• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

good for her. old lady shoots punk kid

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,317
Reaction score
15,237
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Shooting him in the arm? Are you smoking something?? Really? Do you think shooters, amateurs at that, are accurate? You're dreamin'. The kid threw a brick, hit her in the chest. She ready-aimed-fired and hit the creep. She was lucky she hit anything -- much less that she was actually aiming at his arm. One lucky jerk, if you ask me.
Yes, the kid is lucky. But if she had meant to kill him she could have kept shooting and pumped him full of holes until he was dead. But she didn't. And how do you know she didn't know how to use or shoot a gun? The article said nothing about her expertise or experience with a gun, only that she had one and she shot the boy in the arm and if you ask me, that's pretty damn good shooting.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,317
Reaction score
15,237
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why shoot him in the arm? Why not just shoot the brick out of his hand and send him on his way?:lamo
I doubt that would have stopped the little brat from picking up another brick. Besides, I didn't say she was Annie Oakley, only that it was a good shot and that wounding him was all that was neccessary. But others here are talking like deadly force is the only way to use a gun, it isn't. Aiming for the extremities can be just as effective.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I doubt that would have stopped the little brat from picking up another brick. Besides, I didn't say she was Annie Oakley, only that it was a good shot and that wounding him was all that was neccessary. But others here are talking like deadly force is the only way to use a gun, it isn't. Aiming for the extremities can be just as effective.

I seriously doubt that this 68 year old lady was a former military sniper. unless you have lots and lots and lots and lots of training and practice, a handgun is not really that accurate at any distance over about 20 feet. you've watched too many movies and TV shows where guys shoot quarters out of the air.

with most handguns, you aim center mass and hope you hit the target.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,661
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Yes, the kid is lucky. But if she had meant to kill him she could have kept shooting and pumped him full of holes until he was dead. But she didn't. And how do you know she didn't know how to use or shoot a gun? The article said nothing about her expertise or experience with a gun, only that she had one and she shot the boy in the arm and if you ask me, that's pretty damn good shooting.

I don't know that she wasn't an expert marksman. But I'm willing to make that assumption. She shot in their direction. Hit one in the arm. Don't know how many shots she fired. You know....because? It wasn't "pretty damn good shooting." It was pretty damn lucky. For the boy -- and for her. This story might have had a completely different ending had she accidentally shot him in the head.

I doubt that would have stopped the little brat from picking up another brick. Besides, I didn't say she was Annie Oakley, only that it was a good shot and that wounding him was all that was neccessary. But others here are talking like deadly force is the only way to use a gun, it isn't. Aiming for the extremities can be just as effective.

I can assure you that if I'm in fear of my life, I'm not only not aiming for an extremity, but I'll come close to emptying my gun. If this woman only fired one shot, she did it as a warning. She probably didn't even intend to hit him.

I seriously doubt that this 68 year old lady was a former military sniper. unless you have lots and lots and lots and lots of training and practice, a handgun is not really that accurate at any distance over about 20 feet. you've watched too many movies and TV shows where guys shoot quarters out of the air.

with most handguns, you aim center mass and hope you hit the target.

Right on target! (Oops, sorry.)
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,536
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Oh man, I totally disagree with that statement, especially considering it was a kid she was shooting at. If the threat can be minimized or stopped by disabling instead of killing then that is the right action to take in all circumstances. After all, we're not talking about war here, we're talking about an unruly boy.

If someone decides to point a gun at someone and fire it, the only goal they should have is to shoot to kill. Now there is some debate on the value of firing a warning shot, but those should not be pointed at a person.

But if you are shooting at a person, you shoot with intent to kill every time. If you don't have that intent, the gun should never, ever, be pointed at another person.

I'm saying that shooting with intent to wound is immoral.

Shooting with the intent to wound, and accidentally killing is worse than shooting with intent to kill and accidentally wounding.
 
Last edited:

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Not a fan of warning shots. Your warning was when I told you to leave. :prof


If I pull a gun, it's because I intend to use it.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,536
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Not a fan of warning shots. Your warning was when I told you to leave. :prof


If I pull a gun, it's because I intend to use it.


:prof Technically, a warning shot is using a gun.

And as I said, there is debate on the use of warning shots. But there is no real debate with people who use firearms that if you point a gun at someone, the intent is to kill them with it, not wound them. If someone does not intend to kill a person, they have no business pointing a gun at that person. Ever. That shouldn't even be questioned, IMO.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
:prof Technically, a warning shot is using a gun.

And as I said, there is debate on the use of warning shots. But there is no real debate with people who use firearms that if you point a gun at someone, the intent is to kill them with it, not wound them. If someone does not intend to kill a person, they have no business pointing a gun at that person. Ever. That shouldn't even be questioned, IMO.

