Yeah, when I was 16, borrowing some gas, that 12ga blast above my head got my attention too.
Yeah, when I was 16, borrowing some gas, that 12ga blast above my head got my attention too.I don't know but One thing I can say is that during my time as a professional thief warning shots were among the the best ways to get my attention.
Brandishing and warning shots are both stupid. Easy ways to get your ass shot.
Exactly.Hmmmm I could have sworn that's what many questioned (in the long thread here as well) when the news that GZ shot TM broke.
Why didn't GZ show TM he had a pistol?
Why didn't GZ give a warning shot or shoot Tm in the leg instead of the chest?
Looks like the Florida legislator may give these people exactly what they asked for in 2012/13.
Well said.Nice job verifying the integrity of your source:
Gawker Got Literally Everything Wrong About Floridas New Warning Shots Bill
That's completely reasonable. And since you clearly didn't even read the bill before raging about it, let me summarize: it simply modifies the existing self-defense statute to change every instance of "use of force" to "use or threatened use of force." That's it.
The hypocrisy of gun haters is astounding. They whine about Marissa Alexander's 20-year mandatory prison sentence for a warning shot, then complain when the legislature attempts to fix the problem. They cry about how gun owners should hold criminals at gunpoint instead of killing them, then rage when the law is changed to legalize it.
Minor technicality!Wasn't that the one the left the house and came back with a gun?
And we were looking for nancy girl....damn.So a progressive didn't do his homework and went all hysterical nancy boy on us. Shocking.
Not in Michigan. Now if you were wearing a jacket with a holster under it and declared it to be hot out and removed your jacket, showing that you were armed, that would not be brandishing. Remove it from the holster initially and it is brandishing. The bottom line is that the determination will be made by the prosecutor in the jurisdiction you live in. That person is an elected official and ran with a specific party designation. Extrapolate from there.So, are you legally able to brandish as long as it's a self-defense situation?
Because idiots will show their guns every chance they get. Add beer X100...Simple assault does not allow deadly force in SC. If he produces a weapon(bat/stick) the rules change.Can somebody honestly explain brandishing to me and why it's illegal? Police do it all the time; if they draw their gun and yet don't end up needing to use it, are citizens otherwise legally carrying not able to do the same thing if their life is in danger? The way I see some laws it's like it expects you to only draw if your life is in danger and then to prove that fact you need to shoot at the person, when in fact perhaps showing the gun alone makes them retreat. I'm speaking of a situation in which you're otherwise validly self-defending. Not getting in an argument with somebody and showing them your gun to be a tough guy.
So, are you legally able to brandish as long as it's a self-defense situation?
Because idiots will show their guns every chance they get. Add beer X100...Simple assault does not allow deadly force in SC. If he produces a weapon(bat/stick) the rules change.
For citizens, if you need to show it, you need to use it....imo, or be well ready to do so.
I agree that it could diffuse a situation. Some road rage idiot banging on your window, ex.
Can somebody honestly explain brandishing to me and why it's illegal? Police do it all the time; if they draw their gun and yet don't end up needing to use it, are citizens otherwise legally carrying not able to do the same thing if their life is in danger? The way I see some laws it's like it expects you to only draw if your life is in danger and then to prove that fact you need to shoot at the person, when in fact perhaps showing the gun alone makes them retreat. I'm speaking of a situation in which you're otherwise validly self-defending. Not getting in an argument with somebody and showing them your gun to be a tough guy.
So, are you legally able to brandish as long as it's a self-defense situation?
Can somebody honestly explain brandishing to me and why it's illegal? Police do it all the time; if they draw their gun and yet don't end up needing to use it, are citizens otherwise legally carrying not able to do the same thing if their life is in danger? The way I see some laws it's like it expects you to only draw if your life is in danger and then to prove that fact you need to shoot at the person, when in fact perhaps showing the gun alone makes them retreat. I'm speaking of a situation in which you're otherwise validly self-defending. Not getting in an argument with somebody and showing them your gun to be a tough guy.
So, are you legally able to brandish as long as it's a self-defense situation?
Apparently not/
This is the shit that flies back in the face of all the 'responsible gun owners' out there. I'm supposed to be perfectly comfortable that there are more guns than people in the country because most of those owners are calm reasonable folks. I've been told that a 'responsible gun owner' would never threaten people with their weapons. Only in the most life threatening of situations would they resort to their firearms and they are aware of the gravity of using deadly force.
Then this bullshit rolls around.
