Defensive Gun Use

[2aguy]

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 - PMC

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 ...

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.

This is all you need to see from that study........the test subjects used....

and had a greater frequency of prior arrest.

 

[2aguy]

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 - PMC

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 ...

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.

By robbery you mean one gang member trying to steal the drug stash of a rival gang member.......big difference...

 

[candycorn]

No......of the mere revealing of the gun causes the criminal to run away it was a defensive gun use

So how do you know that it prevented a violent crime?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The reason why we have thievery is because of pussies like you that are unwilling to show any backbone and deal with the assholes.

Libtard chickenshitism.

You are – as usual – wrong.

As already correctly noted: laws concerning the use of deadly force differ from state to state – to be ignorant of those laws is reckless and irresponsible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

There can be no such consensus, nor should there be.

That’s something unique to each individual, consistent with his own good conscience and his state’s laws governing the use of deadly force in self-defense.

I would use a gun in self-defense only when in physical contact with my attacker – predicated on state court cases where those who used a firearm in deadly self-defense, not in physical contact with their attackers, ended up charged, tried, and convicted of felony manslaughter.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

No one is going to get into a ‘gunfight’ – you’re not going to be involved in a protracted exchange of gunfire, taking cover behind a parked car, emptying one magazine after another.

That’s ridiculous.

In the real world a self-defense incident with a firearm lasts but a few seconds, with only one or two rounds discharged.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I agree

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

For once you and I agree. I have a CCW and would never even consider firing except in defense of life. I have produced a knife to deter a contact criminal from robbing me with a knife and wouldn’t hesitate to produce my pistol to deter a robbery or rape. But producing and firing are two very different things. Few criminals will attempt to consummate a crime against someone that they KNOW is armed. You don’t see gun shops and shooting ranges getting robbed very often.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Do you have to pull your gun out of its holster to have a defensive gun use?

Just displaying it by pulling your jacket away is a defensive gun use.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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 - PMC

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 ...

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’s pretty obviously a staged photo. I can’t conceive of anyone carrying four pistols. Even two is a stretch unless you are a cop and carry a hold-out gun.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.





NO.




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.

Property crimes are what I have insurance for. Shooting another person is a traumatic event and not one I would endure to keep something the insurance company will replace anyway.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

Y

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

For once you and I agree. I have a CCW and would never even consider firing except in defense of life. I have produced a knife to deter a contact criminal from robbing me with a knife and wouldn’t hesitate to produce my pistol to deter a robbery or rape. But producing and firing are two very different things. Few criminals will attempt to consummate a crime against someone that they KNOW is armed. You don’t see gun shops and shooting ranges getting robbed very often.

Not to mention most mass shootings take place where guns are restricted.

When our state was considering CCWs, I was in a debate in a local forum called Topix with an anti-CCW person. He asked why I wanted to see the law passed? I told him for many reasons, but one of them is because my mother never drove a car in her life. She liked to walk everywhere when possible. It always concerned me as the neighborhood was in decay.

He wrote back asking if the law was passed, would my elderly mother carry a gun? I told her no she wouldn't, but the criminal doesn't know that.

 

[candycorn]

Just displaying it by pulling your jacket away is a defensive gun use.

But you have to be threatened before you do it...right? Okay but how do you know you're preventing a "violent" crime?

 

[Batcat]

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.

Much depends on what state you live in.

I live in the Free State of Florida.

Is It Legal to Shoot an Intruder Who Enters My Home in Florida? - Fighter Law

Florida’s stand-your-ground laws allow residents to use shooting as a form of self-defense when their safety is in imminent danger.

www.fighterlaw.com

​

***snip***​

​

FLORIDA’S STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAW​

Under Florida’s stand-your-ground law, a person is able to use deadly force as self-defense if they reasonably believe that such force is required to save himself or another person from imminent death, bodily harm, or any harm caused by a forcible felony.

In accordance with Florida law, if the defendant was in their house or vehicle, the law presumes that they had a reasonable fear of imminent death, danger, or bodily harm. Furthermore, the person who unlawfully entered the defendant’s house by force is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit a crime that involves force or violence.

 

[Batcat]

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.

In many states killing a trespasser would be illegal. Do you live in such a state and if so how would you dispose of the body?

 

[2aguy]

So how do you know that it prevented a violent crime?

Well.....when the criminal comes up and says he is going to rob you, you display your gun, and they leave...that is a crime stopped...............

 

[Blues Man]

So how do you know that it prevented a violent crime?

That's one of the things I wanted to come to a consensus on.

We have to use the same definition of reasonableness.

I think a reasonable person should be able to , with a fairly high degree of accuracy, tell if a person is approaching them in a menacing vs a friendly way.

The reason I started this thread was in part to illustrate that surveys that attempt to quantify the number of DGUs don't really define the term.

The DoJ reported that about 1% of reported crimes involve a victims use of a gun in self defense. In that same report they also acknowledges that only about half of all crimes are reported. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

The number of DGUs was significantly higher than the number of murders and even though I really don't think the number of DGUs matters that fact alone should be enough for anyone to support the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Blues Man]

Well.....when the criminal comes up and says he is going to rob you, you display your gun, and they leave...that is a crime stopped...............

Exactly. I am skeptical of surveys that attempt to quantify DGUs because I am sure people call things a DGU even if it really wasn't. As I said earlier I don't think a guy waving a shotgun at a guy cutting through his yard as a DGU but I'm pretty sure that guy would report on a survey that it was.

 

[Blues Man]

Much depends on what state you live in.

I live in the Free State of Florida.

Is It Legal to Shoot an Intruder Who Enters My Home in Florida? - Fighter Law

Florida’s stand-your-ground laws allow residents to use shooting as a form of self-defense when their safety is in imminent danger.

www.fighterlaw.com

​

***snip***​

​

FLORIDA’S STAND-YOUR-GROUND LAW​

Under Florida’s stand-your-ground law, a person is able to use deadly force as self-defense if they reasonably believe that such force is required to save himself or another person from imminent death, bodily harm, or any harm caused by a forcible felony.

In accordance with Florida law, if the defendant was in their house or vehicle, the law presumes that they had a reasonable fear of imminent death, danger, or bodily harm. Furthermore, the person who unlawfully entered the defendant’s house by force is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit a crime that involves force or violence.

I already stipulated that it is a contact crime if you are home and a person forces entry.

Any reasonable person would conclude that his life and safety or the lives and safety of his family members were being threatened in that case.

I am more interested in some of the not so clear cut situations.

 

[rightwinger]

For once you and I agree. I have a CCW and would never even consider firing except in defense of life. I have produced a knife to deter a contact criminal from robbing me with a knife and wouldn’t hesitate to produce my pistol to deter a robbery or rape. But producing and firing are two very different things. Few criminals will attempt to consummate a crime against someone that they KNOW is armed. You don’t see gun shops and shooting ranges getting robbed very often.

I find most gun owners with a CCW are very responsible.
They receive training not only on safety but when not to use a gun and how to de-escalate a situation

I only wish all gun owners had to take such training