1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

Guns? (do you carry?) revived

Discussion in 'Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel' started by drizzt3117, Aug 4, 2006.

  1. GQgeek

    GQgeek Senior member

    Messages:
    17,933
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2002
    Location:
    Canuckistan
    Have fun arguing that one to a jury.

    I think that if you shot someone in the leg it would be a pretty easy argument to make, assuming they didn't die on you :p The chest is a lot easier to hit and is what most people intent on killing aim for.


    That is generally a very, very bad idea.


    I would say that it's very dependant on the situation and the laws where you live, no? If some guy comes at you with a wrench are you allowed to shoot him dead? He can't kill you with a blunt object if you shoot him in a non-lethal area and you'll be less likely to get in trouble for the shooting. I think you should use the least amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat, more out of fear of legal repercussions than any value I attribute to an assailants' life. If the guy has a gun however, the rules change.

    I know that in canada even if a guy breaks in to your place you're not allowed to shoot him unless he's basically already on top of you with a knife already at your throat.

    Regardless, I don't profess to be some expert in weapons tactics.
     
  2. Englandmj7

    Englandmj7 Senior member

    Messages:
    761
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    I noticed on the first page that someone mentioned they carry a knife on them. I know in California, it is illegal to carry any knife on your person in public if the blade can be locked/is fixed in position. Of course, having worked many summers on ranches here I know that everyone carries a huge knife in many parts of the state, and that generally it is not going to get you arrested......what are the laws like in your state? Surely, you are not allowed to carry around a fixed blade?

    In regards to guns, I keep a .357 hammerless Ruger next to my bed...It is difficult to get a concealed weapons permit in this state.
     
  3. Arethusa

    Arethusa Senior member

    Messages:
    5,107
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    I would say that it's very dependant on the situation and the laws where you live, no? If some guy comes at you with a wrench are you allowed to shoot him dead? He can't kill you with a blunt object if you shoot him in a non-lethal area and you'll be less likely to get in trouble for the shooting. I think you should use the least amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat, more out of fear of legal repercussions than any value I attribute to an assailants' life. If the guy has a gun however, the rules change. I know that in canada even if a guy breaks in to your place you're not allowed to shoot him unless he's basically already on top of you with a knife already at your throat. Regardless, I don't profess to be some expert in weapons tactics.
    My views on the value of human life don't really enter into it. It's just simply a bad idea because guns kill people. If you don't want to kill the person, use something else. If lethal force isn't reasonable, don't use a gun. If lethal force is necessary and you need to stop him, shooting your attacker somewhere "non lethal" is not going to stop him reliably. It isn't impossible to disable someone without killing him, but it is not something you rely on in any situation in which lethal force is necessary. "Non lethal" shooting is not something you can really do, anyway. Shoot someone in the shoulder and you can hit one of the clavian arteries or the axillary artery. Shoot someone in the arm and you can hit the brachial artery. Shoot someone in the thigh and you can hit the femoral artery. People can be incredibly resilient, but they can also be remarkably fragile, and shooting someone in the shoulder to disable him is, for the most part, something that happens in bad movies.
     
  4. retronotmetro

    retronotmetro Senior member

    Messages:
    1,645
    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    I noticed on the first page that someone mentioned they carry a knife on them. I know in California, it is illegal to carry any knife on your person in public if the blade can be locked/is fixed in position.

    You have been incorrectly informed about the law. Cal. Penal Code § 12020 prohibits the carrying of a concealed "dirk or dagger."

    12020 provides that:
    and also provides that:
    Local laws can be more restrictive than 12020 (e.g., some cities restrict overall blade length), but most of those laws have safe harbor provisions for knives carried for use in one's employment. There is another section in the Penal Code that prohibits carrying certain knives on school premises (including colleges) but in general, 12020 is the governing statute.
     
  5. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Senior member

    Messages:
    21,820
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    I think that if you shot someone in the leg it would be a pretty easy argument to make, assuming they didn't die on you :p The chest is a lot easier to hit and is what most people intent on killing aim for.


    Unless you're being attacked by a zombie, in which case everyone knows you have to shoot for the head.
     
  6. Englandmj7

    Englandmj7 Senior member

    Messages:
    761
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    I see, but isn't this the same type of idea as the fact that you can indeed legally carry a non-concealed firearm on your person even if it is not for occupational use/protection? I am pretty sure that if you are approached by a police officer, having a Ka-bar strapped to your leg may not go down so well. In addition, I don't believe that most of the people carrying shanks/daggers are doing so in a non-concealed manner. I was simply pointing out that people should know that they cannot carry a fixed position knife even if it is 2" long in their pockets....is that not what the law states?
     
