Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
I agree, I would never use a warning shot to ward off an attack. I have used pepper spray, and the boat horn when the dogs were aggressive but not full out charge.
Why "warning shots" are a no-go
- Thread starter Doug M.
- Start date
- Status
I agree, I would never use a warning shot to ward off an attack. I have used pepper spray, and the boat horn when the dogs were aggressive but not full out charge.
Your post was perfectly clear and I understood what you wrote. You were smart to change your position in this post.
He didn't change anything, it's just a semantic argument at this point, and thus isn't even particularly entertaining to popcorn over.
His reasoning is valid, however. A great many people carry with the idea that a gun is a talisman that Bad People are afraid of. The mistake is that Bad People don't think like law-abiding folk. Some are predatory, some aren't much afraid of anything, some are crazy, and some are stupid.
This is why you hear about people getting their guns taken off them, or being shot by an attacker they had at gunpoint. They thought that having a gun gave them control and protection, when in fact, it's the gun-carrier's preparedness and mindset that gives the weapon its defensive power.
Some people think, "Well, the chance of needing to defend myself is very low, but I still want to have a gun, so I'll carry one." Their reasoning--and the carry decisions they make based on it--is driven by the idea that they will not have to use their handgun. Ever since I realized people had that mindset, and started thinking about that position, the more bizarre it seems to me. I've heard it used to justify all manner of insane compromises--pistols carried in inaccessible ultra-deep-cover positions for no particular reason, empty chambers, comfortable holsters that can't be reliably drawn from, cheap and poorly-made gear...you name it. I've even heard some "instructors" use that logic to make poor recommendations, including all four items on the above list.
What they should be thinking is, "The world isn't dangerous, but it is unpredictable. Bad things and bad people can happen, and safety is not guaranteed. Every time I put my gun on, I know that today may be the day I have to use it to take a life to save my own." And then letting decisions flow from there. Yes, it's a more uncompromising position, but it's nothing one couldn't live with.
The other thing that happens is that people aren't comfortable with the idea of using deadly force. I think there are a lot more people that feel that way, than the number that would admit to it. They unnecessarily feel ashamed because there exists a very vocal segment of the shooting community that acts as if we should all feel just fine about shooting somebody, and you're less of a man or woman if you don't. In reality it's normal to feel trepidation at the prospect of ending a human life. However, it's also an absolute requirement that the individual resolves that ethical dilemma before they carry a gun.
His reasoning is valid, however. A great many people carry with the idea that a gun is a talisman that Bad People are afraid of. The mistake is that Bad People don't think like law-abiding folk. Some are predatory, some aren't much afraid of anything, some are crazy, and some are stupid.
This is why you hear about people getting their guns taken off them, or being shot by an attacker they had at gunpoint. They thought that having a gun gave them control and protection, when in fact, it's the gun-carrier's preparedness and mindset that gives the weapon its defensive power.
Some people think, "Well, the chance of needing to defend myself is very low, but I still want to have a gun, so I'll carry one." Their reasoning--and the carry decisions they make based on it--is driven by the idea that they will not have to use their handgun. Ever since I realized people had that mindset, and started thinking about that position, the more bizarre it seems to me. I've heard it used to justify all manner of insane compromises--pistols carried in inaccessible ultra-deep-cover positions for no particular reason, empty chambers, comfortable holsters that can't be reliably drawn from, cheap and poorly-made gear...you name it. I've even heard some "instructors" use that logic to make poor recommendations, including all four items on the above list.
What they should be thinking is, "The world isn't dangerous, but it is unpredictable. Bad things and bad people can happen, and safety is not guaranteed. Every time I put my gun on, I know that today may be the day I have to use it to take a life to save my own." And then letting decisions flow from there. Yes, it's a more uncompromising position, but it's nothing one couldn't live with.
The other thing that happens is that people aren't comfortable with the idea of using deadly force. I think there are a lot more people that feel that way, than the number that would admit to it. They unnecessarily feel ashamed because there exists a very vocal segment of the shooting community that acts as if we should all feel just fine about shooting somebody, and you're less of a man or woman if you don't. In reality it's normal to feel trepidation at the prospect of ending a human life. However, it's also an absolute requirement that the individual resolves that ethical dilemma before they carry a gun.
forrestinmathews
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,063
- Reaction score
- 725
I changed nothing. You're deceiving yourself if you believe otherwise. A commitment to use deadly force is a commitment to kill another person.
