Defensive Gun Use

[1srelluc]

Personally? A guy showing me a gun and a guy with a hand on a gun even if it is holstered are 2 different levels of threat.

Really if a guy is close enough to you to see you are armed then he is close enough to justify pulling a gun again this is my opinion. I am not trying to push a definition on anyone i am trying to see if we can come up with a consensus for a working definition to use going forward.

I really don't think it's up to you or me to "come up with a consensus" since neither of us can cover various situations requiring the use of deadly force (or not) that a person might find themselves in.

 

[Dadoalex]

Since there seems to be much interest in this subject, I think it's time to define our terms for the purpose of raising the level of the debate.

I know that most people here aren't really interested in an actual intellectual debate but rather prefer to snipe at each other with juvenile insults but one can hope.

So what consensus can we reach on a working definition of defensive gun use?

IMO we need to start with deciding if a person faced what a reasonable person would think is a threat to life or of bodily harm to oneself or another.

I'll suggest that a DGU is reasonable in the case of any contact crime where a would be assailant approaches an intended victim. Robbery, mugging, assault, breaking into a home can all be called contact crimes.

Personally I'm not sure if shooting at a person who is stealing property is a sufficient enough risk to safety to justify killing. I use the standard that if it's not worth dying for it's not worth killing over. I would never say killing a person for stealing a car is justified unless that person pulled a gun on you or tried to run you down.

I don't think chasing off a person who is cutting across your property is an example of a reasonable threat to a person's safety either. Now if that person approaches you even if they see you are armed I would call that a situation that escalates to a reasonable threat but now we need to decide how close that person needs to be. If the would be assailant is armed with any type of weapon that distance must be close enough that any reasonable person would consider it a threat to life or bodily safety.

Let's see if we can behave like adults in this discussion and not children on a playground.

OK

If a person forces their way into your home, armed or not, whatever their intentions, the use of a firearm is justified.
Outside the home? It is very rarely the case that a firearm is either justified or provides actual protection for the carrier.

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

An armed victim in a robbery is nearly 4.5 times more likely to be shot than an unarmed victim. Victims who had the opportunity to resist using their firearm were nearly 5.5 times as likely to be shot than unarmed victims.

From the robber's point of view, he doesn't want to shoot you. He wants your money, drugs, car. Dropping bodies brings heavy police action, something he wants to avoid. A robbery, car theft? Police will take a report and leave but police will investigate shootings.
Additionally, in my opinion, carrying a firearm in public increases the likelihood an armed person will willingly insert himself into dangerous situations believing their firearm will protect them. This, as shown by the referenced data is a mistaken belief.

I'm not opposed to concealed carry provided the person has received proper and ongoing training and testing.

Open carry is another thing. When someone open carries they are intending to be perceived as a threat. This guy

Is an example. If the deli at his favorite grocery store is that dangerous, maybe selecting a less dangerous deli is a better choice than all that armament, Of course, the purpose of all those guns is to appear threatening. The problem is that when you try to appear threatening, sometimes people take the threat seriously then the carrier has put lots of people at risk.

Auto semi-auto weapons are not appropriate for self defense. If you're ready you carry one in the chamber. Lots of people have died because someone forgot about the one in the chamber. Additionally the weapons can be prone to jamming or other failures.
Revolvers are much better suited to self defense than semi-automatic weapons.

 

[evenflow1969]

Since there seems to be much interest in this subject, I think it's time to define our terms for the purpose of raising the level of the debate.

I know that most people here aren't really interested in an actual intellectual debate but rather prefer to snipe at each other with juvenile insults but one can hope.

So what consensus can we reach on a working definition of defensive gun use?

IMO we need to start with deciding if a person faced what a reasonable person would think is a threat to life or of bodily harm to oneself or another.

I'll suggest that a DGU is reasonable in the case of any contact crime where a would be assailant approaches an intended victim. Robbery, mugging, assault, breaking into a home can all be called contact crimes.

Personally I'm not sure if shooting at a person who is stealing property is a sufficient enough risk to safety to justify killing. I use the standard that if it's not worth dying for it's not worth killing over. I would never say killing a person for stealing a car is justified unless that person pulled a gun on you or tried to run you down.

I don't think chasing off a person who is cutting across your property is an example of a reasonable threat to a person's safety either. Now if that person approaches you even if they see you are armed I would call that a situation that escalates to a reasonable threat but now we need to decide how close that person needs to be. If the would be assailant is armed with any type of weapon that distance must be close enough that any reasonable person would consider it a threat to life or bodily safety.

