A hypothetical for you to judge: Likely or Unlikely?

[Ikari]

I agree. I also think that many people would make this mistake... they would make the mistake of pulling without justification. How do we allow people to carry guns without making that mistake?

You don't. Freedom is dangerous and some people are going to abuse it and others will **** up, and those are just the repercussions of freedom.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I agree. I also think that many people would make this mistake... they would make the mistake of pulling without justification. How do we allow people to carry guns without making that mistake?

How do we allow people to drive cars, without making mistakes.
People make mistakes in cars every hour if not more frequent. But we keep giving out DLs and selling cars.

 

[Lutherf]

I agree. I also think that many people would make this mistake... they would make the mistake of pulling without justification. How do we allow people to carry guns without making that mistake?

Why would you possibly think that? Millions of Americans walk around armed every day without this warped scenario happening. When it does happen it's almost exclusively tied to turf wars by gang members. What the hell makes you think that otherwise normal people will start going off the deep end just because they're armed?

 

[LaMidRighter]

I haven't posted in the gun control threads before tonight. I don't know what particulars people have been discussing. The "perceived threat" is particularly interesting to me. I understood that threats are defined. They are not up to the individual's perception/determination.

Perception of a threat is a gray area. A woman walking down a dark alley is more likely to percieve a stranger's request for sex as a threat than if it happens in a business establishment in broad daylight, then there are no doubt situations where a person states their intent, in such manners as "I am going to beat your ass" or "Get into the car, I'm not joking", or in the case of a carjacking the intent is clear.

"I perceived a threat," said the armed sentry.
"What threat?" said the commanding officer.
"That he was going to physically attack me," said the sentry.
"But he was 40 yards away, walking slowly and had no visible weapon," said the CO.
"But he was cursing at me and looking at me angrily."
"So? That is no justification to pull your gun."
"But I perceived that it was."

Plenty of friendly fire incidents started with a miscommunication. In the case of the above hypothetical, training more than likely would be a factor in a disciplinary hearing, and honestly, one would have to be pretty stupid to issue a threat at or under 40yds. to a trained military professional.

Does this dialogue apply to our discussion?

Sure, but you are giving examples of a direct threat.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The only time you should ever draw your weapon is when there is a real and imminent threat to life. Perception that there might be danger is not enough, because death is permanent.

Perception is less protected than an imminent threat, however many defendents do win because of perception if they can prove duress and the facts bear it out. Case in point, a woman by herself accosted by a stranger will probably have a better chance with the right jury than a man over six feet and well over 200 lbs.

The defense is successful when the shooter can prove they felt that the threat was immenent, even if the facts later didn't bear it out, but that is a 50/50 that will always fall to which side the jury believes. If a perp gets shot and drops a weapon, it's pretty much a slam dunk defense.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Why would you possibly think that? Millions of Americans walk around armed every day without this warped scenario happening. When it does happen it's almost exclusively tied to turf wars by gang members. What the hell makes you think that otherwise normal people will start going off the deep end just because they're armed?

I usually have my firearm in my vehicle, and with the crappy and arrogant drivers in my city I average around 15 opportunities per drive to live up to the OPs example and pull a gun to "end the disagreement". I don't do that because 1) I'm not going to issue a lethal threat to someone unless I feel initially threatened, or should a third party innocent fall under imminent threat 2) It's irresponsible to threaten a person's life without a defined reason based upon grave threat and 3) It's just plain rude.

 

[Surtr]

Perception is less protected than an imminent threat, however many defendents do win because of perception if they can prove duress and the facts bear it out. Case in point, a woman by herself accosted by a stranger will probably have a better chance with the right jury than a man over six feet and well over 200 lbs.

The defense is successful when the shooter can prove they felt that the threat was immenent, even if the facts later didn't bear it out, but that is a 50/50 that will always fall to which side the jury believes. If a perp gets shot and drops a weapon, it's pretty much a slam dunk defense.

I'm aware of this, it's just that the hypotheticals given did not support justifiable reasons to believe a legitimate threat was present. To me, perceived threat means you still have time to avoid and evade the situation, and that the perception could be wrong. Imminent threat is when no other choice exists, but to use deadly force, and that's the only time the firearm should leave the holster. Imminent threat is when the situation has escalated beyond the point of reasoning, and that beyond any reasonable doubt, bad things are going to happen.