Not much of a warning in my case. :lol: it would be like telling somoene I will hit them as I'm smacking em across the face. :lol:


We harp in training about only pointing the weapon at things you intend to destroy. We change the safety protocol to this and it seems to help set the mentality of the task.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
:prof Technically, a warning shot is using a gun.

And as I said, there is debate on the use of warning shots. But there is no real debate with people who use firearms that if you point a gun at someone, the intent is to kill them with it, not wound them. If someone does not intend to kill a person, they have no business pointing a gun at that person. Ever. That shouldn't even be questioned, IMO.


bingo. warning shots were forbidden while I was in Iraq. the "warning shot" is showing them you are holding a weapon, if they don't back off you plug 'em.
 

BDBoop

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
9,800
Reaction score
2,719
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I thought I already admitted I was mistaken.

I was mistaken. Any chance we can cancel the rest of the posts informing me I was mistaken?
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I thought I already admitted I was mistaken.

I was mistaken. Any chance we can cancel the rest of the posts informing me I was mistaken?

FWIW...you were mistaken
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,536
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
bingo. warning shots were forbidden while I was in Iraq. the "warning shot" is showing them you are holding a weapon, if they don't back off you plug 'em.

In situations where a person is likely to have a firearm of their own, a warning shot is a wasted bullet that will only get a firing response, IMO. BAsically, the liklihood is that a warning shot in these situations will receive a real shot in response, and thus warning shots should be forbidden.


But in situations where the person is not likely to be in possesion of a firearm, the value of warning shots could exist. I wouldn't say that warnign shots have any value in a war zone like Iraq, and they should be forbidden in those situations.

But this issue is a civilian with rocks being thrown at her house, which is a little different. But then the issue of a warning shot becomes the risk to bystanders in an urban environment.
 

OscarB63

Farts in Elevators
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
26,526
Reaction score
9,462
Location
Alabama
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In situations where a person is likely to have a firearm of their own, a warning shot is a wasted bullet that will only get a firing response, IMO. BAsically, the liklihood is that a warning shot in these situations will receive a real shot in response, and thus warning shots should be forbidden.


But in situations where the person is not likely to be in possesion of a firearm, the value of warning shots could exist. I wouldn't say that warnign shots have any value in a war zone like Iraq, and they should be forbidden in those situations.

But this issue is a civilian with rocks being thrown at her house, which is a little different. But then the issue of a warning shot becomes the risk to bystanders in an urban environment.

ergo...warning shots should be forbidden. even if you shoot straight up into the air, the bullet has to come down somewhere and probably at a pretty decent terminal velocity.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
ergo...warning shots should be forbidden. even if you shoot straight up into the air, the bullet has to come down somewhere and probably at a pretty decent terminal velocity.



We used to have this problem in Albuquerque, the hispanic folk would shoot thier pistoles in the air at certain fiestas.... a flap would ensue. :lol:
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In situations where a person is likely to have a firearm of their own, a warning shot is a wasted bullet that will only get a firing response, IMO. BAsically, the liklihood is that a warning shot in these situations will receive a real shot in response, and thus warning shots should be forbidden.


But in situations where the person is not likely to be in possesion of a firearm, the value of warning shots could exist. I wouldn't say that warnign shots have any value in a war zone like Iraq, and they should be forbidden in those situations.

But this issue is a civilian with rocks being thrown at her house, which is a little different. But then the issue of a warning shot becomes the risk to bystanders in an urban environment.



How are you sure the other person is not concealing his own firearm? If you brandish yours and he then continues to be an agressor, your spidey senses should be tingling.

What if that warning shot "jams", etc.... You just dun gave up your upper hand. ;)
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,536
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
How are you sure the other person is not concealing his own firearm? If you brandish yours and he then continues to be an agressor, your spidey senses should be tingling.

What if that warning shot "jams", etc.... You just dun gave up your upper hand. ;)

Concealment would go into the equation for determining "likely" to have a firearm. For there to even be consideration of a warning shot, a non-concealed firearm could not be present. If one fires a warning shot in teh presence of a know firearm, they are asking to be shot.

I don't necessarily think spidey senses are required for that determination of likelihood of concealment.

And if the gun jams, that is a potential consequence of choosing a warning shot, which also must be factored into the equation. Generally, a warning shot shouldn't even be considered unless someone is fairly certain a warning shot alone will help them achieve the goal that they desire. i.e. it shouldn't be used in situations where one reasonably expects that the warning shot will not instantly gain the desired response (i.e. the threat runs like hell).
 