"When no immediate danger exists"? Who says that's the definition of a "Warning Shot"? I can envision any number of scenarios whereas an immediate danger exists and the intended victim might choose to fire a warning shot first, in lieu of a lethal shot. One example that comes to mind, would be a mob-violence attack by juveniles using sticks, rocks and chains. One warning shot into the ground puts an immediate end to the violence and saves lives and injury to the victims. A teenager in my house brandishing a large knife and advancing on me. I'll fire a round into the wood floor of my house to give the young man a chance drop the knife and/or flee. If after the warning shot, my attacker seemed still intent on slashing me with his knife and I then was forced to shoot the young person, I would sleep much better and the DA would (should) take into account that I had gone to extremes to avoid the shooting. I could also say that I was in fear of my life specifically because the attacker did not fear my firearm and was not deterred by the fired shot.
Got to be the must misguided thinking I ever ran across. What do you not understand about "assault with a deadly weapon"? Or are you just trolling?
Good luck. Cause if you ever need to defend yourself you're going to need it.
forrestinmathews
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,063
- Reaction score
- 725
Thar be trolls....
Do you actually believe that?
InsideWaist
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2017
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 91
I'm not siding with @AimHigher, but my interpretation of what he is trying to say is that he seems to want to be able to give his attacker(s) "one last chance" before he kills him/her/them/it. However, when the SHTF, you may not have the luxury of giving last chances and that could cost you your life.
Rastoff
US Veteran
If you believe your life is in danger, you don't have time to give "one last chance" before defending yourself. If you have time to do that, your life wasn't in danger. If your life wasn't in danger, why was the gun out?
I am disabled. If teenagers are coming at me with clubs or knives, I consider those to be deadly weapons and I'm in no shape to physically stop them so I'm dropping them.
I'll struggle with my conscience afterwards.
I'll struggle with my conscience afterwards.
IMO, this is how it's done. Except I would not have let the young punk go. No warning shots. Just common sense.
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl1tzoSM2is&t=9s[/ame]
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl1tzoSM2is&t=9s[/ame]
Maybe you should re-read my post (and not read-into it). And I can assure you that I am fully aware of what constitutes ADW with a firearm. And since you have absolutely no idea of what my experience and training has been in this area, your above comment highlighted in red is rather presumptuous - bordering on absurd. In my view, your comments regarding my post show that you have little flexibility in these matters. Perhaps everything with you is black or white with little grey area. You sir, may be the one who needs good luck - and perhaps a good lawyer.
Last edited:
How do you know this? Sometimes this would be true. Other times not true. There is no blanket rule of response for all situations one could potentially encounter. I choose not to pre-program myself to shoot and kill someone just because it wold be legal to do so - especially a young, troubled juvenile. That's my prerogative. IMO, you seem to have a myopic view of self defense encounters. It's not always about killing someone. It's about coming out alive and unharmed.
Last edited:
Are you actually schooling me on "SHTF"? Wow!
Last edited:
Good point......
I consider that trying to stop an active attack more than a 'warning shot', which is ok in my book. The best he could do under the situation because he was very likely to hit the person being attacked by the dog.
I consider that trying to stop an active attack more than a 'warning shot', which is ok in my book. The best he could do under the situation because he was very likely to hit the person being attacked by the dog.
InsideWaist
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2017
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- 91
Did we miss your reply to @Rustyt1953 (about you believing something)?
Under the circumstances I described in the scenario in my post, yes. Do you actually think that juveniles with sticks are going to sick around when their opponent produces a gun and is busting caps? If you think that, think again.
Discharging a firearm in close proximity to an attacking dog can change the dog's mindset - instantly. If it doesn't work, there's still rounds remaining. It's not always a kill or be killed scenario.
Last edited:
The voice of reason, balance and experience. Seemingly a somewhat rare commodity within parts of this thread.
- Status