Let's see if we can behave like adults in this discussion and not children on a playground.

It is certainly interesting on where to draw the line. As far as defending property my cars, boats, trailers, hunting and fishing equipment are all integral in my making a living. My knee jerk reaction in defending those items are that the person threatening that is eating lead. On the docks Maynor even be my choice the other captains may take matters into their own hands. Threaten one of us you threatened all of us. I can't imagine a theif getting to far on the docks. Threaten my health and safety it's a no Brainerd. Still the subject requires more thought.

 

[Dadoalex]

Law allows you to defend life, limb & property.
The right to own personal property is the very backbone of freedom & individual rights.
Defending your property by whatever means is necessary is your right as a free person.

For example:
Your child has a rare illness that requires a special & very expensive medicine that they need to function normally & would be impossible to replace. Your child might live without it but it would really mess them up nonetheless.

Someone breaks into your house, grabs this medicine supply & attempts to flee with the stolen property.
You warn them, plead with them & even fire a warning shot but they still are intent on stealing it.

Do you think it is acceptable to use a gun to to shoot the perp in that circumstance?

If you say yes here, you're really just arguing over semantics for the rest.
Like where you personally would draw the line.

I wouldn't kill someone over chewing gum but I'd damn sure pop them if they tried to carjack me.

There are pharmacies right around the corner.
So you fire, what happens if they return fire and hit the kid through the bedroom wall?

If they're leaving with or without the exampled meds and you hold your fire, everyone lives, when you fire, you don't know what will happen next. Your bullet may hit the house across the street killing an innocent person, his bullet may do the same.

 

[BothWings]

That guy l

OK

If a person forces their way into your home, armed or not, whatever their intentions, the use of a firearm is justified.
Outside the home? It is very rarely the case that a firearm is either justified or provides actual protection for the carrier.

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault

Objectives. We investigated the possible relationship between being shot in an assault and possession of a gun at the time.Methods. We enrolled 677 case participants that had been shot in an assault and 684 population-based control participants within ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

An armed victim in a robbery is nearly 4.5 times more likely to be shot than an unarmed victim. Victims who had the opportunity to resist using their firearm were nearly 5.5 times as likely to be shot than unarmed victims.

From the robber's point of view, he doesn't want to shoot you. He wants your money, drugs, car. Dropping bodies brings heavy police action, something he wants to avoid. A robbery, car theft? Police will take a report and leave but police will investigate shootings.
Additionally, in my opinion, carrying a firearm in public increases the likelihood an armed person will willingly insert himself into dangerous situations believing their firearm will protect them. This, as shown by the referenced data is a mistaken belief.

I'm not opposed to concealed carry provided the person has received proper and ongoing training and testing.

Open carry is another thing. When someone open carries they are intending to be perceived as a threat. This guy
View attachment 762469
Is an example. If the deli at his favorite grocery store is that dangerous, maybe selecting a less dangerous deli is a better choice than all that armament, Of course, the purpose of all those guns is to appear threatening. The problem is that when you try to appear threatening, sometimes people take the threat seriously then the carrier has put lots of people at risk.

Auto semi-auto weapons are not appropriate for self defense. If you're ready you carry one in the chamber. Lots of people have died because someone forgot about the one in the chamber. Additionally the weapons can be prone to jamming or other failures.
Revolvers are much better suited to self defense than semi-automatic weapons.

That guy is an activist attracting attention to his cause! He's not carrying all that because he feels he's going to need it there! Come ON! Don't be so naive.

 

[task0778]

Property crimes are an issue for me. I don't think my stuff is worth dying for so I don't think it's worth killing for.

I don't consider some guy walking across my yard to be a threat to my safety if that's all he is doing. I have no problem with anyone telling a person to hightail it out of their yards but do I think you should shoot a person from a window because he dared step on a piece of dirt you own? No.

And again I'll not shoot a person in the back for stealing a bicycle out of my driveway either.