 

[Surtr]

I usually have my firearm in my vehicle, and with the crappy and arrogant drivers in my city I average around 15 opportunities per drive to live up to the OPs example and pull a gun to "end the disagreement". I don't do that because 1) I'm not going to issue a lethal threat to someone unless I feel initially threatened, or should a third party innocent fall under imminent threat 2) It's irresponsible to threaten a person's life without a defined reason based upon grave threat and 3) It's just plain rude.

I have a pistol or a longarm on me at all times, and never once have I unholstered or unslung any of them without a justified reason. I will (and have) talk myself out of a bad situation before drawing my weapon on someone.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I'm aware of this, it's just that the hypotheticals given did not support justifiable reasons to believe a legitimate threat was present. To me, perceived threat means you still have time to avoid and evade the situation, and that the perception could be wrong. Imminent threat is when no other choice exists, but to use deadly force, and that's the only time the firearm should leave the holster. Imminent threat is when the situation has escalated beyond the point of reasoning, and that beyond any reasonable doubt, bad things are going to happen.

Completely agree, I misread the hypothetical that you responded to as well, for some reason I was thinking that there was a situation where the "assailant's" status as to whether armed or unarmed was relatively unknown. Obviously, angry language does not rise to the same standard of threatening language or behavior. The entire original premise of this thread though is a long dead talking point, I can remember it used even since I was a child, and it never did bear out.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I have a pistol or a longarm on me at all times, and never once have I unholstered or unslung any of them without a justified reason. I will (and have) talk myself out of a bad situation before drawing my weapon on someone.

Same here. I've shown or declared three times in my life, all of them for a reason 1) A female friend(at the time) felt threatened by a very creepy male where she worked, he was showing stalk and prey behaviors when her place of employment closed. 2) Had a creepy dude eyeballing me for ten straight minutes while I was doing paperwork in my vehicle, guy had "rob at first opportunity" written all over his face. 3) A jackass that got out of his car because I wouldn't let him cut me off, he got back in when his buddy advised him I was reaching for a piece.

In all three of those an overt aggressive behavior was shown by the other guy.

 

[Surtr]

Completely agree, I misread the hypothetical that you responded to as well, for some reason I was thinking that there was a situation where the "assailant's" status as to whether armed or unarmed was relatively unknown. Obviously, angry language does not rise to the same standard of threatening language or behavior. The entire original premise of this thread though is a long dead talking point, I can remember it used even since I was a child, and it never did bear out.

It happens, but we are pretty much not authorized to fire unless fired upon unless there is some extenuating circumstance that puts lives in danger. One that comes to mind is spotting someone setting up an IED. It is preferred to capture those ones alive, though.

 

[LaMidRighter]

It happens, but we are pretty much not authorized to fire unless fired upon unless there is some extenuating circumstance that puts lives in danger. One that comes to mind is spotting someone setting up an IED. It is preferred to capture those ones alive, though.

Yep. I understand that as well, I can see wanting to avoid friendly fire incidents, as well as having some ROE issues on the international level, nothing looks worse to some "allies" like an unarmed shoot, even some of our politicians are soft spined like that. To what I bolded, I can see wanting an IED bomber captured, try to get info from them about supply chain, who sent them, who is instructing on production, and other relevant data.

 

[Jerry]

In this hypothetical, everyone will carry a gun and everyone will know that the other guy carries a gun. It will have been that way for a long enough time that people in society have adjusted to it, accepted it and take it for granted. Par for the course, status quo etc etc. Even if a person doesn't carry a gun, it will be reasonable to assume that like most others, he/she does carry a gun.

Now, if you and I are on the street having an argument, it might be prudent to pull my gun out first. I reasonable assume that you have one. You are a stranger. I don't want you to pull your gun. I just want to stop arguing. In other words, I got my gun out first, so please calm down.

I'm not out of control. I'm not irrational. I just want this to end peacefully and me getting my gun first is preferable in my mind to you getting your gun first.

But what if it doesn't end peacefully? What if you feel threatened enough by my gun (after all, you don't know my intentions) and you decide to reach for yours?

