| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
LVSOCOM
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
   |
Posted - 2007.08.12 00:55:00 -
[121]
 Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 12/08/2007 00:16:06Yes murder, robbery and such are all illegal. But having a gun enables those crimes in a way nothing else does. Ever see someone try to hold up a bank with a baseball bat?
I find the rhetoric that banning all guns would only see criminals with guns and law abiding citizens SOL weak at best. You do not see this as the case in countires like Great Britain or Japan. Yes some still manage to have guns but the citizens are not universally screwed.
For argument's sake assume all private ownership of firearms is outlawed nationally tomorrow. It would take years for the huge number of weapons currently out there to dwindle but dwindle they would. Certainly some types like mafia sorts and professional hitmen would still likely get their hands on them but for your average shmuck on the street looking to rob the local 7-11 a gun would quickly go out of reach as an affordable and easily obtained tool.
GBR and Japan are islands and have never had the capabilities for domestic firearms manufacture the US has. We've got two huge, open borders on etheir sides. Organized crime manages to get them in both of those two countries for resale and can do it eiser here. It wouldn't take years to make a noticable impact on firearm crimes, it would takes decades.
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
As your average Joe I doubt you have much truck with organized crime or have people looking to hire hitmen to track you down. Your concern is some bloke looking tonick your TV or some drug crazed loon banging down your door. If firearms were very difficult to obtain chances are these intruders would not have one to threaten you either.
They already don't. More murders are commited without the use of firearms during the course of a robbery then with. That doesn't make an edged weapon or blunt object less of a lethal risk.
You're right though and hitman/boogey men aren't why I carry. It is because sometimes crimes start out as a simple robbery/crime and turn into murder. I'd prefer to stop it where it starts rather then cower and let the criminal do whatever they like (which could end up being them killing me).
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Besides, the best response to a home invader is to get the hell out if you can and call the police. Sure you might lose some property and the perp would get away but confronting them always carries risk. While you might be armed the other guy might be as well and forcing a confrontation carries risk to you. Your TV is not worth your life and frankly not worth shooting the robber and potentially killing him either. He may be a lowlife but I would be hard pressed to kill someone for running off with my television.
Many states have a provision in theirlaws regarding self defense that you must make a reasonable attempt to flee and deescalate the situation. Failure to do so can land you in prison for manslaughter and/or assault with a deadly weapon. Mine does.
|
LVSOCOM
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:01:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
As for the crazed psycho looking to just do you and your family well...those are thankfully exceptionally rare. Absolutely in such a circumstance I'd want all the firepower I could lay my hands on. But looking at the larger picture allowing private gun ownership to protect yourself from such a situation enables a raft of other crimes and shootings. How many people need to die every year so some very, very few can defend themselves from this most unlikely event?
This is hard to address really. Complete banning is pretty well accepted that it won't entirely rid the US of them and other weapons will still be used to commit murders with. But from what I see going in on GBR and the insanity of how far they are taking banning weapons (read an article that now there is a proposal to ban "pointy knifes" D:), I cannot support banning firearms.
I'd rather not dive into the social/political issues I see in how the GBR and the US have changed. But they are definetely not the proud countries they were after WWII. We both are considerably weaker.
All I can really tell you about that is, murder will always happen. Dhalmer didn't need a gun to do what he did. Etheir did Manson. Banning it won't cure the propensity of evil men to do evil deeds and won't cure a broken society. If the gun is evil, it was only because it was made in the image of its creator.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Cynical Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:02:00 -
[123]
Originally by: LVSOCOM
Edited by: LVSOCOM on 11/08/2007 22:26:44
But really, I'm getting caught up talking about bs with you... If you're willing to use deadly force, then use it. Don't p***y foot around with .22's, bats, swords, or whatever else you can find thinking they are a more civilized weapon. You're kidding yourself...
