arma virumque cano (et alia)
I don't recall too many people on either side of the discussion here that came out in favor of warning shots. Warning shots are right up there with the shooting through the door thing in my opinion.
Why do you think that 97 out of 98 Republicans in Florida voted for it then?
Mike,It's an example of a bad, reactionary fix for a shitty situation in the law--it's an example of that overbreadth thing that I keep bringing up about many of your side's proposals.Here, you have some people who would broadly agree with Sarge about warning shots, but might not have a problem with a shot fired safely into a known, non rule breaking target like the ground--especially because they see it as preferable to spare the attacker if possible. Others agree completely that warning shots should not be fired, but only want to hold the person accountable for what the bullets do, not what they might have done.Meanwhile, what you have with the state of the law in Florida and other places is a situation where some prosecutors say, "Well, you survived without having to kill the person, so there wasn't a threat to life or limb, so you committed aggravated assault by pointing the gun at them and by firing near them.Some people look at this and say, "Hey, that's not right! The facts reported look like there WAS a reasonable fear!" And then, because they don't analyze things carefully, the propose a law to stop this, and we get warning shots allowed--and the possibility of immunity to prosecution or civil remedies for damage the bullets do (don't know about this part for sure without looking at the bill's text, but I'm giving the worst possible case of overbreadth).A better response might be a tightly tailored law that says that warning shots are not, de facto, aggravated assault and can be considered an act of self defense, but that full criminal and civil liability remains for any parties harmed by the firing of warning shots.E.G. You shoot a warning shot at someone and it kills someone else a block away, you may not be charged with assaulting your assailant, but you may be charged with negligent, or even reckless homicide for the death of the person downrange depending on the circumstances.What do you, and the others, think of such a proposal? Acceptable? Preferable to this law? To the state of affairs in FL before this law?
P.S. and on a slightly different subject:Mike, and Laci if he's reading,Yall get touchy when I ask you detailed questions, accusing me of trying to talk you to death with tedium or dazzle with bullshit, but what I'm trying to do is get you to do a similar analysis and make proposals that make more sense rather than the first reactionary thing that comes to mind.Where this is especially true is with all the criticism of stand your ground laws. Calling them "get away with murder laws" is reactionary and ignores the types of cases and situations they were proposed in reaction to. If you think they're overbroad for the situations that caused people to support them, then propose something more limited and tailored to deal with those concerns and improve the overbreadth you perceive in the current SYG and Castle Doctrine laws.
Allowing warning shots is wrong. There's no safe way to do a warning shot. Besides, either there is lethal threat or there isn't. The gun should not be drawn unless there is and if that be the case, then the gun owner must shoot the threat. This is a black and white thing. There's no gray area.The obvious problem is you gun nuts see lethal threat in too many situations, or at least you say you do. Now, you want a little wiggle room to be able to discharge your guns when the threat has not risen to the level required to warrant it. It's bullshit, like most of your positions.
Just below you called my examples appropriate but "exceedingly rare". So there is a gray area, and they don't need to be going to jail, right. Or are you ok with innocent people going to jail, so long as it is "rare"?But you seem to be fixated on self-defense scenarios. As I explained, the dynamic changes a lot when we are talking about defense of others. There could be immediate threat of death or great bodily harm to a loved one, but you don't have a clean shot. The attacker also might not be aware that momma bear went and got the shotgun. Or the neighbor's dog got into your yard and is attacking your child. Fire a warning shot. The dog will probably take off.
And that would be the attitude I was talking about that causes bad, reactionary laws like this to be proposed by unthinking people in the opposition.
So, you admit that there are rare instances where warning shots can be appropriate and done safely, but you don't think we should even discuss a law that reflects this--that lets off those who fire one in the Rare instances, and doesn't let off others?
I'm not going to make a categorical statement that a warning shot is always wrong, but generally speaking, it's a waste of a bullet, and it creates the potential for an innocent person to be hit. It also may well suggest that the person firing a warning shot isn't really willing to use deadly force if necessary.In most cases, the act of drawing the gun is all the warning an attacker should get. Once your firearm is out, if you squeeze the trigger, it should be to stop an attacker. Now I can imagine scenarios that would be exceptions, and if the point of this bill is to restrict persecuting prosecutors, then it's an improvement.
"It also may well suggest that the person firing a warning shot isn't really willing to use deadly force if necessary." No, what it shows is the guy firing the warning shot is not facing lethal threat.
