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.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.
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.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.
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 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.
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.
Not a fan of warning shots. Your warning was when I told you to leave.rof
If I pull a gun, it's because I intend to use it.
rof 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.
rof 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Well, guy could be armed, on drugs, or maybe just real horny for you. you don't know.
rest of your life, gun fight.......
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.
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.
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.
Shooting someone who does not have a gun is not a gunfight.
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.
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.
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.
The Good Reverend's warning shots are usually two in the chest and one in the head.....rof
The Good Reverend's warning shots are usually two in the chest and one in the head.....rof
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?