  7. retronotmetro

    retronotmetro Senior member

    Messages:
    1,645
    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    I think that if you shot someone in the leg it would be a pretty easy argument to make, assuming they didn't die on you :p The chest is a lot easier to hit and is what most people intent on killing aim for.

    1) If you fire a gun at someone, pretty much any law enforcement officer or prosecutor you meet will construe that as the use of deadly force, regardless of what part of the body you claim that you were aiming at, and even if you miss. So unless you can show that the use of deadly force was an appropriate and proportional respose to an imminent threat against you, you should be prepared to spend a very long time in a very small locked room.

    2) People intent on killing don't aim exclusively for the chest. They may not "aim" at all, and may simply point shoot. Or they may aim for the head. Or they may simply point a gun in the general direction of the target and pull the trigger until they hear "click" instead of "bang."

    3) Go check out some homicide trials. "I just meant to scare him" and "I was trying to hit him in the [arm/leg]" are not uncommon defenses. It is far better to adopt a defensive philosophy that tries to keep you out of court rather than guaranteeing that you will be telling your story to twelve of your peers.

    I would say that it's very dependant on the situation and the laws where you live, no? If some guy comes at you with a wrench are you allowed to shoot him dead? He can't kill you with a blunt object if you shoot him in a non-lethal area and you'll be less likely to get in trouble for the shooting. I think you should use the least amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat, more out of fear of legal repercussions than any value I attribute to an assailants' life. If the guy has a gun however, the rules change.

    I know that in canada even if a guy breaks in to your place you're not allowed to shoot him unless he's basically already on top of you with a knife already at your throat.


    1) I assume that Canadian self-defense law is different from US law. In the US, even in more liberal states, you are allowed to use deadly force in self defense when deadly force is being used against you. Which means that if someone comes at you with a wrench or any other weapon, and places you in a reasonable fear that he is about to inflict death or great bodily injury, you can use deadly force to repel the attack. If you do not reasonably fear death or great bodily injury, you should not use deadly force to repel the attack, unless you want the aforementioned long stay in a small room.

    2) If you don't think a guy with a wrench is capable of killing you, well, I don't know what to say. I know that if someone came after me with a wrench I wouldn't stick around to let him turn my skull into mush, but that's just me.
     
  8. retronotmetro

    retronotmetro Senior member

    Messages:
    1,645
    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    I see, but isn't this the same type of idea as the fact that you can indeed legally carry a non-concealed firearm on your person even if it is not for occupational use/protection?

    Firearms that are openly carried in public must be unloaded as well.

    I am pretty sure that if you are approached by a police officer, having a Ka-bar strapped to your leg may not go down so well.

    No argument there.

    In addition, I don't believe that most of the people carrying shanks/daggers are doing so in a non-concealed manner. I was simply pointing out that people should know that they cannot carry a fixed position knife even if it is 2" long in their pockets....is that not what the law states?

    Your original post suggested that if a knife was merely capable of being locked in position, you could not legally carry it. I was pointing out that a "pocketknife" is only a "dirk or dagger" when it actually is in the locked position. Which means that unless a more restrictive local law applies, you can freely carry common 3-4" locking folders without running afoul of the general prohibited weapons statute, § 12020.
     
  9. Englandmj7

    Englandmj7 Senior member

    Messages:
    761
    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    ^^ I see. Good to know [​IMG]
     
  10. Mute

    Mute Senior member

    Messages:
    1,108
    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Location:
    L.A.
    Actually, in California there is no length limit on folding knives that are not of the "dirk or dagger" persuasion.
     
  11. Dakota rube

    Dakota rube Senior member

    Messages:
    14,501
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    A bit better than yesterday, all day vomiting for
    Firearms that are openly carried in public must be unloaded as well.
    I grew up in Minnesota where firearms must be unloaded and cased (completely closed case) when transported. Here in Dakota the law allows uncased firearms (long guns) in vehicles. (Can you say Rifle Rack?) When we go another 350 miles west, to Montana, a firearm can be transported without even bothering to unload it. I believe the chamber does have to be empty, however.[​IMG]
     
  12. globetrotter

    globetrotter Senior member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    I'm obviously ignorant on the subject, please bear with me. I've been robbed at gunpoint, and I don't understand how having a gun in that situation would have helped. Could someone please walk me through a likely senario?