This is where I'm at, I'm not going to shoot somebody over a TV set. Not being wealthy, there's pretty much nothing in my house worth dying or killing for, so for me it comes down to defending myself and my family. Say one or more people break into my house. I confront them with my 9mm handgun, 16 bullets and an extra mag. If they leave with or without any of my property, fine. If they just stand there I tell them the cops are on the way and if they're smart they'll get the hell outta my house. Then I tell them in they charge me I'll open fire. If I can I'll shoot 'em in the leg, but if and when it comes down to it they'll catch one in the face. If I believe you are a threat to my family or to me then I'll open fire. So, it's on them to make a decision, stay or go. I might fire off a round over their heads, maybe that'll help them decide what to do.

But as soon as I see a gun, Then the decision is mine. If you broke into my house and you got a gun, I ain't waiting for you to shoot at me.

 

[Blues Man]

I really don't think it's up to you or me to "come up with a consensus" since neither of us can cover various situations requiring the use of deadly force (or not) that a person might find themselves in.

Then you might as well say we can't make any laws about anything.

The standard for the justification of deadly force is what a reasonable person would define as a threat of imminent death or bodily injury of oneself or another.

I am trying to use that same standard here.

Is a guy stealing your kids bicycle something a reasonable person would consider a threat of imminent death or bodily harm? Of course not.

But we have people here who would say it's perfectly fine to shoot the guy.

 

[Blues Man]

This is where I'm at, I'm not going to shoot somebody over a TV set. Not being wealthy, there's pretty much nothing in my house worth dying or killing for, so for me it comes down to defending myself and my family. Say one or more people break into my house. I confront them with my 9mm handgun, 16 bullets and an extra mag. If they leave with or without any of my property, fine. If they just stand there I tell them the cops are on the way and if they're smart they'll get the hell outta my house. Then I tell them in they charge me I'll open fire. If I can I'll shoot 'em in the leg, but if and when it comes down to it they'll catch one in the face. If I believe you are a threat to my family or to me then I'll open fire. So, it's on them to make a decision, stay or go. I might fire off a round over their heads, maybe that'll help them decide what to do.

But as soon as I see a gun, Then the decision is mine. If you broke into my house and you got a gun, I ain't waiting for you to shoot at me.

And I have already said that that would be considered a contact crime.

IMO you are justified to shoot the second someone forces entry into your home.

But lets say you are pulling up to your home and see a few guys running out of your house away from you with whatever they can carry. Do you stop and open fire on them?

I would say that at that point no reasonable person would consider their life or bodily safety is in jeopardy so shooting at them is not justifiable.

We have people here who would say shooting those burglars would be justifiable.

 

[Blues Man]

It is certainly interesting on where to draw the line. As far as defending property my cars, boats, trailers, hunting and fishing equipment are all integral in my making a living. My knee jerk reaction in defending those items are that the person threatening that is eating lead. On the docks Maynor even be my choice the other captains may take matters into their own hands. Threaten one of us you threatened all of us. I can't imagine a theif getting to far on the docks. Threaten my health and safety it's a no Brainerd. Still the subject requires more thought.

Using the standard of what a reasonable person would consider a threat to life or bodily safety I don't think shooting a person is justified if they steal something and run away from me. I can certainly try to stop them and would even pull a gun but if the thief turned and ran even if he had some of my property I would not be justified in shooting him

 

[task0778]

IMO you are justified to shoot the second someone forces entry into your home.

Possibly. Opinions vary, but I prefer to give them the option to leave, if they give me the chance to do so. The law may allow me to open fire upon contact, and I ain't going to judge anyone who does so.

But lets say you are pulling up to your home and see a few guys running out of your house away from you with whatever they can carry. Do you stop and open fire on them?

NO.

But we have people here who would say it's perfectly fine to shoot the guy.

In some states a person might go to prison for that. I don't really know, but for me killing somebody is a big deal that shouldn't be taken lightly.

 

[1srelluc]

Then you might as well say we can't make any laws about anything.

The standard for the justification of deadly force is what a reasonable person would define as a threat of imminent death or bodily injury of oneself or another.

I am trying to use that same standard here.

Is a guy stealing your kids bicycle something a reasonable person would consider a threat of imminent death or bodily harm? Of course not.

But we have people here who would say it's perfectly fine to shoot the guy.

OK, I've tried to be nice but you should really stay in your lane and just you do you.

 

[Blues Man]

OK, I've tried to be nice but you should really stay in your lane and just you do you.

If you don't want to be part of the discussion and contribute anything feel free to leave the thread.

