Is this illegal?

[Tarrant64]

Originally posted by: waggy
hope he gets it just to piss everyone off.

everyone (unless you have mental issues) should be allowed to carry.

That's just stupid.

Dari, I hope you get denied a permit. Having to even post about whether or not you'd be in the wrong for shooting someone in the head for attacking you should be grounds to deny one.

This is something you should take to a lawyer or those in charge of giving out the permits. I'd be disgusted with myself taking advice from random posters on a forum whether or not it'd be OK to shoot the next guy who appears to be attacking me with a knife while out for my evening run.

If it's dangerous to do so, don't go out and run at night. If you're looking a thrill to shoot anyone without hesitation for approaching you with a knife you have mental problems yourself, and as waggy says, you shouldn't be allowed to carry.

 

[Ichigo]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
OP - are you a female or just a pussy?

Isn't this actually more insulting to females than the OP? Curious.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: destrekor
But also, you're first step is to pull out the weapon, aim and charge it.

If you have to chamber a round after you draw, you're carrying wrong. If you're going to carry, you carry hot. For a DA pistol/revolver (assuming it has a firing pin block), carry in Condition Two (hammer down, round chambered), for an SA pistol, carry in Condition One (round chambered, hammer cocked, safety on).

If you need a firearm, you need it now, it seems counterproductive to me to carry without a round in the chamber since the last thing you want if you have to draw is to take a couple extra seconds to rack the slide.

ZV

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Random Variable
It doesn't matter if you properly dispose of the body.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Originally posted by: waggy
hope he gets it just to piss everyone off.

everyone (unless you have mental issues) should be allowed to carry.

That's just stupid.

Dari, I hope you get denied a permit. Having to even post about whether or not you'd be in the wrong for shooting someone in the head for attacking you should be grounds to deny one.

This is something you should take to a lawyer or those in charge of giving out the permits. I'd be disgusted with myself taking advice from random posters on a forum whether or not it'd be OK to shoot the next guy who appears to be attacking me with a knife while out for my evening run.

If it's dangerous to do so, don't go out and run at night. If you're looking a thrill to shoot anyone without hesitation for approaching you with a knife you have mental problems yourself, and as waggy says, you shouldn't be allowed to carry.

NO its not. while i admit there are some that shouldnt have being able to protect yourself/family and others is a right.

IF someone attacks me with a knife and i happen to have a gun on me i would shoot. just as if someone breaks into my house.


but i do agree if he is looking to shoot someone then yes he shouldnt have one. but i do not feel that is the case.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: OdiN
1 - If you feared for your life, you're justified in shooting.

2 - If you feared for your life, you're justified in shooting.

If you shoot to wound, it's bad for you because then they can sue you if they live. Also just empty several rounds into the person, because it will look more like you feared for your life that way.

eh, but the family of the slain can sue, and go for more $$$ than an injured assailant would be able to claim.

 

[funkymatt]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64

Originally posted by: waggy
hope he gets it just to piss everyone off.

everyone (unless you have mental issues) should be allowed to carry.

That's just stupid.

Dari, I hope you get denied a permit. Having to even post about whether or not you'd be in the wrong for shooting someone in the head for attacking you should be grounds to deny one.

This is something you should take to a lawyer or those in charge of giving out the permits. I'd be disgusted with myself taking advice from random posters on a forum whether or not it'd be OK to shoot the next guy who appears to be attacking me with a knife while out for my evening run.

If it's dangerous to do so, don't go out and run at night. If you're looking a thrill to shoot anyone without hesitation for approaching you with a knife you have mental problems yourself, and as waggy says, you shouldn't be allowed to carry.

This is what I was getting at. OP, if you have to ask these questions, you should really take a class on general gun safety before considering applying for a conceal carry permit.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Papagayo
Depends on if you have witnesses..

If you don't, then you can make up any story and say that it was self defense...


If you shoot, shoot to kill.
If you shoot to wound, then you'll have to spend money for a lawyer. They will sue and try to bring charges up against you.