BTW: The dramaticised picture of spraying "30 rounds" is hilariously indicative of your false sterotyping of their owners. We are not John Rambo. We are not Dirty Harry. We don't consider our house the O.K. Corral. We are typical people who choose not to view certain objects as 'scary' because they are capable of killing.
Keep in mind I'm not part of the anti-gun portion of this topic. I've probably got more guns than most people posting. And like I said I keep it all locked in a safe in the closet with the exception of one that is too large. That one has a gun lock on it.
In any case if an intruder were to break into my house it would take me too long to get what I need.
What I do have is a half breed rottie with a loud bark which in most cases would be enough to scare someone off. I also have a automatic paintball gun that I can get to and set up within seconds and 315pps/22bps is not comfortable at close range without armor.
In any case when you described the rounding corners with a small arm rifle the first thing that crossed my mind was my paintball training of leading corners with your gun in close quarters which made me think of swat tactics.
If you really want to talk home safety it's easier just to get an alarm installed. Their loud, and some models alert the company which can alert the cops faster than you.
Chances are the crooks wont carry much with them. Chances are you wont come across a criminal who's performing the italian job. A gun is an idea for home defense but theres plenty more including bats, knives, golfclubs, tossed pugs, and many more.
Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to use it.
___________________________
Never Forget, Never Forgive |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:04:00 -
[124]
Originally by: LVSOCOM
Many states have a provision in theirlaws regarding self defense that you must make a reasonable attempt to flee and deescalate the situation. Failure to do so can land you in prison for manslaughter and/or assault with a deadly weapon. Mine does.
These provisions are called "Retreat to the wall" (I do not know why). They are as you describe a requirement to avoid the situation if you can safely do so.
However, this requirement (for those places that have it) does not apply in defense of your home or in some circustances such as r-pe. So essentially if the lowlife is in your home he(she) is fair game.
|
LVSOCOM
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:16:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: LVSOCOM
Many states have a provision in theirlaws regarding self defense that you must make a reasonable attempt to flee and deescalate the situation. Failure to do so can land you in prison for manslaughter and/or assault with a deadly weapon. Mine does.
These provisions are called "Retreat to the wall" (I do not know why). They are as you describe a requirement to avoid the situation if you can safely do so.
However, this requirement (for those places that have it) does not apply in defense of your home or in some circustances such as r-pe. So essentially if the lowlife is in your home he(she) is fair game.
Yep, and other states like Florida have passed whats known as the Castle doctrine which does not require you to flee at all. Just that you be justified in shooting to begin with.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:16:00 -
[126]
Originally by: LVSOCOM
All I can really tell you about that is, murder will always happen. Dhalmer didn't need a gun to do what he did. Etheir did Manson. Banning it won't cure the propensity of evil men to do evil deeds and won't cure a broken society. If the gun is evil, it was only because it was made in the image of its creator.
Of course crimes will always happen. And it is natural that any individual would like the means to protect themselves to avoid being a victim.
But we live in a society. Think of it like EVE just in a larger context. In EVE you may find you are a NOS fanatic (not saying you are) and find the removal (or nerf) of NOS to be hugely unfair. But the Devs need to take the larger community in to account. While some will find the NOS nerf onerus overall something clearly needed to be done about it.
So too with gun control. Gun advocates I see usually get wound up about THEIR rights. Well, you live in a society and in many cases a curb on individual rights is necessary. I doubt you complain about not being able to take a gun on a plane and accept that as a reasonable curb on your right to carry a weapon. If hijackers nab your plane it is a risk you accept and sucks to be you in that case.
So you can see lines can and SHOULD be drawn. The question is where? At what point does the cost of allowing you to carry a firearm hurt society more than it helps? Clearly the US has a vastly more violent culture than most other industrialized western democracies. I do not see how us having guns all over has improved the society we live in at all.
|
smashsmash
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:18:00 -
[127]
yes, like you i am an idiot when it comes to firearms. i'm willing to admit that im not responsible enough to carry a gun, but neither are you. carrying firearms will get people into very serious situations because they were more confident than they should have been.