Glad you can be so certain of that--certain that it's impossible for a situation to happen in which a person would be justified in shooting and yet might not want to have to take a life.
They're so rare we don't need a law specifically legitimizing them. The result of that will be more unnecessary ones.
Then how about we just say that the person fired a shot and missed?
So Mike - are you agreeing with the state senator that you should shoot to kill instead of firing a warning shot?
We haven't been throwing the word "troll" around here lately but I think that stupid fucking comment qualifies.
I was not trying to "troll" I was trying to understand your view on the subject. You posted the article but did not comment one way or the other on whether his vote against the bill was good or bad. You do understand that he is not against shooting people if needed right? As far as warning shots go, I don't understand why anyone would admit to firing a warning shot. All you have to say is that you were shooting at the attacker and you would be covered by the laws under self defense - assuming you were in the right in the first place. You would have to be pretty dumb to get convicted of this crime if you were in a situation that justified shooting someone. I mean hell, the police can't hit the broad side of a barn for most shootings, so any jury would believe you were really aiming at the target when you shot the ceiling right?
Good point about warning shots being essentially the same thing as a near miss. Who could tell the difference?So, to turn your sarcastic question around on you, are you opposed to this law then? Do you think responsible gun owners need the option of firing warning shots?
I think the law is not needed per se, but Florida has things all mucked up in general. If a situation is bad enough to justify you killing someone in self defense, then firing your weapon in any manner you deem necessary to protect your life should be allowed. If you injure or kill an innocent bystander then you should be charged with the relevant crime.
I think we agree. Is that possible?
You think you agree with JFleck? But his formulation there is basically what I suggested as an alternative statute--if there is danger enough to support using the weapon in self defense, then either the warning shot or shooting the attacker is allowed, but you're on the hook for injuring or killing a bystander if you fire a warning shot.
The old theory of a warning shot was just that, to warn the perpetrator that the next shot, he would die. Given we are humans and make mistakes, maybe shoot first is not the best policy. And when and why did shoot first become the policy? Either way, that should be a judgment call by an officer and then a follow up investigation to determine the right to shoot evidence. This is the first time I have heard one of you pro gun guys ever mention a concern about a stray bullet.
Then you obviously haven't read many of our comments. We've discussed warning shots before, including the danger of stray bullets. We've discussed the issues that led to the stray bullet fiasco that was the Empire State Building gunfight, etc.
I remember TS making a lengthy and forceful case for warning shots in those earlier discussions.
Uh huh, in limited cases. Vs. animals it could be appropriate sometimes- animals aren't bothered by the sight of a gun, but the sound is another story. There was another case discussed here, where a girl was being attacked by a mob in front of her house and a parent came out and fired a warning shot. I said the decision to fire a warning shot was appropriate, though it should have gone in the ground and not the air. Of course rather than debate me on these cases if you disagree, you just come out saying "TS says warning shots are ok!!!"
I have no clue what you are talking about, I never mentioned you at all and I certainly did not say you said warning shots were ok. Why do you guys just lie?
My comment was to Mike. Read his comment right above mine. Why are you so quick to call people "liars"?
Good Grief, Anonymous, that was clearly a comment aimed at Mike.Comprehension...get some...
Mike,You'll note that T.S. also talked about how important it was for these shots to be into the wonderful, planet sized backstop we call the ground, rather than up into the air as is done in the movies and by too many of these "warning shot" firers.Refer to my comments above for a discussion of a way to perhaps cover these situations better than the Florida legislature did.
Maybe because you did not address you comment to Mike and it came as a reply under my comment. My comment was about warning shots and so was yours. Tell me why you respond to my comments directly addressed to GC?
TS, I don't want to debate you on those exceedingly rare situations in which warning shots might be appropriate. What this post is about is the legitimizing of warning shots. That's wrong. Appropriate ones are too rare for that.
That's cute Simon. From the guy who has lied about what I said more than once and even apologized for it, you tell me to get comprehension? Laughable.
Anon, Where was that comment directly addressed to GC?
WTF ?????What are you talking about Simon?
Anonymous, try reading comprehension. There are remedial classes at colleges for that, or you could join a literacy program.
You try the remedial classes GC, and your idiot buddy Simon. The question was why does he answers questions I put to you, not this question. You guys make yourselves look pretty stupid, and thanks for that. TS has answered questions I put to you. SS has answered questions I put to you. o course you refuse to answer questions I put to you, you just insult and lie instead, like a typical criminal.