So, you’re in or near Ferguson, Missouri or any city in America where would-be anarchists are “protesting” the grand jury decision in the Michael Brown case.  You’ve had the great misfortune to find yourself with an angry mob outside of your home or business and they’re threatening to break in and loot everything.  Then they break a window or two and try to make entry.

How do you respond?

One solution is to shoot a couple of the ringleaders in the thigh with your garden-variety .22 long rifle.

This will cause a wound that will allow the would-be looter to hobble away and become someone else’s problem.  As an added bonus, they will tell their friends to stay away from your location as they too will find themselves shot.

Shooting them in the chest with a center-fire rifle or handgun will leave a mess and often times a body as well.  Then there will be questions from police after the lawlessness dies down and order is restored.

By shooting them in the legs, they hobble away and come up with a fictional story for how they ended up with an extra 40-grains of lead in their leg.  Of course they aren’t going to say, “Hey, I was breaking into this business and some crazy man shot me in the leg and told me to get out.”

30 thoughts on “IN THE WORST-CASE: Shoot would-be looters in the legs with a .22”
  1. I think Mr. B’s trying to help you take care of them without having to dispose of the body and answer questions. They usually don’t walk (or even hobble) away from a 5.56 to the head.

    .22 to the upper leg is perfect.

    Best of all, they take them mess somewhere else!


    1. That’s my target choice as well. sends them running and keeps them from making another future thug.

  2. Interesting theory, and I see your point. Statistically speaking, they are more likely to ‘walk’ away with a small caliber wound in an extremity.

    However, I would respectfully disagree if anybody thinks this course of action would be ‘safer’ both from a tactical/survival and legal perpective.

    1. Discharging a firearm is lethal force. Don’t do it unless lethal force is warranted. Shoot ’em in the leg and/or shoot to wound are myths. If you miss and hit them in a more critical location, or if you hit the femoral artery and they bleed out and you claim, ‘but I was only trying to …’ – you’re screwed.
    2. Packs of feral dogs like this are likely cowards who will disperse upon shots fired. But if they instead engage, and you’ve only got your rabbit gun … you’re screwed.

    Shoot to stop threats, and know the legal implications. I’d personally prefer to arm myself with America’s Favorite Rifle and use 5.56 to stop lethal threats.

    Bring enough gun! (And bring friends with enough gun)

    1. If it’s a crowd coming into your business or residence to loot, deadly force is justified, especially when the crowd is agitated and threatening additional violence towards occupants.

      Or when the crowd is threatening arson.

      Remember, the group shares the legal liability in terms of using deadly force.

      Nobody’s suggesting using deadly force without justification. However, in the mass looting/violence scenario, it may be better for one or two idiots to take off screaming for their fellow looters to run away than to face cleanup of corpses the next morning.


    2. I know you’re 100% spot on, John, no offense intended. Just wanted to throw out the reminder that a leg shot is lethal force. Not everybody’s taken GSL Defense Training classes, and I run across folks who ask ‘well can’t you just shoot them in the leg’ when they aren’t quite there yet in terms of establishing all the elements to justify lethal force. Same with warning shots … still some muddy thinking from gun-shop commando types out there.

    3. Another couple of factors to consider – I have read that in war, it may be better to wound the enemy than to kill them because when a soldier is wounded, it takes several others to take care of him/her (remove the wounded, transport to doctor, nurse the wounded back to health, etc. BUT – on the other hand, if you just wound someone, he/she may come back later to seek revenge.

  3. Can you shoot ’em more than once, say both hips? It’s not like you’re going to prevent them from going to work.
    Now it I was a looter, or chicken thief the first thing I would do is pull my pants up and make sure that they weren’t going to hobble me as I flee the scene of the crime. Of course if you’re shot in ass committing the crime it doesn’t matter.

    1. I’d imagine that you aren’t a looter.

      And yes, you’re best not to hobble yourself. However, we’re not talking rocket surgeons here.


  4. Of course use lethal force if it’s justified and absolutely necessary.

    What about pepper balls? A couple of pepper balls to the chest will have the bad guy and anyone near by coughing and gasping for breath.