Originally by: LVSOCOM
Edited by: LVSOCOM on 12/08/2007 00:01:14
Originally by: smashsmash
i thought america was supposed to be number one and all that patriotic crap and lies. apparently we need guns to protect ourselves from a) criminals, b) the police/government and c) other gun owners. that sounds like a bad omen and a sign that things need to be improved. if the average stupid american needs to own guns to really protect themselves then the entire country's government is a mess. we might as well have standing armies of "law abiding citizens" standing around in starbucks, best buy and mc donalds. i know i'd feel a lot safer with those kooks guarding things.
First off, if you live here you apprently think the rest of us are idiots and have no intention of getting invovled in the issues you percieve-- so why don't you leave?
Second, the police have no legal obligation to protect you. They are much like CONCORD, a reactive force of punishment AFTER a crime has been commited. Not much the government of any free country can do about that.
Lastly, I've been carrying a firearm for the past 2 years every day. I've yet to need it hope I never do. But its there if I do. There are another couple thousand of them in Las Vegas alone that have managed it responsibly as well. In fact, having a concealed carry license generally means the person is a "law abiding" individual and has no intention of commiting a minor crime, much less a violent one. I'd wager CCW holders are involved, per capita, in less crimes per year then any other demographic.
You need to take a hard look at this problem and realise you are projecting your own feelings of inability to responsibly own a firearm onto others.
|
LVSOCOM
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:18:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Originally by: LVSOCOM
Edited by: LVSOCOM on 11/08/2007 22:26:44
But really, I'm getting caught up talking about bs with you... If you're willing to use deadly force, then use it. Don't p***y foot around with .22's, bats, swords, or whatever else you can find thinking they are a more civilized weapon. You're kidding yourself...
BTW: The dramaticised picture of spraying "30 rounds" is hilariously indicative of your false sterotyping of their owners. We are not John Rambo. We are not Dirty Harry. We don't consider our house the O.K. Corral. We are typical people who choose not to view certain objects as 'scary' because they are capable of killing.
Keep in mind I'm not part of the anti-gun portion of this topic. I've probably got more guns than most people posting. And like I said I keep it all locked in a safe in the closet with the exception of one that is too large. That one has a gun lock on it.
In any case if an intruder were to break into my house it would take me too long to get what I need.
What I do have is a half breed rottie with a loud bark which in most cases would be enough to scare someone off. I also have a automatic paintball gun that I can get to and set up within seconds and 315pps/22bps is not comfortable at close range without armor.
In any case when you described the rounding corners with a small arm rifle the first thing that crossed my mind was my paintball training of leading corners with your gun in close quarters which made me think of swat tactics.
If you really want to talk home safety it's easier just to get an alarm installed. Their loud, and some models alert the company which can alert the cops faster than you.
Chances are the crooks wont carry much with them. Chances are you wont come across a criminal who's performing the italian job. A gun is an idea for home defense but theres plenty more including bats, knives, golfclubs, tossed pugs, and many more.
Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you have to use it.
Which is exactly what you scoffed at for the scenario I offered. :)
My old house had that as well; alarm, dog, and ugly as hell family. Should be sufficient for scaring off someone that just wants my tv set without resorting to violence... lol
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:22:00 -
[129]
Originally by: LVSOCOM
Yep, and other states like Florida have passed whats known as the Castle doctrine which does not require you to flee at all. Just that you be justified in shooting to begin with.
There's the rub...
Exactly what is justified?
Say you come home and see a guy climbing out your window with your television. Defense of your home you can shoot him. But is shooting a guy over a television really reasonable?
Reading your posts here I feel safe in assuming you would not shoot such a person but would probably draw and tell the person to stop. If they continued to run (with or without your TV) I am guessing you still would not shoot. But you know there are plenty of people out there who would shoot that guy.
|
LVSOCOM
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:22:00 -
[130]
Originally by: smashsmash
yes, like you i am an idiot when it comes to firearms. i'm willing to admit that im not responsible enough to carry a gun, but neither are you. carrying firearms will get people into very serious situations because they were more confident than they should have been.