    With a gun pointed directly at my face, I could have tried to draw and shoot him before I got shot. Probably a 0% chance of that happening.
    Or I could have waited for him to walk away, then shoot him in the back? That's not kosher, legally (arguably morally, but probably not).
    Or I could have waited for him to walk away, then tried to apprehend and disarm him with the threat of my gun, sit on him, and call police for backup? btw, when I called 911, I waited on hold for 10 minutes, then hung up.

    If he decided to start shooting, I was toast, gun or no gun.



    sorry to hear that.

    this is my feeling - at one point, I was pretty fucking good with a gun. I can't imagine a situation where I could be walking down the street, have somebody point a gun at me, and I would be able to draw and shoot him without him shooting me.

    my whole argument is not that you shouldn't defend yourself - I just don't see how a firearm will help you influnce an event in your favor. no gun, a callapsable baton is a great defense. gun, a gun isn't good enough. that is the situation
     
  13. j

    j Senior member Admin

    Messages:
    14,914
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    sorry to hear that.

    this is my feeling - at one point, I was pretty fucking good with a gun. I can't imagine a situation where I could be walking down the street, have somebody point a gun at me, and I would be able to draw and shoot him without him shooting me.

    my whole argument is not that you shouldn't defend yourself - I just don't see how a firearm will help you influnce an event in your favor. no gun, a callapsable baton is a great defense. gun, a gun isn't good enough. that is the situation

    GT:

    First, WTF is that in your avatar? I thought it was a squirrel and just realized there is a human face in there somewhere.

    Second, not in every situation will a gun be handy, or a good idea to pull. The gun in your face scenario is one of those where if you had one, you'd best leave it where it is, because it's much too late.

    However, I will say that I've been in a situation where I am very glad I was holding a gun at the time, because in hindsight I and my friend might have been killed for my stuff/car. This alone makes me very glad I am "allowed" to have one. In this situation, I was not carrying concealed, but if I had been, it also would have been very good to have. As it turned out I was not the one victimized up there, and it might have been other people who did it, but a week later in a situation like ours some people were killed up where we were.

    So, if you don't mind, I'll hang onto mine and you can go without.
     
  14. globetrotter

    globetrotter Senior member

    Messages:
    20,605
    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2004
    Location:
    greater chicago
    GT:

    First, WTF is that in your avatar? I thought it was a squirrel and just realized there is a human face in there somewhere.

    Second, not in every situation will a gun be handy, or a good idea to pull. The gun in your face scenario is one of those where if you had one, you'd best leave it where it is, because it's much too late.

    However, I will say that I've been in a situation where I am very glad I was holding a gun at the time, because in hindsight I and my friend might have been killed for my stuff/car. This alone makes me very glad I am "allowed" to have one. In this situation, I was not carrying concealed, but if I had been, it also would have been very good to have. As it turned out I was not the one victimized up there, and it might have been other people who did it, but a week later in a situation like ours some people were killed up where we were.

    So, if you don't mind, I'll hang onto mine and you can go without.


    J,

    it is seji miyaguchi in the scene from 7 samorai where he is waiting in a field of flowers to kill the two bandits by their horses.

    there are occasions where firearms make the exact difference and influence the situation. yours may very well have been one of them. If you have read any of the half dozen similar threads over the past 3 years on this subject, I am not at all in favor of limiting the right to carry, I am a strong proponent of using the right tool for the right job.
     
  15. Briguy

    Briguy Member

    Messages:
    23
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    I am rarely unarmed. At a minimum, a snub nose .38 in my front pocket. Much of the time a Glock 34. Formerly carried a 5 inch 1911. I also try to have a canister of pepper spray with me as well.

    I'll second globetrotter's views here. A pistol will not prevent the attack, it gives you another option to respond to an attack. If you don't see the bad guy until his gun is in your face, well, you better give the man your wallet and hope for the best because you have few options left at that point.

    If you want to be safer in your everyday activities: PAY ATTENTION! Be aware of your surroundings, who is around you, and what they are doing. If anything does not look or feel right, remove yourself from the situation immediately. When this level if situational awareness becomes normal, then a firearm may make sense, as your level of awareness will likely give you the several seconds of warning you need to, as gt says, use the firearm to influence the situation.
     
  16. DNW

    DNW Senior member

    Messages:
    10,526
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    Recession, Baby
    A somewhat related news event: Maurice Clarett found with 3 semi-automatic handguns and an assault riffle. He was also wearing a bullet proof vest. What a shame the speed of this kid's descent. A few years a go he was due to be a top 3 pick, now he's due in the jail house.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2545493

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Toiletduck

    Toiletduck Senior member

    Messages:
    2,547
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Oooh but it helps!