  5. I remember reading back when the Intifadah was big, throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at Israeli police, that the Israelis used suppressed, scoped 10/22s and subsonic .22 LRs that way. They identified the leader of the rock-throwers and shot him in the, uh, sensitive parts. When he went down and the next guy took his place, he got shot in the same place. It didn’t take long before the whole crowd heard Mother calling them for dinner.
    (I don’t know if this is true, and if it’s some kind of human-rights violation, you never heard it from me.)

    1. More than a little truth. I found pics and lots of similar stuff when googling this subject.


  6. Well, I think shooting rioters with a .22 is excessive. The department of Homeland Security (or some other worthless federal L.E. agency) told us to defend ourselves with a pair of sissors, a blackboard pointer, tape dispenser, or some other similar deadly weapon. So, that is what I am going for when the bad guys (Obama’s sons) burst through the window of my place to take my stuff. They will find out they pick the wrong place to loot.

    1. Personally, I think a whistle, screaming, peeing yourself and finally, throwing up is appropriate.


  7. Details are important for police reports, make sure you don’t forget to let the officers know that you heard several of the mob members yelling ” we are going to kill you ” as they pointed at you and advanced toward you.

  8. Someone really needs to define anarchist for you guys. There is a difference between political anarchists and criminals engaging in mob action.

    Beyond that do you really want someone limping away who may want to come back and even the score with their buddies? Just another thought against”shoot to wound” concepts. Was always taught if you point your gun you better be need to use it.

  9. You shoot to stop a fight someone else started. Stop the fight, quickly and authoritatively. Don’t just prolong it or delay it. You may not do so well in a rematch.

  10. I like the idea, and I have discussed it personally with someone who claims to have employed the tactic during the rodney king riots. I am not saying that this is a panacea for every situation, but if one was defending their place of business and was of a mind to deny entry, the tactic has merit. Walking half a mag of 22LR up a bad guy is certainly lethal force to me… The AR laying next to the 10/22 is an option should it be needed. I have also heard of a well placed slingshot/ball bearing combo to discourage those that need help in their decision making….

  11. Bass Pro has 25 round 10/22 mags all the time…. 25 rounds is a lot of discouragement…. and if its all the gun you have, its a formidible deterrent to some clown with a screwdriver in one hand and his pants in the other….

  12. John, I’m hoping this is a joke, or something…

    A .22 in the leg is deadly force – if you’re justified, you’re justified, regardless of caliber or shot placement. If you’re not justified, then the shot in the leg is attempted murder. Simple as that.

    If I were you, I’d remove this from your site immediately.

  13. I’m afraid I see two challenges to this course of action. One tactical, and one strategic.
    On the tactical side, if you shoot someone in the leg who’s part of a mob, they could very possibly make the, perhaps unwise decision that the .22 is all you’ve got, and then you have multiple targets to deal with.
    On the strategic side, considering the inflated outrage at the accusations of unarmed people being shot by police, counting on a member of a mob to tell the truth to the police isn’t a good idea. It would be just as easy for the guy you shot to say he was just walking by and you shot him. He has lead in his leg, you have a gun, and he also likely has a bunch of friends to spin it his way.
    You likely ending up going to jail overnight, and guess what happens to your place while you aren’t there?
    If you’re justified to shoot, trying to only hurt him a “little bit” wont be effective. IMHO

  14. This suggestion exposes an unwillingness to use lethal force even when it is justifiable.

    Extrapolated, that mindset will get you killed.

    1. Exactly! If they are out to kill you, why are you trying to be nice? It will get you killed. Cleaning blood & brains from your hallway is a small price to pay to keep your life. Why risk giving them a second chance to come back? If you are going to use lethal force make it lethal; send a message to the remaining thugs, and if the remainder doesn’t learn, the bodies piling up at the entrance will at least slow them down!

  15. I’m going to go with a .22 bolt action firing .22 shorts.

    Right next to my riot gun and my AR-15.

    Those young men would be wise to find themselves a real job rather than make plans for looting. Their plans might not survive first contact with a citizen with a gun and a willingness to use deadly force to defend their families and their property.

  16. Whoever wrote this article is an idiot. If you are in a situation where you feel like you need to shoot someone you must always shoot to kill. Shooting is ALWAYS an all or none proposition.

    Shame on the editor of this site for posting such terribly stupid advice.

Comments are closed.