Originally by: LVSOCOM
Edited by: LVSOCOM on 12/08/2007 00:01:14
Originally by: smashsmash
i thought america was supposed to be number one and all that patriotic crap and lies. apparently we need guns to protect ourselves from a) criminals, b) the police/government and c) other gun owners. that sounds like a bad omen and a sign that things need to be improved. if the average stupid american needs to own guns to really protect themselves then the entire country's government is a mess. we might as well have standing armies of "law abiding citizens" standing around in starbucks, best buy and mc donalds. i know i'd feel a lot safer with those kooks guarding things.
First off, if you live here you apprently think the rest of us are idiots and have no intention of getting invovled in the issues you percieve-- so why don't you leave?
Second, the police have no legal obligation to protect you. They are much like CONCORD, a reactive force of punishment AFTER a crime has been commited. Not much the government of any free country can do about that.
Lastly, I've been carrying a firearm for the past 2 years every day. I've yet to need it hope I never do. But its there if I do. There are another couple thousand of them in Las Vegas alone that have managed it responsibly as well. In fact, having a concealed carry license generally means the person is a "law abiding" individual and has no intention of commiting a minor crime, much less a violent one. I'd wager CCW holders are involved, per capita, in less crimes per year then any other demographic.
You need to take a hard look at this problem and realise you are projecting your own feelings of inability to responsibly own a firearm onto others.
No sir. One of the first things I realised was that carrying a gun is not a badge or ability to safely go places I wouldn't unarmed. The next was that I actually had to be more careful because simply having a firearm meant that if I engaged in say a fist fight, it could escalate to a shooting. In which case, I'd probably end up in jail for a VERY long time.
I have lived a very careful life since I started carrying. I don't even carry when I go out with pals or goto a bar where I'll actually be drinking. As I said, we're not cowboys.
|
LVSOCOM
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:27:00 -
[131]
Edited by: LVSOCOM on 12/08/2007 01:30:48
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: LVSOCOM
Yep, and other states like Florida have passed whats known as the Castle doctrine which does not require you to flee at all. Just that you be justified in shooting to begin with.
There's the rub...
Exactly what is justified?
Say you come home and see a guy climbing out your window with your television. Defense of your home you can shoot him. But is shooting a guy over a television really reasonable?
Reading your posts here I feel safe in assuming you would not shoot such a person but would probably draw and tell the person to stop. If they continued to run (with or without your TV) I am guessing you still would not shoot. But you know there are plenty of people out there who would shoot that guy.
No state I know of allows you to use deadly force in protection of your property. None. Any ******* that does that should goto jail for a long time.
However, if I confronted someone stealing my belongings and they attempted to draw a knife or gun of their own, they may get a verbal request to drop the weapon (as an officer would) if the situation allows for it, then followed with force. It's not required to give the verbal warning, but personally I know I would replay that incident in my head over again enough times that if I hadn't I'd always wonder what if I had.
If they run, f*** it. Thats the job of the police. But at least I didn't play possum. This is the guidance given by my friends and the firearms instructors I've talked to since I started.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:38:00 -
[132]
Originally by: LVSOCOM
No state I know of allows you to use deadly force in protection of your property. None. Any ******* that does that should goto jail for a long time.
Quite true but in practice easily sidestepped.
All you have to do as the property owner is assert that the robber did something menacing towards you. The assumption, since the guy broke in and was up to no good, will be to believe you. Barring some obvious indications that you are lying (e.g. the dude was 50' down your driveway and shot in the back) you'll likely get the benefit of the doubt.
|
LVSOCOM
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:45:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: LVSOCOM
No state I know of allows you to use deadly force in protection of your property. None. Any ******* that does that should goto jail for a long time.
Quite true but in practice easily sidestepped.