This contradicts EVERYTHING that I've been told about responsible gun ownership, but it's a bill sponsored by the NRA and making its way through Florida's legislature. All this does it make dumb people with guns more of a threat to public safety than they already were. I'm not interested in the responses of the members who look at guns the same way Nehalem looks at his toaster. I want someone with a strictly platonic relationship with their guns to explain how this could possibly be a good idea.
What if your warning shot hits an innocent bystander?
Comforting. "Yes, you broke the law, but you'll only be charged if the prosecutor feels like it."Most states have no explicitly stated protections for such cases, but prosecutors tend not to go after them due to the IMMENSE outrage that follows.
This is how it should be.In most (reasonable) states the threat of deadly force falls in the same category as the use of the deadly force on the legalized force continuum. That is to say, if you would be within your rights to shoot someone, you'd be within your rights to threaten to shoot them too.
That's how I read it. It appears to me, and possibly has been the case (e.g. with that woman who fired a warning shot), that the law has made the disgusting situation in which is is preferable to shoot somebody dead than scare them off.Perhaps you'd like to edit the OP so you don't look like an idiot with poor reading comprehension skills. The current law has some flaws. Let's say someone is 30 feet away from you, charging toward you with a big knife, yelling, "I'm going to kill you!" You pull out a gun, wave it, shoot a warning shot into your ceiling. The person with the knife retreats. Your shot is heard by a neighbor. Due to the automatic sentencing laws, you go to jail for 10 to 20 years. The current law in Florida is, more or less, you pull your concealed weapon out, you pull the trigger, otherwise you too are guilty of a crime.
Apparently not/
This is the shit that flies back in the face of all the 'responsible gun owners' out there. I'm supposed to be perfectly comfortable that there are more guns than people in the country because most of those owners are calm reasonable folks. I've been told that a 'responsible gun owner' would never threaten people with their weapons. Only in the most life threatening of situations would they resort to their firearms and they are aware of the gravity of using deadly force.
Then this bullshit rolls around.
This contradicts EVERYTHING that I've been told about responsible gun ownership, but it's a bill sponsored by the NRA and making its way through Florida's legislature. All this does it make dumb people with guns more of a threat to public safety than they already were. I'm not interested in the responses of the members who look at guns the same way Nehalem looks at his toaster. I want someone with a strictly platonic relationship with their guns to explain how this could possibly be a good idea.
The NRA operates with the main goal (stated or not) of increasing gun sales-they have trade shows and lobby on the manufacturers' behalf, so from a pure profit-oriented point of view it could be a great idea.
The NRA operates with the main goal (stated or not) of increasing gun sales-they have trade shows and lobby on the manufacturers' behalf, so from a pure profit-oriented point of view it could be a great idea.
So explain why that isn't good?
I mean I know in the libtard brain profit is bad and business is evil, but really what is the down side of more gun sales and more guns in the hands of citizens? What is bad about that?
"Oh! They have a trade show, SHOT, that is terrible!"
See you at shot, fucking liberal.
SHOT is run by the NSSF, though, which is the actual firearm industry trade group. bradly is one of those buffoons who thinks the NRA is controlled by and answers to the gun industry, despite firearm manufacturers providing only a tiny fraction of the NRA's funding. The NRA is primarily funded and directed by its members; it's about as far from "big corporate money" as you can get.
The OP should be thankful now that he's no longer the biggest idiot in the thread. Exactly how is changing "use of force" to "use or threatened use of force" (the entirety of the law) going to sell firearms?
SHOT is run by the NSSF, though, which is the actual firearm industry trade group. bradly is one of those buffoons who thinks the NRA is controlled by and answers to the gun industry, despite firearm manufacturers providing only a tiny fraction of the NRA's funding. The NRA is primarily funded and directed by its members; it's about as far from "big corporate money" as you can get.
I'd like to point out that there was a recent case in Florida of a woman who admitted to firing "warning shots" at her physically abusive boyfriend in their apartment and was jailed for it after being sentenced to 20 years. Granted there was a mistrial, but it still doesn't look good for her under current law.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/28/justice/florida-stand-your-ground-release/
Also that article doesn't quote any segment of the law concerning warning shots, despite the title. So I'm skeptical this is as big as deal as it says it is. No time to do Gawker's homework for it, so I could be wrong, but given the obvious opinion of the author I have substantial doubts.
For my part, warning shots are stupid and dangerous outside of very specific circumstances; but I'm all for brandishing. If I'm carrying and have the opportunity to point my gun, get the assailant to back off or surrender as opposed to shooting him, then it's a happier outcome for everybody no?