Florida Explanding 'Stand Your Ground' Law So You Can Fire A Warning Shot!

[Wildman]

It is ridiculous that they even think they have the authority to grant us "permission" to fire ANY kind of shot, warning or otherwise, in a life-threatening situation. If someone's trying to harm me or someone I'm shooting them until the threat is over.




Florida Expanding 'Stand Your Ground' Law

I would never fire a warning shot.

Same here. If someone is pointing a gun at me, and demanding my money, I would be toast if I even considered firing a warning shot. The strategy would be to not let the gunner know that I have a gun. With the element of surprise, and as soon as he is distracted, I would draw my gun and neutralize him so he isn't a threat anymore.

you are joking.., RIGHT ?? if a criminal is pointing a gun at you, chances are he will not be distracted, if by some chance he is distracted you will still get shot as soon as he sees you are making a move, you will end up dead or severly wounded.

 

[Wildman]

Firing a warning shot doesn't mean no one will be hurt. The person you are warning might be hurt, but someone ten miles away might be killed from your bullet.

Really? Ten miles away? Where can I get a gun that fires ten miles? I'll bet that recoil is a *****

22 LR can travel up to 2 miles
30-06 can go up to 3 miles
50 caliber up to 5.

Some big bore guns like the .900 NE, who ******* knows?

That is not 'effective range' just how far the bullet can travel whether ballisticly stable or not.

a 16 inch Naval gun can fire a 2,000 lb. (one ton) round up to 25 miles.., this kind of warning shot alone would kill the perp ...

 

[Immanuel]

Could I just shoot them in the leg and call that their warning?

I'm not an expert, but I always learned that if you are going to pull the trigger, shoot to kill.

Immie

Well, shoot to 'stop them'; their health being a tertiary matter.

Way I see it is unless you are within arms reach if you aim for the arms or legs you are more likely to miss and never get a second chance to defend yourself. Aim for the biggest mass ie the chest. If you only wound, but disable your attacker, so much the better, but at least you are alive.

Immie

 

[Jughead]

I would never fire a warning shot.

Same here. If someone is pointing a gun at me, and demanding my money, I would be toast if I even considered firing a warning shot. The strategy would be to not let the gunner know that I have a gun. With the element of surprise, and as soon as he is distracted, I would draw my gun and neutralize him so he isn't a threat anymore.

you are joking.., RIGHT ?? if a criminal is pointing a gun at you, chances are he will not be distracted, if by some chance he is distracted you will still get shot as soon as he sees you are making a move, you will end up dead or severly wounded.

Of course you don't do anything until the criminal has been distracted. There have been many cases where convenience store owners were able to take down armed criminals who were pointing guns at them.

 

[LeadRoundNose]

I'm not an expert, but I always learned that if you are going to pull the trigger, shoot to kill.

Immie

Well, shoot to 'stop them'; their health being a tertiary matter.

Way I see it is unless you are within arms reach if you aim for the arms or legs you are more likely to miss and never get a second chance to defend yourself. Aim for the biggest mass ie the chest. If you only wound, but disable your attacker, so much the better, but at least you are alive.

Immie

High center mass to be exact. Double tap w/.357 magnum jacketed hollow points. End of story.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm not an expert, but I always learned that if you are going to pull the trigger, shoot to kill.

Immie

Well, shoot to 'stop them'; their health being a tertiary matter.

Way I see it is unless you are within arms reach if you aim for the arms or legs you are more likely to miss and never get a second chance to defend yourself. Aim for the biggest mass ie the chest. If you only wound, but disable your attacker, so much the better, but at least you are alive.

Immie

Agreed, but the terms you use can kill YOU in court.

It is never 'I decided to kill him.' It should always be 'I tried to stop him from harming me, and he unfortunately died from the impact.'

 

[LeadRoundNose]

Well, shoot to 'stop them'; their health being a tertiary matter.