    Haha...I'd love to watch them mess up and try to jump through reinforced glass
     
  18. drizzt3117

    drizzt3117 Senior member

    Messages:
    13,141
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    I'm obviously ignorant on the subject, please bear with me. I've been robbed at gunpoint, and I don't understand how having a gun in that situation would have helped. Could someone please walk me through a likely senario?

    With a gun pointed directly at my face, I could have tried to draw and shoot him before I got shot. Probably a 0% chance of that happening.
    Or I could have waited for him to walk away, then shoot him in the back? That's not kosher, legally (arguably morally, but probably not).
    Or I could have waited for him to walk away, then tried to apprehend and disarm him with the threat of my gun, sit on him, and call police for backup? btw, when I called 911, I waited on hold for 10 minutes, then hung up.

    If he decided to start shooting, I was toast, gun or no gun.


    Clearly there are some situations that having a gun doesn't give you an additional advantage. If someone has you at gunpoint, clearly it's best to cut your losses and hand him your wallet. If it's so important to you that you want to reclaim it at gunpoint, you could potentially wait for him to leave, draw a gun, call out and fire if he reaches for his weapon, if you were so inclined, and likely be able to argue it was self defense although I'm sure one of the lawyers posting on this thread would be able to let me know if this interpretation was correct. Personally I would think you're better off just writing your wallet off.

    There are many other situations in which you'd be carrying concealed where a gun gives you more options. One that is rather obvious and fairly clear cut, which has happened to me, is an attempted mugging in which the victim was carrying a knife. In my particular situation, I took a few steps back while apparently reaching behind me for my wallet, drew on the attempted assailant and he dropped the knife and ran.

    The situation in which guns would most likely be useful in my opinion are home invasions. As I mentioned in the previous thread, I have had my residences broken into three times, and in each case I was armed and was able to thwart the invaders. It's arguable that you're better off calling the police and waiting for them to take care of the problem, but in my personal opinion, I'd rather take care of the situation head on rather than sit in a dark bedroom hoping the person who broke into my house will go away without harming me or anyone in my house.

    I have a fairly large body of experience with weapons and a fairly extensive arsenal. If someone who is better at shooting and better armed than me breaks into my house, I'm probably pretty screwed whether or not I'm armed.
     
  19. drizzt3117

    drizzt3117 Senior member

    Messages:
    13,141
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    I think that if you shot someone in the leg it would be a pretty easy argument to make, assuming they didn't die on you :p The chest is a lot easier to hit and is what most people intent on killing aim for.



    I would say that it's very dependant on the situation and the laws where you live, no? If some guy comes at you with a wrench are you allowed to shoot him dead? He can't kill you with a blunt object if you shoot him in a non-lethal area and you'll be less likely to get in trouble for the shooting. I think you should use the least amount of force necessary to neutralize the threat, more out of fear of legal repercussions than any value I attribute to an assailants' life. If the guy has a gun however, the rules change.

    I know that in canada even if a guy breaks in to your place you're not allowed to shoot him unless he's basically already on top of you with a knife already at your throat.

    Regardless, I don't profess to be some expert in weapons tactics.


    If you've judged the tactical situation to be dire enough to shoot a gun at someone, you better be ready to kill or you're going to wind up in a coffin, unless you've seriously misjudged the situation. Shooting with non-lethal force, or trying to shoot the weapon out of someone's hand only happens in the movies. The reason that you fire a weapon at someone is to stop them, and unless you're ridiculously talented and only go for headshots (which is likely stupid unless you're on the olympic pistol team, or something) you stop someone by hitting them in the center of mass with a couple shots. In my pistol training we've been taught to fire two quick rounds at their center of mass followed by a third aimed round at the head, and with rifles enabled for burst or automatic firing, a three round burst at their center of mass.
     
  20. DNW

    DNW Senior member

    Messages:
    10,526
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    Location:
    Recession, Baby
    If it's so important to you that you want to reclaim it at gunpoint, you could potentially wait for him to leave, draw a gun, call out and fire if he reaches for his weapon, if you were so inclined, and likely be able to argue it was self defense although I'm sure one of the lawyers posting on this thread would be able to let me know if this interpretation was correct.

    I believe the gist of it is that you are not allowed to use deadly forced in "hot pursuit" of property. Deadly forced is allowed in very narrow circumstances, i.e. when your life is in imminent danger and you cannot safely retreat, or you're defending another in a similar situation.

    If someone has a gun to your head, no doubt the better solution is just to hand over your property.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by