Seeing you reach for your gun and begin to raise it up to me, I may be justified in shooting you at that point (or would I?) Would you have been justified in reaching for your gun after I reached for mine? (Hell, yes in my opinion.)

Is this a likely scenario? If it's likely, is it likely to be frequent or likely to be rare? If it is unlikely, why? What changes would have to occur to allow us all to carry guns and yet prevent this scenario from happening frequently or even at all?

Some may argue that you shouldn't reach for your gun unless you intend to shoot it. Does that mean that me reaching for my gun --for the purpose of ending the argument before you reached for yours-- was the wrong choice? How many people do you think might make this wrong choice in the heat of an argument with a stranger who we can reasonably assume is carrying a gun?

It currently is perfectly socially acceptable to carry a pocket knife, even a large one. A lot of people do.

It is never acceptable to pull that knife to shut someone up in an argument.

Therefore it would not be acceptable to pull a gun on someone in your hypothetical, either.

I hope that helps.

 

[Surtr]

Yep. I understand that as well, I can see wanting to avoid friendly fire incidents, as well as having some ROE issues on the international level, nothing looks worse to some "allies" like an unarmed shoot, even some of our politicians are soft spined like that. To what I bolded, I can see wanting an IED bomber captured, try to get info from them about supply chain, who sent them, who is instructing on production, and other relevant data.

It really is a conflicting issue. Toward the end in Iraq, the cowardly insurgents would force regular jack offs to bury their IEDs. Farmers, shop keeps, even kids. The mission isn't to create a body count, it's to turn these people against terrorist organizations that do that kind of **** to people, and give them the tools they need to be successful. You don't get a people's support by letting Service Members go on rampages like those Blackwater peices of **** did over there, or that Sergeant in Afghan who wandered off and did his one man rendition of Mai Lai.

 

[LaMidRighter]

It really is a conflicting issue. Toward the end in Iraq, the cowardly insurgents would force regular jack offs to bury their IEDs. Farmers, shop keeps, even kids. The mission isn't to create a body count, it's to turn these people against terrorist organizations that do that kind of **** to people, and give them the tools they need to be successful. You don't get a people's support by letting Service Members go on rampages like those Blackwater peices of **** did over there, or that Sergeant in Afghan who wandered off and did his one man rendition of Mai Lai.

Can't find anything to disagree with here.

 

[polgara]

In this hypothetical, everyone will carry a gun and everyone will know that the other guy carries a gun. It will have been that way for a long enough time that people in society have adjusted to it, accepted it and take it for granted. Par for the course, status quo etc etc. Even if a person doesn't carry a gun, it will be reasonable to assume that like most others, he/she does carry a gun.

Now, if you and I are on the street having an argument, it might be prudent to pull my gun out first. I reasonable assume that you have one. You are a stranger. I don't want you to pull your gun. I just want to stop arguing. In other words, I got my gun out first, so please calm down.

I'm not out of control. I'm not irrational. I just want this to end peacefully and me getting my gun first is preferable in my mind to you getting your gun first.

But what if it doesn't end peacefully? What if you feel threatened enough by my gun (after all, you don't know my intentions) and you decide to reach for yours?

Seeing you reach for your gun and begin to raise it up to me, I may be justified in shooting you at that point (or would I?) Would you have been justified in reaching for your gun after I reached for mine? (Hell, yes in my opinion.)

Is this a likely scenario? If it's likely, is it likely to be frequent or likely to be rare? If it is unlikely, why? What changes would have to occur to allow us all to carry guns and yet prevent this scenario from happening frequently or even at all?

Some may argue that you shouldn't reach for your gun unless you intend to shoot it. Does that mean that me reaching for my gun --for the purpose of ending the argument before you reached for yours-- was the wrong choice? How many people do you think might make this wrong choice in the heat of an argument with a stranger who we can reasonably assume is carrying a gun?

My first thought was that you said you were already having an argument with someone. Most arguments, by definition, are not friendly. Pulling a gun is probably not the safest thing to do. If you were having a "discussion" that turned heated, worse yet, IMO, because you have now become the aggressor.

Greetings, USNavySquid. :2wave:


































Good evening, USNavySquid. :2wave: