Solauren wrote:I said visible on his person. AFAIK, mainly from safety lectures at work (Ontario Ministry of Revenue), if someone is carrying an actual weapon on a crime, they intend to, or are willing to use it. I'm not getting shot because I caught someone vandalising a car.
Or they're carrying a weapon because they always do, whether they're niicking tailgates or going to the shops, or they're some prat who wants to be seen as a tough guy. Certainly the fact that the crook in question is carrying a weapon is a reason for bugging out and calling the plod rather than demanding your property back immediately, and to be particularly alert in case he decides to draw it (in which case I would agree that shooting him would be justified), but it is not an excuse for shooting him on the off chance that they might decide to draw it.
Quite frankly, given my options in this scenario are 'shoot to kill' or 'do nothing', it's shoot to kill. However, if there were other options, I'd probably go with one of the alternates (as long as they were realistic)
Bollocks. Your options are shoot him, do nothing, or GTFO. The latter should always be the preferred option.
Really, if you're not willing to go through with it, or not psychologically able to, then you're one of those people who just should not have a gun. It's one of those situations where it'll likely be taken from you and used against you or others.
I didn't say I wouldn't go trough with it. I said that I indicate that I am, highly visibly. As opposed to just shoot him on first sight or pretend that he's not there.
[qoute]I think it is even worse than being unarmed, really-- someone who thinks the mere presence of a gun will act as a magic talisman to ward off evil. [/quote]
My idea was to aim but give a warning first. If the guy runs for it, then let him. If he decides that attacking the guy who's pointing a gun at you is a good idea, then shoot him.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
Well, I wasn't so much trying to put you down, Ziniux, as the mindset. I feel that if you're going to wave a gun around and point it at someone, you should be prepared to follow through-- otherwise, it is just a danger to others. All the talk about warning shots, scary noise, etc, is Hollywood-- in a residential area, those bullets could go anywhere. And a person who isn't really willing to go all the way with that is basically holding a weapon he's unwilling to use, so if the "bad guy" decides to rush you and wrestle it away, you've basically given a criminal a weapon on a silver platter. Which he may 'thank' you for by eliminating the witness-- you.
The only acceptable place for a bullet to go-- if you're going to go that route-- is in the person you're threatening. That's a hell of a thing, and I think that in the case of minor theft/property crime, you're better off spending your time getting a good description over the phone to 911. Or a camera for an excellent description, taking a photo from inside your home.
Gun-waving may feel good, but it's usually just opening the door for more trouble.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."
In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around! If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!! Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
Captain Seafort wrote:Or they're carrying a weapon because they always do, whether they're niicking tailgates or going to the shops, or they're some prat who wants to be seen as a tough guy.
Visibly carrying a weapon is already an escalation in potential violence. Seeing such a person is not a justification to shoot them, but it is a justification to be less tolerant before reacting.
If someone has a problem with people reacting to them carrying a weapon, then maybe they shouldn't carry it, specially if they intend to do something that might upset people, like, say, stealing from them.
In my case, the mere view of an object designed to kill other human beings just sickens me. It is not ok for people to carry a weapon (it's a threat to everyone around) and those who carry them should accept this fact.
Its just the situation. If someone is stealing tailgates, than odds are that they are doing it out of laziness rather than desperation. A thief is one, by definition, someone who wants to avoid violence. So when they see a gun and given the possibility to get away, it seems rather rational that they opt for the option where they are less likely to get shot.
The cops might not arrive in time, then again I wonder how long is it until someone steals a tailgate.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
Zixinus wrote:Its just the situation. If someone is stealing tailgates, than odds are that they are doing it out of laziness rather than desperation.
Or dumb kids out for a kick, or someone high or drunk as a skunk and not rational at all, or mentally ill people not rational at all.
A thief is one, by definition, someone who wants to avoid violence.
Err, how do you make that leap in logic?
So when they see a gun and given the possibility to get away, it seems rather rational that they opt for the option where they are less likely to get shot.
Sure, if they are rational. What if they are not?
The cops might not arrive in time, then again I wonder how long is it until someone steals a tailgate.
Crazy shit happens all the time.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
Broomstick wrote:Violates a major tenant of responsible gun use, which is to never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot.
Having the intention to fire a weapon doesn't mean you are going to. How many times has a police officer drawn a weapon on a suspect and not fired? Are these people irresponsible?
In the US, aiming a gun at someone is considered use of deadly force, even if you don't pull the trigger. By pointing a gun at someone it gives them a legal basis to shoot you and claim self-defense.