All you have to do as the property owner is assert that the robber did something menacing towards you. The assumption, since the guy broke in and was up to no good, will be to believe you. Barring some obvious indications that you are lying (e.g. the dude was 50' down your driveway and shot in the back) you'll likely get the benefit of the doubt.
I think its wrong to and I wouldn't do it personally... But, it is an occupational hazard. If you choose to **** people off by stealing their stuff, there is a chance one of them might try to kill you. If you play stupid games you win stupid prizes.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:47:00 -
[134]
Originally by: LVSOCOM
No sir. One of the first things I realised was that carrying a gun is not a badge or ability to safely go places I wouldn't unarmed. The next was that I actually had to be more careful because simply having a firearm meant that if I engaged in say a fist fight, it could escalate to a shooting. In which case, I'd probably end up in jail for a VERY long time.
This is EXACTLY my point (or at least one of them).
As mentioned I have little doubt you are a responsible person and have thoughtfully gone through in your head what it means to have a carry permit and take the priviledge seriously.
Would that everyone was like you but they are not and you know it.
Yes there are many others like you. But there are also a shocking number of idiots out there who do not act or behave responsibly and with discretion.
I've been in a few fights in my time and they were the usual sort. Bloody lips, black eyes about the extent of it. Not proud moments but nothing to get in a fuss about or even get police involved. But all it takes is for one yahoo to have a gun and draw and the whole situation changes dramatically and for the worse.
Sure someone could pull a knife too but I firmly believe having a gun at hand emboldens people in a way a knife (or bat or whatever else) ever can and that generally will not be a good turn of events.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Cynical Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 01:57:00 -
[135]
Originally by: LVSOCOM
No state I know of allows you to use deadly force in protection of your property. None. Any ******* that does that should goto jail for a long time.
However, if I confronted someone stealing my belongings and they attempted to draw a knife or gun of their own, they may get a verbal request to drop the weapon (as an officer would) if the situation allows for it, then followed with force. It's not required to give the verbal warning, but personally I know I would replay that incident in my head over again enough times that if I hadn't I'd always wonder what if I had.
Up where I live I know you have to give a verbal warning or fire 2 warning shots when using a firearm.
Now I have to break it up into 2 situations here (and this is if you confront before any warning):
1) Assailant has a knife or other non-projectile weapon: You must give him a warning. Outright shooting him will land you in jail. And don't think you can shoot him and say he charged you because I know for a fact that ballistics can tell that he didn't. If he runs he runs and like stated it's the cops problem then. And chances are after he changes his pants he'll probably rethink about coming back to your house.
2) Assailant has a gun: Verbal warning along the lines of "I have a gun and the cops have been called". Make sure to do this behind a wall while your at it. If you fire the 2 shots warnng it may startle the crook and he may fire back. In this case if he feels gun-ho and goes to point his gun at you then you can act in self defense.
Around here you have to take a class to get a conceiled weapon permit. In this class they teach you to aim for the chest as it is the largest portion of the body and has the most meat to take a round. No trying to yell headshot or trying to shoot out his kneecaps all movie like, you just aim for the chest and fire one (1) round.
___________________________
Never Forget, Never Forgive |
LVSOCOM
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 02:05:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: LVSOCOM
No sir. One of the first things I realised was that carrying a gun is not a badge or ability to safely go places I wouldn't unarmed. The next was that I actually had to be more careful because simply having a firearm meant that if I engaged in say a fist fight, it could escalate to a shooting. In which case, I'd probably end up in jail for a VERY long time.
This is EXACTLY my point (or at least one of them).
As mentioned I have little doubt you are a responsible person and have thoughtfully gone through in your head what it means to have a carry permit and take the priviledge seriously.
Would that everyone was like you but they are not and you know it.
Yes there are many others like you. But there are also a shocking number of idiots out there who do not act or behave responsibly and with discretion.
I've been in a few fights in my time and they were the usual sort. Bloody lips, black eyes about the extent of it. Not proud moments but nothing to get in a fuss about or even get police involved. But all it takes is for one yahoo to have a gun and draw and the whole situation changes dramatically and for the worse.