 

[evenflow1969]

Using the standard of what a reasonable person would consider a threat to life or bodily safety I don't think shooting a person is justified if they steal something and run away from me. I can certainly try to stop them and would even pull a gun but if the thief turned and ran even if he had some of my property I would not be justified in shooting him

Well in the case of making personal decisions I am not going to say your way or mine is better or worse. I would require more thought to even draw the line myself. It would however be nice in terms of the law for that to be clearly drawn out for even the lay person to understand. The way the law is in Ohio it is not easily understood. There was a case on the west side of Columbus where a guy caught some one trying to steal his car. He shot and killed the guy as he was fleeing. The owner did not go to prison but did go to trial. The reality is it likely would have been cheaper to let the guy have the car than defend himself at trial. The right and the wrong of it would take a deeper look in my soul for me. I am undecided. In the heat of the moment and how I feel about it today I am probably taking the shot. I hope I am not faced with such a decision but even more so till I have considered it problem more thoroughly.

 

[1srelluc]

If you don't want to be part of the discussion and contribute anything feel free to leave the thread.

I tried but you just want folks to see things your way like some fuckin' petulant child.....Good day to you Sir.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

There are pharmacies right around the corner.
So you fire, what happens if they return fire and hit the kid through the bedroom wall?

If they're leaving with or without the exampled meds and you hold your fire, everyone lives, when you fire, you don't know what will happen next. Your bullet may hit the house across the street killing an innocent person, his bullet may do the same.

And your car may blow a tire, cross the road & cause a busload of children & grannies to plunge off the rim of the Grand Canyon where it wipes out a boat load of tourists on a float trip down the Colorado.
Maybe you shouldn't drive.

Are you making the point that you're so scared of everything that you would run from a 12 yr old girl?
Because that's what I'm seeing here

I live in the country & I practice gun control. That means I hit my target
Go be a victim. Baaaaah

 

[Dadoalex]

That guy l

That guy is an activist attracting attention to his cause! He's not carrying all that because he feels he's going to need it there! Come ON! Don't be so naive.

Naive?
Please.
The guy is carrying enough hardware to kill 30 people. I point out that doing so, whatever his reason, make him a perceived threat.
That's not naive. That's fact.

 

[Dadoalex]

And your car may blow a tire, cross the road & cause a busload of children & grannies to plunge off the rim of the Grand Canyon where it wipes out a boat load of tourists on a float trip down the Colorado.
Maybe you shouldn't drive.

Are you making the point that you're so scared of everything that you would run from a 12 yr old girl?
Because that's what I'm seeing here

I live in the country & I practice gun control. That means I hit my target
Go be a victim. Baaaaah

Truly, do try to be a little less stupid.

Unless you're claiming that every time someone uses their gun it is an accident, a Force Majeure as it were, then your example is totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Shooting at a person running away is attempted murder, at best.
Shooting at a person running away is cowardice and a sign of panic.

Maybe look in the mirror and see the coward standing there.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Truly, do try to be a little less stupid.

Unless you're claiming that every time someone uses their gun it is an accident, a Force Majeure as it were, then your example is totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Shooting at a person running away is attempted murder, at best.
Shooting at a person running away is cowardice and a sign of panic.

Maybe look in the mirror and see the coward standing there.

Perhaps you are reading impaired or just extra dense but I said if they were trying to take my property, it is up to my discretion on if I use my weapon or not.
You may not like that but that doesn't negate that fact.

You gave a what-if so I reciprocated yours with my own & now I'm done arguing with a low-t progponce that hasn't had his balls drop yet.

If perps don't want to get shot for breaking, entering & stealing, I would suggest they go somewhere else.
Like your house.

 

[Dadoalex]

Perhaps you are reading impaired or just extra dense but I said if they were trying to take my property, it is up to my discretion on if I use my weapon or not.
You may not like that but that doesn't negate that fact.

You gave a what-if so I reciprocated yours with my own & now I'm done arguing with a low-t progponce that hasn't had his balls drop yet.

If perps don't want to get shot for breaking, entering & stealing, I would suggest they go somewhere else.
Like your house.

My house?
My 2 large dogs protect my house
and
I own nothing worthy of committing murder over.

You do understand don't you that that post could be used as evidence against you arguing that you had intent to kill before anyone showed themselves at your door.

 

[Blues Man]

I tried but you just want folks to see things your way like some fuckin' petulant child.....Good day to you Sir.

And the usual juvenile name calling begins yet again.

Go out an play junior and let the grownups talk