Last edited:

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Concealment would go into the equation for determining "likely" to have a firearm. For there to even be consideration of a warning shot, a non-concealed firearm could not be present. If one fires a warning shot in teh presence of a know firearm, they are asking to be shot.


that seems like a lot of speculation. As I've stated before over and over again, you have the rest of your life to win a gunfight. i think tipping your hand on assumptions is not indicated in any scenario.


I don't necessarily think spidey senses are required for that determination of likelihood of concealment.


Well, guy could be armed, on drugs, or maybe just real horny for you. you don't know.


rest of your life, gun fight.......



And if the gun jams, that is a potential consequence of choosing a warning shot, which also must be factored into the equation. Generally, a warning shot shouldn't even be considered unless someone is fairly certain a warning shot alone will help them achieve the goal that they desire. i.e. it shouldn't be used in situations where one reasonably expects that the warning shot will not instantly gain the desired response (i.e. the threat runs like hell).


Which unless you are in the mind of an agressor, how do you know. If brandishing said weapon is not enough of an impetus to cause the agressor to egress the situation, the opinion that a warning shot will, are in my opinion, left wanting.
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,536
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
that seems like a lot of speculation. As I've stated before over and over again, you have the rest of your life to win a gunfight. i think tipping your hand on assumptions is not indicated in any scenario.

It's no more speculative than assuming that they are carrying concealed and acting accordingly. You should know already that emotionally-charged catchphrases like "you have the rest of your life to win a gunfight" don't do much for me, Rev. First time I saw it I fond it slightly humorous, now it's just old. It isn't nearly as profound as you may think.

Because if the other person doesn't have a gun, you were never in a gunfight. You just shot someone. I can go around pretending I'm in gunfights all day long by just going around shooting people, it won't mean I was in a gunfight.

If someone is incapable of making smart and calculated decisions about the situation they find themselves in, they really shouldn't be in possesion of a gun. This is because without the ability to make intelligent choices, they are more of a danger to themselves and those around them than they are to actual threats.

Now, generally, I don't think warning shots should be issued at all. But there may arise a situation where it is the best option available. I think it is folly to eliminate it as a potential resource simply because one really really likes pithy catchphrases.


Well, guy could be armed, on drugs, or maybe just real horny for you. you don't know.

If someone is not capable of assessing the situation, they probably shouldn't possess a gun. I'm not saying there should be a legal prohibition, but if they cannot accurately recognize the level of threat they are facing, they are not going to be safe to themselves or others while they wield their firearm.


rest of your life, gun fight.......

Shooting someone who does not have a gun is not a gunfight.


Which unless you are in the mind of an agressor, how do you know. If brandishing said weapon is not enough of an impetus to cause the agressor to egress the situation, the opinion that a warning shot will, are in my opinion, left wanting.

I'm assuming that there is little to no time between the brandishment of the weapon and the firing of the weapon. In fact, you are contradicting yourself here, rev. Did you not say "If I pull a gun, it's because I intend to use it."

Waving it about ain't using it. If I pull a gun, as a civilian, it will be fired. I would never point a gun at someone and not fire it. I'm not a cop or a soldier. I'm not making a movie. Therefore, I have no legitimate reason to have my gun out and not fire it.

So the theory behind a warning shot would be a visual and auditory cue to get the **** out of dodge for an aggressor when you are fairly confident the aggressor is not carrying a firearm of his own. Granted, I probably wouldn't use it myself, but I would not automatically exclude it as a possible action simply because I feel that the situation it would be useful in is unlikely.

The general rule of thumb I have is that if I'm pulling a gun, it's going to be fired, and if I'm pulling a gun, I'm in deadly danger and no warning shot would occur. But I do not automatically exclude the potential situation where a warning shot might be the best tactic.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It's no more speculative than assuming that they are carrying concealed and acting accordingly. You should know already that emotionally-charged catchphrases like "you have the rest of your life to win a gunfight" don't do much for me, Rev. First time I saw it I fond it slightly humorous, now it's just old. It isn't nearly as profound as you may think.

Because if the other person doesn't have a gun, you were never in a gunfight. You just shot someone. I can go around pretending I'm in gunfights all day long by just going around shooting people, it won't mean I was in a gunfight.


Ahh, it's not as profound as you simply are not catching on. If you one party has a gun, you or the other person, you are indeed in a gun fight. And no that does not mean shooting people everywhere or what not, but rather, one must understand the gravity of the situation, if you are reluctant to shoot someone and instead think "oh, I'll shoot to wound" or "I'll fire a warning shot", these are cop outs on the hard decisions that need to be made when one chooses to arm themselves. If you are not willing to without reservation pull and fire your weapon at a threat to your life until that threat is stopped, one should take stock as to why and if they should be carrying.



