|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
So, someone breaks into my house and I have to fire a warning shot? My warning shot is going through his heart, just so we're clear.
If he wants fair treatment, he should weigh these possibilities in his mind [i]before[i] he "acts a fool."
I don't see how this would be any different than showing my flush in poker before someone adds anything to the pot. Poker isn't life or death? All the more reason I'm shooting first and showing my gun later. There are people relying on me and I'm not showing my cards to someone that is encroaching into territory he has no reason to other than mischief of a high order.
If people want stricter gun laws, in the u.s. or wherever, I don't think this analogy is working.
And, look, the last thing I want to do today or tomorrow is take someone else's life. I'd much rather die for someone I don't even know. But, I don't live alone anymore. Warning shots are yester-year.
|
United States43598 Posts
Warning shots sound like a lot of potential for fuckups for little advantage over simply declaring the intent. Even if the bullet causes no unforeseen damage it risks the chaos of an irrational fight or flight response from the intruder who is now doing an unthinking reaction to what they can reasonably assume to be a threat on their life.
|
On October 15 2015 13:27 KwarK wrote:
Warning shots sound like a lot of potential for fuckups for little advantage over simply declaring the intent. Even if the bullet causes no unforeseen damage it risks the chaos of an irrational fight or flight response from the intruder who is now doing an unthinking reaction to what they can reasonably assume to be a threat on their life.
How about you start by "Hands in the air, I got a loaded gun and I'm itching to use it" and after that fire a warning shot if he does not comply?
|
On October 15 2015 13:01 danl9rm wrote:
So, someone breaks into my house and I have to fire a warning shot? My warning shot is going through his heart, just so we're clear.
If he wants fair treatment, he should weigh these possibilities in his mind [i]before[i] he "acts a fool."
I don't see how this would be any different than showing my flush in poker before someone adds anything to the pot. Poker isn't life or death? All the more reason I'm shooting first and showing my gun later. There are people relying on me and I'm not showing my cards to someone that is encroaching into territory he has no reason to other than mischief of a high order.
If people want stricter gun laws, in the u.s. or wherever, I don't think this analogy is working.
And, look, the last thing I want to do today or tomorrow is take someone else's life. I'd much rather die for someone I don't even know. But, I don't live alone anymore. Warning shots are yester-year.
What is different in the following scenario?
My neighbor pisses me off so bad. I am an impulsive SOB. I buy an unregistered gun invite him over.
Shoot him in my living room with my hunting rifle and plant the unregistered gun on him.
I should walk out free right?
Because I did everything you did and dead men tell no tales.
|
On October 15 2015 20:25 tertos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2015 13:01 danl9rm wrote:
So, someone breaks into my house and I have to fire a warning shot? My warning shot is going through his heart, just so we're clear.
If he wants fair treatment, he should weigh these possibilities in his mind [i]before[i] he "acts a fool."
I don't see how this would be any different than showing my flush in poker before someone adds anything to the pot. Poker isn't life or death? All the more reason I'm shooting first and showing my gun later. There are people relying on me and I'm not showing my cards to someone that is encroaching into territory he has no reason to other than mischief of a high order.
If people want stricter gun laws, in the u.s. or wherever, I don't think this analogy is working.
And, look, the last thing I want to do today or tomorrow is take someone else's life. I'd much rather die for someone I don't even know. But, I don't live alone anymore. Warning shots are yester-year. What is different in the following scenario? My neighbor pisses me off so bad. I am an impulsive SOB. I buy an unregistered gun invite him over. Shoot him in my living room with my hunting rifle and plant the unregistered gun on him. I should walk out free right? Because I did everything you did and dead men tell no tales.
this is one of the big arguments against shooting someone in self defense. honestly it is so easy for someone to just straight up commit murder in your own house but hide behind some self defense bullshit. i said this once before, but i would bet money on the fact that some people buy a gun and eagerly wait for the day their house gets broken into so that they get a free pass to shoot and kill someone.
|
As an American from the Midwest, you're definitely right about that. Many people are quite proud of the fact that they'd gladly summarily execute anyone who trespasses on their property. Fuck those people.