Way I see it is unless you are within arms reach if you aim for the arms or legs you are more likely to miss and never get a second chance to defend yourself. Aim for the biggest mass ie the chest. If you only wound, but disable your attacker, so much the better, but at least you are alive.

Immie

Agreed, but the terms you use can kill YOU in court.

It is never 'I decided to kill him.' It should always be 'I tried to stop him from harming me, and he unfortunately died from the impact.'

You don't even add the commentary I highlighted although I know you know this. It's simply, I wanted to stop him/her. End of story. If you have to fire multiple shots to stop, then the answer to the prosecutor is that the perp didn't stop with one shot.

It wouldn't be my fault that it took 6 shots to make the perp stop. Some of these ferals get all pumped up on drugs, they don't go down with a single shot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Firing a warning shot doesn't mean no one will be hurt. The person you are warning might be hurt, but someone ten miles away might be killed from your bullet.

10 miles?
I can't really imagine an instance when I might use my 20mm Lahti for senf-defense, but I suppose it is possible.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Warning shote are. generally, ill-advised -- if you have a right to fire one to warn away the pernon(s) in question, then you have a right to shoot the person(s) outright. Generally, this is the better idea.

BUT... in self-defense, we seek to diffuse the situation withouth killing someone; in that, you could argue that warnng shot is appropriate.

Me? I have 7+1 rounds in the gun, so I'm going to make them all count.

 

[Wildman]

Same here. If someone is pointing a gun at me, and demanding my money, I would be toast if I even considered firing a warning shot. The strategy would be to not let the gunner know that I have a gun. With the element of surprise, and as soon as he is distracted, I would draw my gun and neutralize him so he isn't a threat anymore.

you are joking.., RIGHT ?? if a criminal is pointing a gun at you, chances are he will not be distracted, if by some chance he is distracted you will still get shot as soon as he sees you are making a move, you will end up dead or severly wounded.

Of course you don't do anything until the criminal has been distracted. There have been many cases where convenience store owners were able to take down armed criminals who were pointing guns at them.

that may be true.., BUT !, "If someone is pointing a gun at me, and demanding my money," i was presuming the scenario was an in the shadows, poorly lit street, sidewalk hold up, the thief has chosen his spot well and will not be distracted, unless of course a UFO lands and E.T. steps out and blasts the crook with his evaporation ray gun.

 

[LeadRoundNose]

you are joking.., RIGHT ?? if a criminal is pointing a gun at you, chances are he will not be distracted, if by some chance he is distracted you will still get shot as soon as he sees you are making a move, you will end up dead or severly wounded.

Of course you don't do anything until the criminal has been distracted. There have been many cases where convenience store owners were able to take down armed criminals who were pointing guns at them.

that may be true.., BUT !, "If someone is pointing a gun at me, and demanding my money," i was presuming the scenario was an in the shadows, poorly lit street, sidewalk hold up, the thief has chosen his spot well and will not be distracted, unless of course a UFO lands and E.T. steps out and blasts the crook with his evaporation ray gun.

Or his light saber....lol

 

[Noomi]

It is ridiculous that they even think they have the authority to grant us "permission" to fire ANY kind of shot, warning or otherwise, in a life-threatening situation. If someone's trying to harm me or someone I'm shooting them until the threat is over.




Florida Expanding 'Stand Your Ground' Law

Yes, because someone who enters your property without permission is obviously trying to break in and kill you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is ridiculous that they even think they have the authority to grant us "permission" to fire ANY kind of shot, warning or otherwise, in a life-threatening situation. If someone's trying to harm me or someone I'm shooting them until the threat is over.




Florida Expanding 'Stand Your Ground' Law

Yes, because someone who enters your property without permission is obviously trying to break in and kill you.

And where did Steve say that merely entering his property was a 'life threatening situation'?

 

[LeadRoundNose]

It is ridiculous that they even think they have the authority to grant us "permission" to fire ANY kind of shot, warning or otherwise, in a life-threatening situation. If someone's trying to harm me or someone I'm shooting them until the threat is over.