Shoot minimum 3 shots, aim either at the head (hard to do) or their chest.


If you shoot to kill in self-defense, then you don't have to worry about them coming back for revenge, trying to sue you, or try to bring charges against you..

2 to the chest, 1 to the head to be sure. Make sure the coroner notices that your work was the work of a professional. Only then will you be safe from prosecution.

 

[Shadow Conception]

It's worth shooting to kill just to avoid getting sued? I mean, c'mon, it's a human life...

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: destrekor
But also, you're first step is to pull out the weapon, aim and charge it.

If you have to chamber a round after you draw, you're carrying wrong. If you're going to carry, you carry hot. For a DA pistol/revolver (assuming it has a firing pin block), carry in Condition Two (hammer down, round chambered), for an SA pistol, carry in Condition One (round chambered, hammer cocked, safety on).

If you need a firearm, you need it now, it seems counterproductive to me to carry without a round in the chamber since the last thing you want if you have to draw is to take a couple extra seconds to rack the slide.

ZV

Bah, you got me there. I was still thinking range safety. You are very right.

 

[bapace]

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
It's worth shooting to kill just to avoid getting sued? I mean, c'mon, it's a human life...

The human life lost its value the moment a knife or gun was pulled. Kill the low life piece of shit.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: waggy
hope he gets it just to piss everyone off.

everyone (unless you have mental issues) should be allowed to carry.

interesting. Before VT, I'm sure most people wouldn't have the "except with mental issues" qualifier in that statement.

The die-hard 2nd amendmenters seem like strict constitutionalists, in that there should still be no restrictions for any American citizen, despite the reams of evidence to the contrary.

Are more and more people coming around to the idea that maybe some people really shouldn't be allowed to own firearms?

Not accusing you of either viewpoint, just read that statement in a general sense and imagined if the strict constitutionalists out there are starting to see some gun control as necessary.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: funkymatt
This is what I was getting at. OP, if you have to ask these questions, you should really take a class on general gun safety before considering applying for a conceal carry permit.

personally i think anyone with a gun around s hould take a gun safety class and have refresher courses every other year or so.

same with hunter safety courses.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: bapace

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
It's worth shooting to kill just to avoid getting sued? I mean, c'mon, it's a human life...

The human life lost its value the moment a knife or gun was pulled. Kill the low life piece of shit.

I'd have to agree with the above statement. The moment someone pulls out a weapon that can kill, that individual gives up his right to live and has escalated the situation to the point where its kill or be killed. Regardless of intentions (such as "I was just using it as a threat, I had no intention of killing... honestly judge!"), the thoughts everyone must assume is a weapon will be used to kill.
If you want to carry a weapon of any sort, you must have in your mind that it is used to kill, as using only to injure someone can live the other in a position to kill you. Way too many variables in the instance of only using a weapon to injure, as you may think you can hit a point that'll cripple the individual, but you can miss... or you may well end up killing anyhow. Never brandish a weapon if you are not prepared to use it for was it was made for, and if you can't deal with the notion that you are going to kill an attacker, then leave the weapons for those that can.

 

[AstroManLuca]

What if you're in a situation where you are being threatened, but when you pull the gun, the perp runs away or surrenders?

If he runs away, do you chase after him? Just call the police?

If he puts his hands up and surrenders, then what? Hold him at gunpoint while you call the police and wait for them to come and arrest him?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
What if you're in a situation where you are being threatened, but when you pull the gun, the perp runs away or surrenders?

If he runs away, do you chase after him? Just call the police?

If he puts his hands up and surrenders, then what? Hold him at gunpoint while you call the police and wait for them to come and arrest him?

if he runs away and you shoot thats murder.

if eh drops the knife and puts his hands up you call 911.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

This is not a legal opinion.

Generally, in almost all states, you have a right to "proportional" self-defense. Meaning, if you reasonably fear for your life, you have a right to respond with deadly force.

In reality, a judge and jury will decide if you were "proportional" and "reasonable" in your fear and your response.