|
One reason I can see for warning shots is that unlike you saying 'I'm going to shoot you' to somebody you firing one can be proven afterwards. From an outsider's perspective there's no way to differentiate from you having warned them first and you just shooting whatever moves in your house.
|
A warning shot, now that's some Hollywood stuff.
|
On October 15 2015 20:47 farvacola wrote:
As an American from the Midwest, you're definitely right about that. Many people are quite proud of the fact that they'd gladly summarily execute anyone who trespasses on their property. Fuck those people.
well there you have it
quite clearly the law has to change when it comes to self defense. if you make it illegal to use a gun even in self defense then quite probably youd see a huge drop in gun ownership. not a 100% effective solution, but a great start nonetheless
|
Also before I go, a warning shot is going to be considered deadly force in most states, so don't go firing warning shots unless you're justified in the use of deadly force. Of course anyone with the most basic of training will know how stupid firing a warning shot is.
|
On October 15 2015 21:26 heliusx wrote:
Also before I go, a warning shot is going to be considered deadly force in most states, so don't go firing warning shots unless you're justified in the use of deadly force. Of course anyone with the most basic of training will know how stupid firing a warning shot is.
Shooting a gun at literally anything is deadly force, so don't really see the argument. That's what guns are for.
|
United States43598 Posts
On October 15 2015 23:14 Kaethis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2015 21:26 heliusx wrote:
Also before I go, a warning shot is going to be considered deadly force in most states, so don't go firing warning shots unless you're justified in the use of deadly force. Of course anyone with the most basic of training will know how stupid firing a warning shot is. Shooting a gun at literally anything is deadly force, so don't really see the argument. That's what guns are for.
The argument is that if you intend to kill someone then pull the trigger and if you don't intend to kill someone then don't pull the trigger. There is no pulling the trigger without intent to kill.
|
what am i missing thats so dangerous about a warning shot?
a typical house has brick walls with plaster over it. i could literally point at an empty wall space, the ceiling or the floor. if you have a gun it should be safe to assume you at least know how to point and aim, so you cant accidentally shoot the guy and claim you were trying to shoot a warning shot. also, bullets arent going to ricochet off a brick wall, itll penetrate the plaster and lodge itself in between the brick and the plaster. at least thats what i assume.
the only place i could think of which might cause a bullet to ricochet is the floor if the floor is tiled. i doubt hardwood floors could withstand a bullet.
or is a bullet ricocheting not what people are worried about?
|
looking at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricochet
i'd say a richochet is a possibility
There's also a through and through that hits something beyond. Especially in places where the houses are mostly wooden. This can be an especially big risk in apartment buildings.
in your case, i'd say it would be quite capable of ricocheting off the brick wall depending on angle, and would just go through the plaster.
Also you can hit some small piece of metal somewhere (a metal stud for instance) that makes the ricochet even more unpredictable.
Bullet can ricochet off turf (grassy ground) as well.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Photocopy/6895NCJRS.pdf
a final point is, if the situation is dangerous enough that you're thinking of a warning shot, taking your aim OFF the threat for even a moment can be a bad idea. And the kickback could slow your re-aiming at the threat. Even if that only takes half a second, half a second can matter a lot in such a situation.
edited several times.
|
Considering how a lot of american houses are basically built from paper, shooting a gun at anything may have unintended consequences. Generally speaking, shooting is something you should only do if you want to kill someone. Warning shots, shoot to wound etc... are not the best plan, because a gun is built to kill people, and they usually are quite good at this.
Note that this does not mean "shoot indiscriminately" On the contrary, it means that you should shoot even less. The only situation when you should start shooting is when you have decided that killing someone is the only option left. That should basically never happen. A lot of americans seem to greatly overestimate the probability of those situations happening (possibly due to 24/7 media covering any violence that happens in a country of 300m people), and thus overreact to situations that would not necessitate that level of violence due to overestimating the threat.
|
On October 15 2015 20:55 heliusx wrote:
A warning shot, now that's some Hollywood stuff.
thats how it is handled in germany.
you can fully use your gun to stop someone from entering your house, but if you shoot the intruder you better make sure that he knows you have a gun.