If someone is incapable of making smart and calculated decisions about the situation they find themselves in, they really shouldn't be in possesion of a gun. This is because without the ability to make intelligent choices, they are more of a danger to themselves and those around them than they are to actual threats.

:lamo Teach me to start typing before reading your whole post. :lol:


But I will say this, introducing a gun to an altercation is when the life and death decision should be made. Not hesitation of "warning shots" or "shooting to wound" obviously I am of the belief that the tool has one specific purpose, scaring is not one of them. (well I did scare off a bear once.... )



Now, generally, I don't think warning shots should be issued at all. But there may arise a situation where it is the best option available. I think it is folly to eliminate it as a potential resource simply because one really really likes pithy catchphrases.


But it's a great "catch phrase"..... absorb it.... carress it, make it your bitch. :mrgreen:



If someone is not capable of assessing the situation, they probably shouldn't possess a gun. I'm not saying there should be a legal prohibition, but if they cannot accurately recognize the level of threat they are facing, they are not going to be safe to themselves or others while they wield their firearm.


Absolutley, this woman assessed correctly in my opinion, her mistake was "Warning shots"...

See legally another issue with "shooting to wound" or "warning shots" is it shows that one does not believe that lethal force was needed at that time, and therefore opens the door to prosecutor shennenigans of "attempted murder", and "attempted manslaughter" charges... I have a link somewhere that goes into this deeply.



Shooting someone who does not have a gun is not a gunfight.


Sure it is.... See it's deeper than you think.

That brick throwing savage was in a gun fight, he just didn't notice.





I'm assuming that there is little to no time between the brandishment of the weapon and the firing of the weapon. In fact, you are contradicting yourself here, rev. Did you not say "If I pull a gun, it's because I intend to use it."


Identify threat, draw, aim, shout to desist stop, etc, if fails, shoot center mass until threat is eliminated, assess for more threats.



Waving it about ain't using it. If I pull a gun, as a civilian, it will be fired. I would never point a gun at someone and not fire it. I'm not a cop or a soldier. I'm not making a movie. Therefore, I have no legitimate reason to have my gun out and not fire it.

ok.... :confused:



So the theory behind a warning shot would be a visual and auditory cue to get the **** out of dodge for an aggressor when you are fairly confident the aggressor is not carrying a firearm of his own. Granted, I probably wouldn't use it myself, but I would not automatically exclude it as a possible action simply because I feel that the situation it would be useful in is unlikely.


Pointing at the young gentleman and stating to drop the brick, 3,2,1, click, is all the "warning" needed.



The general rule of thumb I have is that if I'm pulling a gun, it's going to be fired, and if I'm pulling a gun, I'm in deadly danger and no warning shot would occur. But I do not automatically exclude the potential situation where a warning shot might be the best tactic.



I can see this position.
 
Last edited:

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,536
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
See legally another issue with "shooting to wound" or "warning shots" is it shows that one does not believe that lethal force was needed at that time, and therefore opens the door to prosecutor shennenigans of "attempted murder", and "attempted manslaughter" charges... I have a link somewhere that goes into this deeply.

Essentially we are agreeing with each other (except that I think that a gunfight requires two or more guns). In general, if you think a warning shot is necessary, then the situation doesn't really call for lethal force. But I would say that it is possible that there can exist situations where lethal force is not required, but the only option available is a warning shot.

Since this woman was attempting to fire a warning shot, I have to say that she is both a **** shot and that she shouldn't have been firing the weapon at all.

This was not a situation I would say fell into the potential warning shot category. It was either shoot to kill or don't shoot at all. She failed to do either of those.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Essentially we are agreeing with each other (except that I think that a gunfight requires two or more guns). In general, if you think a warning shot is necessary, then the situation doesn't really call for lethal force. But I would say that it is possible that there can exist situations where lethal force is not required, but the only option available is a warning shot.

Since this woman was attempting to fire a warning shot, I have to say that she is both a **** shot and that she shouldn't have been firing the weapon at all.

This was not a situation I would say fell into the potential warning shot category. It was either shoot to kill or don't shoot at all. She failed to do either of those.


I basically agree. Where i diverge is that if you feel you need to fire a warning shot, it's at the level where you shouldn't....
 

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,536
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I basically agree. Where i diverge is that if you feel you need to fire a warning shot, it's at the level where you shouldn't....

I'm thinking of situations where it isn't at a level where lethal force is necessary but no other options exist for the person but a warning shot.

I would say they are very unlikely situations, but I am assuming that they are possible.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm thinking of situations where it isn't at a level where lethal force is necessary but no other options exist for the person but a warning shot.

I would say they are very unlikely situations, but I am assuming that they are possible.



The Good Reverend's warning shots are usually two in the chest and one in the head..... :prof ;)
 
Top Bottom