to kill you and/or was under the influence, they're going to stop after being shot with either FMJ or a hollow point.
This is simply not true at all. Plenty of attacks occur where an attacker is shot multiple times, and they are still fighting or succeed in killing their target.
You need a physiological stop, not a mental one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_FwUfFhFHs
Check out this crazy story. This stuff happens. Its not even that rare. Pistol cals are really shitty at stopping threats actually.
two people get in a gun fight, both shot multiple times in vital areas. The guy that made the final kill, a cop, was shot in the face with a .45ACP, he finally killed the guy by doing close contact shots to the side of the head.
Actual data shows that psychological stops are fairly common. Out of the studied cases (around 1700 or so over 10 years), 36% of assailants gave up after being shot a single time, regardless of where they were shot or what they were shot with.
In these cases with ANTIFA and similar people, they aren't expecting people to pull a gun out and shoot them. In the case you linked, the man was clearly determined to kill the cop, which is a group of people I made obvious reference to in my previous post.
No one's suggesting that you try to go for a psychological stop first.
I know psychological stops are common. Didn't say they weren't. Doesn't change the fact someone can still kill you after they have been shot....even in the face. You want to physically incapacitate the threat as soon as possible. By not having incapacitation as the #1 goal you open yourself up to harm. Its wishful thinking to bank on a psychological stop and dangerous to yourself and anyone else you may be defending.
So what am I wrong about then? When did I say that you should "bank on a psychological stop"? I'm pretty sure I said the opposite. My point still stands though. Based on the numbers, it doesn't really matter whether you choose FMJ or hollow point rounds as the vast majority of attackers are going to stop after being shot, one way or the other.
If we're going by "incapacitation is #1", then there's zero reason why you should carry a pistol and should only ever be carrying a centerfire rifle around. However, when we stop being autistic about a mantra and consider context, we can form a more realistic idea. Why do you think double tapping is a thing? Because we understand that there's a chance that someone isn't going to stop after one shot, regardless of what they're shot with (as I had already mentioned previously). That's why you almost reflexively shoot twice with a semi-automatic weapon, even with hollow points in the chamber or a centerfire rifle.
Strictly speaking, unless the person was absolutely determined to kill you and/or was under the influence, they're going to stop after being shot with either FMJ or a hollow point.
This is simply not true at all. Plenty of attacks occur where an attacker is shot multiple times, and they are still fighting or succeed in killing their target.
You need a physiological stop, not a mental one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_FwUfFhFHs Check out this crazy story. This stuff happens. Its not even that rare. Pistol cals are really shitty at stopping threats actually.
two people get in a gun fight, both shot multiple times in vital areas. The guy that made the final kill, a cop, was shot in the face with a .45ACP, he finally killed the guy by doing close contact shots to the side of the head.
Definitely give it a listen.
Pistols suck at stopping threats.
Actual data shows that psychological stops are fairly common. Out of the studied cases (around 1700 or so over 10 years), 36% of assailants gave up after being shot a single time, regardless of where they were shot or what they were shot with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nycYxb-zNwc
In these cases with ANTIFA and similar people, they aren't expecting people to pull a gun out and shoot them. In the case you linked, the man was clearly determined to kill the cop, which is a group of people I made obvious reference to in my previous post.
No one's suggesting that you try to go for a psychological stop first.
I know psychological stops are common. Didn't say they weren't. Doesn't change the fact someone can still kill you after they have been shot....even in the face. You want to physically incapacitate the threat as soon as possible. By not having incapacitation as the #1 goal you open yourself up to harm. Its wishful thinking to bank on a psychological stop and dangerous to yourself and anyone else you may be defending.
So what am I wrong about then? When did I say that you should "bank on a psychological stop"? I'm pretty sure I said the opposite. My point still stands though. Based on the numbers, it doesn't really matter whether you choose FMJ or hollow point rounds as the vast majority of attackers are going to stop after being shot, one way or the other.
If we're going by "incapacitation is #1", then there's zero reason why you should carry a pistol and should only ever be carrying a centerfire rifle around. However, when we stop being autistic about a mantra and consider context, we can form a more realistic idea. Why do you think double tapping is a thing? Because we understand that there's a chance that someone isn't going to stop after one shot, regardless of what they're shot with (as I had already mentioned previously). That's why you almost reflexively shoot twice with a semi-automatic weapon, even with hollow points in the chamber or a centerfire rifle.