the underlying idea is that whenever you use self defense, you have to use the "most lenient way to stop the attack without putting yourself in danger". if the attacker has a gun, you can just shoot him. if the attacker doesnt have a weapon and is 10m away from you, you can not.
seems about right to me.
|
United States43598 Posts
On October 16 2015 09:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:
what am i missing thats so dangerous about a warning shot?
a typical house has brick walls with plaster over it. i could literally point at an empty wall space, the ceiling or the floor. if you have a gun it should be safe to assume you at least know how to point and aim, so you cant accidentally shoot the guy and claim you were trying to shoot a warning shot. also, bullets arent going to ricochet off a brick wall, itll penetrate the plaster and lodge itself in between the brick and the plaster. at least thats what i assume.
the only place i could think of which might cause a bullet to ricochet is the floor if the floor is tiled. i doubt hardwood floors could withstand a bullet.
or is a bullet ricocheting not what people are worried about?
Does the intruder know it's a warning shot? Because if they don't then suddenly their body goes into fight or flight mode and they're no longer thinking. They're swamped with adrenaline and their brain will make a snap decision to either get out or eliminate the threat, in this case you. It's a needless escalation of the situation.
|
On October 16 2015 23:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2015 09:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:
what am i missing thats so dangerous about a warning shot?
a typical house has brick walls with plaster over it. i could literally point at an empty wall space, the ceiling or the floor. if you have a gun it should be safe to assume you at least know how to point and aim, so you cant accidentally shoot the guy and claim you were trying to shoot a warning shot. also, bullets arent going to ricochet off a brick wall, itll penetrate the plaster and lodge itself in between the brick and the plaster. at least thats what i assume.
the only place i could think of which might cause a bullet to ricochet is the floor if the floor is tiled. i doubt hardwood floors could withstand a bullet.
or is a bullet ricocheting not what people are worried about? Does the intruder know it's a warning shot? Because if they don't then suddenly their body goes into fight or flight mode and they're no longer thinking. They're swamped with adrenaline and their brain will make a snap decision to either get out or eliminate the threat, in this case you. It's a needless escalation of the situation.
considering that it stemmed from my argument that you can't shoot someone right away if you have a reasonable advantage on him (e.g he is not armed while you have a gun on distance, he is armed with a knife while you have a gun on distance) and have to warn him first, the situation at hand would be:
1) you told him that you have a gun, you're probably pointing it at him, and you tell him that if he gets any closer you will shoot
2) He did not listen and is in the process of walking/running up to you (why else would you shoot at him, be it warning shot or not)
And honestly there's just not a lot of wiggleroom left anymore at that point.
|
On October 15 2015 21:04 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2015 20:47 farvacola wrote:
As an American from the Midwest, you're definitely right about that. Many people are quite proud of the fact that they'd gladly summarily execute anyone who trespasses on their property. Fuck those people. well there you have it quite clearly the law has to change when it comes to self defense. if you make it illegal to use a gun even in self defense then quite probably youd see a huge drop in gun ownership. not a 100% effective solution, but a great start nonetheless
One man's offhand remark is not a universally-applied "well there you have it" conclusion. That exemplifies the issue of misinformation spread on the internet and the dangers of generalization without real basis.
I'm also from the Midwest. People who are proud of shooting innocent trespassers, or those with repressed homicidal tendencies, have never crossed my path. There are crazy rednecks everywhere in the world, some go by different names, all drink beer and say crazy shit. The drunk ramblings of a redneck are not to be taken seriously.
There is an epidemic of gun violence in the United States. It does not stem from home protection. It stems from crazy people getting guns, usually illegally, and killing other people in public places. Let's not lose context and begin ridiculous generalizations that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
|
Why would you want to go around shooting your property to scare someone off anyway, surely shouting out I have a gun and if you don't leave this property I will use lethal force will give a similar effect.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association
4.5 times more likely to die from a gun if you own a gun?
Similar stats about owning knives/other things intended to kill.
If you're escalating a situation be sure as hell the other person will respond in kind. There's not many people out there that are willing to kill an unarmed person for the contents of your house. Like what could someone rob on maximum in the average house, like £5k worth of electrical goods?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
