Defensive Gun Use

[BothWings]

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.

One concealed gun and 5 magazines would do the same and more. DON'T BE SO NAIVE. The guy is showing off trying to get people like you to challenge the 2nd.

 

[Resnic]

If a person would steal a car they already made a conscious decision to not be a decent citizen and laws are something they do not care about, they also don't care about consequences of their actions or care about the person they are stealing from. Thus to me they are subject to being shot.

A car in many cases is considered an extension of a persons personal property. Much like your home police can't search your car without consent and have to get a warrant. So by that same token I consider stealing a car is the same as breaking into someone's home.

Any crime against an individual like stealing their car takes someone who isnt just a casual criminal like jay walking, stealing a bag of chips from a gas station, running a red light or something like that. This is a person who decided "I'm going to steal 1000s of dollars worth of stuff from someone" so that would mean violence is also very likely to follow.

Stealing cars is a real crime, it has big consequences if you're caught, it's dangerous as people will hurt or kill you if you're caught and so on. Those people can't be taken lightly.

If America as a whole refused to tolerate crime there would be a whole lot less of it.

 

[Blues Man]

If a person would steal a car they already made a conscious decision to not be a decent citizen and laws are something they do not care about, they also don't care about consequences of their actions or care about the person they are stealing from. Thus to me they are subject to being shot.

A car in many cases is considered an extension of a persons personal property. Much like your home police can't search your car without consent and have to get a warrant. So by that same token I consider stealing a car is the same as breaking into someone's home.

Any crime against an individual like stealing their car takes someone who isnt just a casual criminal like jay walking, stealing a bag of chips from a gas station, running a red light or something like that. This is a person who decided "I'm going to steal 1000s of dollars worth of stuff from someone" so that would mean violence is also very likely to follow.

Stealing cars is a real crime, it has big consequences if you're caught, it's dangerous as people will hurt or kill you if you're caught and so on. Those people can't be taken lightly.

If America as a whole refused to tolerate crime there would be a whole lot less of it.

But the laws of self defense are quite clear.

The use of deadly force is justified if the threat that provoked the use of force would be seen by any reasonable person to be an imminent danger of death or bodily injury to oneself or another.

Is a person who steals your car out of your driveway or off the street in front of your house that type of threat? I don't think so.

If a person tries to carjack you he certainly is posing a threat to your life or of bodily injury.

Now here's the tougher question.

If person pulls you out of your car before you can draw a weapon then drives away from you are you justified in shooting at him ? I don't think so for a couple of reasons.

Since he is moving away from you in a vehicle he is no longer a threat to your life or safety

Shooting at a moving vehicle is more likely to result in innocent people being harmed than the car thief.

 

[Dadoalex]

One concealed gun and 5 magazines would do the same and more. DON'T BE SO NAIVE. The guy is showing off trying to get people like you to challenge the 2nd.

Why would one carry a loaded weapon and 75 rounds of ammunition to a deli?
Unless one is planning to rob the deli?
Maybe get into a drug war?

So one carries that and was he walks out of the deli a bad guy comes up behind and cold-cocks the guy with a baseball bat.

Now your hero is knocked sillier and the bad guy has enough weaponry to kill most of 100 people.

Nothing in the 2nd says guns can't be regulated and the SCOTUS has upheld the states' and federal government's authority to regulate arms so long as the government doesn't deny that right to everyone.

 

[BothWings]

Why would one carry a loaded weapon and 75 rounds of ammunition to a deli?
Unless one is planning to rob the deli?
Maybe get into a drug war?

So one carries that and was he walks out of the deli a bad guy comes up behind and cold-cocks the guy with a baseball bat.

Now your hero is knocked sillier and the bad guy has enough weaponry to kill most of 100 people.

Nothing in the 2nd says guns can't be regulated and the SCOTUS has upheld the states' and federal government's authority to regulate arms so long as the government doesn't deny that right to everyone.

LoL! I told you why!

 

[Zincwarrior]

Law allows you to defend life, limb & property.

um...no.
Each state has specific self defense statutes and stare decisis up to and including lethal self defense. Please consult those instead of a random internet board.

Also... like any other self respecting wiener dog, if you try to steal my food, or I think you're thinking about it, or frankly if you are eating yours too slowly I'm gonna bite bite you right in the face.

 

[Dadoalex]

LoL! I told you why!

So you're saying this performative BS is just that, BS with no real purpose?

Seems kind of stupid to endanger yourself and everyone within firing range for performative bullshit but that gun nuts for you.

 

[JamesE]

It all comes down to threat and personal safety
A person trespassing or taking your “stuff” is not a personal threat.