The exact rules vary state to state, and even city to city.

This was not a legal opinion.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: waggy
hope he gets it just to piss everyone off.

everyone (unless you have mental issues) should be allowed to carry.

interesting. Before VT, I'm sure most people wouldn't have the "except with mental issues" qualifier in that statement.

The die-hard 2nd amendmenters seem like strict constitutionalists, in that there should still be no restrictions for any American citizen, despite the reams of evidence to the contrary.

Are more and more people coming around to the idea that maybe some people really shouldn't be allowed to own firearms?

Not accusing you of either viewpoint, just read that statement in a general sense and imagined if the strict constitutionalists out there are starting to see some gun control as necessary.

I think the tracking and reporting of mental health problems in the U.S. is a major problem. A lot of insurance companies and health care providers don't treat mental health the same as physical health. I'm normally against nearly all forms of gun control, but not selling guns to sufferers of certain mental health disorders is one of the few things I can get behind. That has more to do with passing mental health-related legislation than it does with gun control legislation though - you're already rejected on a background check if you have certain serious mental health problems. I'm not totally sure how it works and what gets you turned down, but aren't there issues with closed records not even being accessible for the purposes of background checks?

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: waggy
hope he gets it just to piss everyone off.

everyone (unless you have mental issues) should be allowed to carry.

interesting. Before VT, I'm sure most people wouldn't have the "except with mental issues" qualifier in that statement.

The die-hard 2nd amendmenters seem like strict constitutionalists, in that there should still be no restrictions for any American citizen, despite the reams of evidence to the contrary.

Are more and more people coming around to the idea that maybe some people really shouldn't be allowed to own firearms?

Not accusing you of either viewpoint, just read that statement in a general sense and imagined if the strict constitutionalists out there are starting to see some gun control as necessary.

I'm a die-hard Constitutionalist, and I've always argued just because its a right, doesn't mean there can't be qualifiers.

 

[Nitemare]

Your word vs a dead mans word. I believe you would be safe from prosecution, but in this litigious society(victim's kin could sue), it would almost be safer to walk away, especially in California

Never ever shoot to maim, shoot to kill.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca
What if you're in a situation where you are being threatened, but when you pull the gun, the perp runs away or surrenders?

If he runs away, do you chase after him? Just call the police?

If he puts his hands up and surrenders, then what? Hold him at gunpoint while you call the police and wait for them to come and arrest him?

if he runs away and you shoot thats murder.

if eh drops the knife and puts his hands up you call 911.

Agreed. Although it gets a little sticky if after you call police he then decides to run, testing his luck. I wouldn't shoot, and would update the police with his actions, but what exactly is the right thing to do at that point?

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: bapace
You never shoot to maim. It's always shoot to kill. Both situations are legal and justified. If you maim someone, you can be sued for injuries.

so if they still live, couldn't they sue you for more since they were injured more?

 

[jlee]

Barring select circumstances (body armor, etc), never aim for the head...high-stress shooting 101...

Center mass- biggest target. Conveniently enough, lots of vital organs are there also.

 

[jonks]

I could tell you but you wouldn't believe me anyway.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: waggy
hope he gets it just to piss everyone off.

everyone (unless you have mental issues) should be allowed to carry.

interesting. Before VT, I'm sure most people wouldn't have the "except with mental issues" qualifier in that statement.

The die-hard 2nd amendmenters seem like strict constitutionalists, in that there should still be no restrictions for any American citizen, despite the reams of evidence to the contrary.

Are more and more people coming around to the idea that maybe some people really shouldn't be allowed to own firearms?

Not accusing you of either viewpoint, just read that statement in a general sense and imagined if the strict constitutionalists out there are starting to see some gun control as necessary.

i alwasy thought if you have mental issues you shouldnt be able to afford one. Also if convicted of a violent crime you shouldnt either.

VT and such just brought it to the attention of most people. It could be because my grandfathers brother had lots of firearms and was nuts. he ended up going off and shooting up a bar and library (no idea why the library..).