Florida Expanding 'Stand Your Ground' Law

Yes, because someone who enters your property without permission is obviously trying to break in and kill you.

Don't fret Noomi you can always piss yourself. Shit yourself too in order to be REALLY safe.

 

[Faun]

Wait, a Republican correcting a law that wrongly sent a black woman to prison for 20 years? Something isn't right here.

She likely would have been charged anyway, even if this law had been in place at the time since she wasn't actually "standing her ground." During a fight with her abusive husband, she ran into her garage to fetch her gun; then went back inside the house to scare him by firing a warning shot.

That doesn't sound like stand your ground to me.

 

[OriginalShroom]

It is ridiculous that they even think they have the authority to grant us "permission" to fire ANY kind of shot, warning or otherwise, in a life-threatening situation. If someone's trying to harm me or someone I'm shooting them until the threat is over.




Florida Expanding 'Stand Your Ground' Law

Yes, because someone who enters your property without permission is obviously trying to break in and kill you.

Anyone who enters my house between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am risks being greeted by a 9mm.

 

[LeadRoundNose]

It is ridiculous that they even think they have the authority to grant us "permission" to fire ANY kind of shot, warning or otherwise, in a life-threatening situation. If someone's trying to harm me or someone I'm shooting them until the threat is over.




Florida Expanding 'Stand Your Ground' Law

Yes, because someone who enters your property without permission is obviously trying to break in and kill you.

Anyone who enters my house between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am risks being greeted by a 9mm.

9 mm is effective. I keep a loaded .357 seven shot revolver, a loaded .40 caliber semi-auto with a chambered round by my bedside and a .40caliber semi-auto carbine in the corner plus a Bowie knife. The handguns and knife are within arm's reach and the carbine is a couple steps away. Within a few seconds I can have 27 rounds and the knife to defend the family.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wait, a Republican correcting a law that wrongly sent a black woman to prison for 20 years? Something isn't right here.

She likely would have been charged anyway, even if this law had been in place at the time since she wasn't actually "standing her ground." During a fight with her abusive husband, she ran into her garage to fetch her gun; then went back inside the house to scare him by firing a warning shot.

That doesn't sound like stand your ground to me.

Woman sentenced to 20 years for firing ?warning shot? released in Florida ? RT USA

Before her conviction, Alexander argued that she fired the gun in self-defense and attempted to invoke Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” clause, which permits individuals to use deadly force in order to protect themselves. Alexander had an active restraining order against her husband, Rico Gray, who had also previously been convicted of domestic violence against her. She claimed Gray was physically and emotionally abusing her before she fired the gun.

Read somewhere this husband was over 6' tall, weighed 245 pounds and was convicted previously of domestic violence on his 5'2" wife. He also had a the restraining order he was violating.

The woman had every right to go and get her gun and try to scare the son of a ***** away.

He is lucky she wasn't one of the women in my family or he would be dead now.

There is no obligation to retreat from one's home either, and once she got her gun to defend herself she had every right to return to her home and no obligation to leave the house. So when Mr Asshole started to bully her again, she had every moral right to fire, **** the law.

That judge is an idiot and no wonder the trial is being redone.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes, because someone who enters your property without permission is obviously trying to break in and kill you.

Anyone who enters my house between the hours of 10 pm and 5 am risks being greeted by a 9mm.

9 mm is effective. I keep a loaded .357 seven shot revolver, a loaded .40 caliber semi-auto with a chambered round by my bedside and a .40caliber semi-auto carbine in the corner plus a Bowie knife. The handguns and knife are within arm's reach and the carbine is a couple steps away. Within a few seconds I can have 27 rounds and the knife to defend the family.

Lol, same here; loaded 12 guage, 45 ACP, and two Bowies and a machete all within reach.

 

[tinydancer]

Ok there is a reason they called these houses a shot gun shack. Or a reason you could make it a draw and kill someone running out the back door.

Think give me "three steps mister".