I live out in the sticks way away from the road, if I find you sneeking around my property at night in the dark, you will be shot. Period! During the day a person may get a yelled warning as to what they are up to. I am in a place that if a person has made it back far enough to be around the house and buildings, they are presumed to be up to no good and will be dealt with.

 

[BothWings]

So you're saying this performative BS is just that, BS with no real purpose?

Seems kind of stupid to endanger yourself and everyone within firing range for performative bullshit but that gun nuts for you.

Where did I even remotely suggest that I thought he was being sensible, troll?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sounds to me you are just stating the obvious.....Nobody really cares what you or I would do in a given situation as it's on the person that is being violated, either by theft or by threat to make that ultimate life changing decision.

You must also bear in mind that there are some states (like TX) where it is perfectly fine to shoot thieves that are just thieving.

Part of the responsibility of being a gun owner is to know your state's laws around the use of deadly force. I'd say start there and then make your own determination going forward.

I wish our state allowed us to use deadly force for property crime. I bet if we started it would greatly reduce people breaking into your car at night or into your garage while you're out working. A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.

 

[Blues Man]

I wish our state allowed us to use deadly force for property crime. I bet if we started it would greatly reduce people breaking into your car at night or into your garage while you're out working. A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.

IMO there is no thing I own that is worth dying for so it's also not worth killing for.

IMO anyone that wishes he could shoot people is not a person to be trusted with a gun.

 

[mak2]

I wish our state allowed us to use deadly force for property crime. I bet if we started it would greatly reduce people breaking into your car at night or into your garage while you're out working. A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.

YEppers, that would be fun. You could just get a job as a Walgreens clerk and shoot shoplifters.

 

[Blues Man]

Maybe I'm getting old but I just hope most gun owners are not like the internet gunslingers on this site.

I am of the opinion that carrying a gun is a very weighty responsibility and I as a person who carries a gun need to hold myself to a higher standard to be aware that if I was rash or didn't think about my actions that I could kill another person.

I for never want to be in a position where I would have to shoot or kill anyone and I find that when I am carrying I actually try to avoid volatile situations.

 

[JamesE]

Revolvers are much better suited to self defense than semi-automatic weapons.

I have no issue at all with revolvers, know alot of folks that carry them. But personally in a gunfight I perfer my 18 rounds in a firearm instead of 5 or 6. And if need be I can change out for another 17 round mag in about 2 seconds.

 

[Blues Man]

I have no issue at all with revolvers, know alot of folks that carry them. But personally in a gunfight I perfer my 18 rounds in a firearm instead of 5 or 6. And if need be I can change out for another 17 round mag in about 2 seconds.

I don't care for revolvers

 

[JamesE]

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.

I take it you never took any training with a firearm. I say this because there is not a training course anywhere that I have taken or seen on video that suggests you try to shoot anyone in the leg. Are you kidding me? If you are in enough danger to have to shot them, you shot to stop them. Someone shot in a leg can kill you. Also, shooting a warning shot over someones head is a good way to go to jail. If you are not in enough precieved danger that you can shoot a warning shot you do not need to be shooting at all. You are not in immediate danger of death of injury. If you are in immediate danger you need to shoot center mass and keep shooting untill they stop being a threat.

 

[JamesE]

I don't care for revolvers

I like them in the respect that there ia alot less things to go wrong when you need it. If you have a misfire, just pull the trigger again. But if you have a good quality semi, do regular maintance on it, and use high quality ammo very rarely will you have a issue. Over the years I have put many many 1000's of rounds through my carry gun (through training and USPSA and IDPA matches) and have never had a issue.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

It's unfortunate that we can't shoot or kill for property crime in Ohio. I never harmed a person in my life outside of fighting when I was a kid. But I always remember what my father told me. He's a Korean war vet. He will talk about his time in the service and the countries he stayed in, but he never discussed war.

The only time he talked briefly about war is when he told me killing somebody is not like you see on television or the movies. If you have to do it in real life, it's not Bang--Oww. It's a feeling you never forget; a feeling you wished you never had to experience, a feeling you remember for the rest of your life. It doesn't matter if the other guy was trying to kill you or not.

If I have to travel in this city after dark, I take my gun with me. But when I strap that thing on, I always remember what my father said to me about killing another human being.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

YEppers, that would be fun. You could just get a job as a Walgreens clerk and shoot shoplifters.

Shop lifters are stealing from the store, not stealing from you. Apples and oranges.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

IMO there is no thing I own that is worth dying for so it's also not worth killing for.

IMO anyone that wishes he could shoot people is not a person to be trusted with a gun.

I probably wouldn't either. I make sure everything I own inside and outside my house is insured. But other people would shoot and kill without thinking about it, and a criminal doesn't know if I'm one of those other people.

We have so many car robberies around here where they end up stealing a gun out of the car, and that's more illegal guns on the street.