Sure someone could pull a knife too but I firmly believe having a gun at hand emboldens people in a way a knife (or bat or whatever else) ever can and that generally will not be a good turn of events.
Yep, the true activist firearm enthusiast is rare. I know of a couple others that play this game (alot of us frequent the same sites). Really, for me I try to do as much as possible to educate others and attract them to what I enjoy doing. Voting, avidly watching your congress critters, and writing them about issues are what too much of this country (not just related to the 2nd amendment debates) takes for granted. Unfortunately, too many people are only upset about issues long enough to change the channel from the news to American Idol.
I wish all owners were responsible too. But like anything, it's not possible as some people just ain't right. Automobiles and how different people drive with different levels of saftey in mind are a great example of this. Uptopias are what dreams are made of.
|
LVSOCOM
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 02:13:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
Originally by: LVSOCOM
No state I know of allows you to use deadly force in protection of your property. None. Any ******* that does that should goto jail for a long time.
However, if I confronted someone stealing my belongings and they attempted to draw a knife or gun of their own, they may get a verbal request to drop the weapon (as an officer would) if the situation allows for it, then followed with force. It's not required to give the verbal warning, but personally I know I would replay that incident in my head over again enough times that if I hadn't I'd always wonder what if I had.
Up where I live I know you have to give a verbal warning or fire 2 warning shots when using a firearm.
Now I have to break it up into 2 situations here (and this is if you confront before any warning):
1) Assailant has a knife or other non-projectile weapon: You must give him a warning. Outright shooting him will land you in jail. And don't think you can shoot him and say he charged you because I know for a fact that ballistics can tell that he didn't. If he runs he runs and like stated it's the cops problem then. And chances are after he changes his pants he'll probably rethink about coming back to your house.
2) Assailant has a gun: Verbal warning along the lines of "I have a gun and the cops have been called". Make sure to do this behind a wall while your at it. If you fire the 2 shots warnng it may startle the crook and he may fire back. In this case if he feels gun-ho and goes to point his gun at you then you can act in self defense.
Around here you have to take a class to get a conceiled weapon permit. In this class they teach you to aim for the chest as it is the largest portion of the body and has the most meat to take a round. No trying to yell headshot or trying to shoot out his kneecaps all movie like, you just aim for the chest and fire one (1) round.
No verbal warning required here afaik. It's good for civil liability reasons and in the knife scenarios definetely a good decision for both criminal and civil liability.
Center mass is taught almost always. Training to fire one well place COM shot is good method. But practicing follow ups is heavily encouraged. Also encouraged is actually practicing drawing, verbal command, and engagement (while moving to cover or retreating) at an open range. Standing on a 25 yard indoor range with perfect weaver or isoceles stance is unlikely to mimic a real shooting situation. All things that if you did need them, the skills would be well worth the investment...
Not to mention, doing it in a light hearted atmosphere can be a huge amount of fun if you like shooting in general. I'm going to try to shoot in the next IDPA match that comes up in my area. I'll probably do terrible, but it should be a good time. :)
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 02:32:00 -
[138]
I do not know if this is a reasonable position...just relating what one gun owner told me. To my mind it sort of makes sense but somehow doesn;t sit right either. Just tossing this out for your comment.
The guy I was talking to has a concealed carry permit if that means anything to you. He told me that if you draw a gun on someone shoot them. No waving it around and blustering. If you are not in a situation that warrants shooting someone then simply do not draw your firearm. If you pull it then pull and shoot.
Note he admitted this is not the case for law enforcement but rather a civilian using a gun for defense.
|
LVSOCOM
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 02:58:00 -
[139]
Edited by: LVSOCOM on 12/08/2007 03:01:17
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
I do not know if this is a reasonable position...just relating what one gun owner told me. To my mind it sort of makes sense but somehow doesn;t sit right either. Just tossing this out for your comment.