What? First off: pointing a firearm at someone is not an application of deadly force. It is a threat of deadly force. I know Texas finally passed an extension of the carry law that now allows a person who is legitimately allowed to carry a firearm the option to control a situation just as a police officer can, but even before that pointing a gun at someone wasn't attempted murder.
"Drop the tailgate or I will open fire."
You can threaten deadly force to stop a crime even when deadly force isn't warranted. You just have to (as our instructor said) be ready to have your bluff called.
Second: a person in the commission of a felony cannot claim self-defense when someone attempts to stop them from committing said crime. The only exception to this is if the "arresting" person (be it officer or private citizen) is using inappropriate or excessive force.
Broomstick wrote:Violates a major tenant of responsible gun use, which is to never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot.
Having the intention to fire a weapon doesn't mean you are going to. How many times has a police officer drawn a weapon on a suspect and not fired? Are these people irresponsible?
I think you're missing the point here. If they aren't willing to follow through (ie - have no intent to fire regardless of what happens), then yes, they are being irresponsible.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
General Zod wrote:I think you're missing the point here. If they aren't willing to follow through (ie - have no intent to fire regardless of what happens), then yes, they are being irresponsible.
The original response from Zixinus was "What about the idea of just AIMING the gun but now shooting it?"
I didn't see anything in relation to not using the gun if the need arose.
In the event that you are certain you could never fire a gun to stop someone, you are correct in that you shouldn't bother using it at all.
But just drawing a weapon on someone to diffuse or control a situation is not irresponsible in of itself. I may draw my weapon on the premise that it will diffuse the situation (considering most firearms drawn for self-defense are never fired anyways, that's not a crazy idea), but will use it if the situation escalates further. You also have the added advantage of acting in an overt manner by stating with the weapon and tone of voice your intentions (to both the criminal and any witnesses) and having an already drawn weapon in a firing position if violence ensues.
TheFeniX wrote:
But just drawing a weapon on someone to diffuse or control a situation is not irresponsible in of itself. >snip<
Except that's not what I just said, which I was never contesting. If someone's aiming a gun then they damn well better be prepared to use it if things escalate even further, or they are being grossly negligent.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Also, the moment you aim a gun's barrel at someone, if for whatever reason (even accidental) the gun is fired, said person could be killed, so yeah, you have to assume said responsability from the moment you unholster a loaded gun (and even from the moment you make the pressence of your weapon known).
General Zod wrote:Except that's not what I just said, which I was never contesting. If someone's aiming a gun then they damn well better be prepared to use it if things escalate even further, or they are being grossly negligent.
I grew up in Texas, and although I'd say I'm rather centrist, there are several things I swing to the right on. This being one of them.
Also helps that my house, and our cars have been broken into regularly over the years(not every few months, but every couple of years).
That being said Scenario 3 is easily jot down the license plate and report it. The tailgate is gone.
Scenario 2 is rather unlikely, unless its a mini-truck. But if he's still on your property, see Scenario 1, if he's off call the police and see where he its taking it. Most likely he's not walking far with a tailgate, and you can see Scenario 3.
As for Scenario 1, well, a lot of people seem perfectly willing to write off a human life to stupidity that walked into an animal pen at the zoo, but give the world to those that violates a humans property and possessions. If they breech the plain of the house, they are getting shot in my book. However, as the scenario states, this is violating a car, which is a much more gray area. Getting to a car, even in a driveway and not on road is not as much a boundary. Usually there isn't even a fence in the way and it holds not even the slightest chance as a threat against your person(which is the main reason crossing the boundary of the house is an instant shoot on sight).
In this case, I believe Broomstick's SO handled it perfectly. Confront the person in the act of committing a crime against you visibly armed but not brandishing your weapon. Confront them in a manner where they have an easy route of escape. Do not trap them. Promptly tell them to fuck off. If they commence with fucking off, let them go and if they do so because they already have your stuff, see Scenario 2 and 3. If any movement towards you is made(which is why the Not Trapping them comment is important) they are shot. In the case of them ignoring you and continuing to rob your things, tell them to fuck off more aggressively with intent to shoot, and if they ignore you again repeat the threat with the weapon aimed. It all likelihood it should elicit a flight or flight response. I doubt I'd pull the trigger even in that situation should he call the bluff(bluff being I'm not going to shoot him with out an aggression on his part), but in this scenario I feel forth right that this person is of no loose to the human race in case of a misfire. At which the gun remains aimed at him til he leaves or police arrive, because I do not trust a criminal that does not flee when confronted, armed or not, by their victim.
//This Line Blank as of 7/15/07\\ Ornithology Subdirector: SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
Wiilite
[/quote]