The guy I was talking to has a concealed carry permit if that means anything to you. He told me that if you draw a gun on someone shoot them. No waving it around and blustering. If you are not in a situation that warrants shooting someone then simply do not draw your firearm. If you pull it then pull and shoot.
Note he admitted this is not the case for law enforcement but rather a civilian using a gun for defense.
That is taught by some instructors. Reason being, if you go about thinking you can use the weapon to dissuade someone from doing something that isn't life threatening, then you are likely to fall into one of the following situations; you are brandishing a deadly weapon if you simply draw and keep at your side or commiting assault with a deadly weapon if you aim it at them. This is the case if your on the street at least. In your home or place of business, it is a different story. While the law is probably the same, it would be rare for you to be prosecuted for pointing a weapon at an intruder without actually firing or assaulting them physically.
However, if you're already justified in drawing and firing, and then decide to draw and give a verbal command you're not creating any kind of problem. That all rests on if it is justifiable at that point in time. Drawing before causes the situation to escalate. Unless you're a police officer (they have a set of rules about this that is a little different) you do not have that ability.
Really, I think it's an attempt to stop people from thinking they can play police and draw their weapon on someone for trying to break into their car (for example).
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 03:42:00 -
[140]
Originally by: LVSOCOM
However, if you're already justified in drawing and firing, and then decide to draw and give a verbal command you're not creating any kind of problem. That all rests on if it is justifiable at that point in time. Drawing before causes the situation to escalate. Unless you're a police officer (they have a set of rules about this that is a little different) you do not have that ability.
I even see (justifiably) drawing and waiting to give a verbal command as dicey. If you are in a very good position and in no immediate threat (e.g. within range of a sudden lunge) then maybe but seems a recipe to allow the bad guy time to think about a response. If the bad guy has posed such a threat to me or my family that I need to pull the gun then I am guessing I shold not mess around and just shoot him.
Part of the problem for me (were I to own a gun) would be in discerning when to pull it. I have no desire to shoot anyone unless they really crossed the line (e.g. threatened my family...my own self I can tolerate more but not my loved ones). Nor do I want to go to jail for getting it wrong.
As such I see the gun as a liability. It was mentioned in passing earlier but I find a dog to be a better option for home defense. Even a little Pug would act as an alarm and a distraction. In my case I have a 100 pound German Shepherd and you'd need some brass balls to want to tangle with her.
No I do not have a German Shepherd as a macho thing. My family has had them since before I was born. I grew up with them my entire life. Also, my dog is not attack trained. Indeed she is a sweetheart and an attraction in my neighborhood (the dog actually knows more people than I do in my neighborhood...we have a dog walker so I frequently get people coming up and saying hi to her by name and then asking who I am).
But she is smart. Smart in a spooky way. Walking down the street and meeting people she is a saint and enjoys attention (from other dogs and adults and kids....she herds kids too but that is another story). But in a few instances she made up her mind about someone and I trust her instincts.
Once at around 1 a.m. I was walking her and we live on a poorly lit street. A bum wandered out of an alley and approached me. She immediately went into guard mode upon spotting him. She did not lunge or bark, just gave him a laser locked stare, ears erect and pointing forward, a slight crouch as though ready to move and a rumble in her chest so deep that even standing next to her it was almost below hearing.
The bum couldn't help but notice and stopped in his tracks. He was in no danger from her at this point but the threat was unmistakable. It goes to that animal part of our brain I think and that sends powerful messages. This thing wanted to eat him (not really of course but the primal part of the brain goes along those lines...he was facing a predator). He mumbled a question asking for money which I didn't have and got out of there. Bums in my city can be semi-aggressive (not violent but rather getting in your face and pestering you). This one was having no part of my dog.
Again note she is NOT attack trained. She took no signal from me to do this (although she may have picked up on my unease and reacted to that). She just knew.
I feel safer with her patrolling the house or at my side than I ever would with a gun.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |