W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 21, 2013 10:42am
So I have a concealed gun, and someone comes in to the Speedway I am in and has a gun on the clerk, I shouldn't be able to shoot?LJ;1540238 wrote:Ah yes, Vigiliantism. Just what we need to turn this country around amirite?
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2013 10:47am
Does shooting him ensure the best possible outcome for your future? Is your life immediately in danger?WebFire;1540313 wrote:So I have a concealed gun, and someone comes in to the Speedway I am in and has a gun on the clerk, I shouldn't be able to shoot?
If you pause on either of those, the answer is a resounding "no"
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Nov 21, 2013 10:54am
Correct, it's been held that the right to bear arms is for self defense. Now one can make a strong argument that such a right extends to protecting one's family, but to strangers in danger anywhere a person happens to find himself? Goes too far IMO.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 21, 2013 10:58am
I'd rather not find out the hard way.LJ;1540317 wrote:Does shooting him ensure the best possible outcome for your future? Is your life immediately in danger?
If you pause on either of those, the answer is a resounding "no"
Me?
Posts: 547
Nov 21, 2013 10:58am
If I'm in a 1,500 square foot convenient store and someone pulls a gun, whether they point it at me or not, I am absolutely going to feel like my life is threatened. The case for not pulling the gun is because it's dangerous, right? So why can't I view the criminal's gun as dangerous? Are you really going to tell me my best plan would be to casually try to walk out of the store? The idea that being a victim is morally superior to stopping a psycho is asinine.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 21, 2013 10:58am
So you are ok with the clerk getting shot and killed while you stand by watching with a gun on your hip?queencitybuckeye;1540322 wrote:Correct, it's been held that the right to bear arms is for self defense. Now one can make a strong argument that such a right extends to protecting one's family, but to strangers in danger anywhere a person happens to find himself? Goes too far IMO.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Nov 21, 2013 11:02am
If you can say that's what WILL happen (not may, not even probably), fire away. The idea that you shooting the thief "saved" the clerk's life is tough-guy bullshit. Thousands of times the robber leaves compared to the one instance where the clerk gets shot. Knowing this fact, yes, I could live with that outcome.WebFire;1540326 wrote:So you are ok with the clerk getting shot and killed while you stand by watching with a gun on your hip?
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 21, 2013 11:03am
I see. So you'd rather play the hypothetical game? It's not enough of a threat to have a gun pointed at someone?queencitybuckeye;1540328 wrote:If you can say that's what WILL happen (not may, not even probably), fire away.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2013 11:04am
Me?;1540325 wrote:If I'm in a 1,500 square foot convenient store and someone pulls a gun, whether they point it at me or not, I am absolutely going to feel like my life is threatened. The case for not pulling the gun is because it's dangerous, right? So why can't I view the criminal's gun as dangerous? Are you really going to tell me my best plan would be to casually try to walk out of the store? The idea that being a victim is morally superior to stopping a psycho is asinine.
The reason to carry a firearm is to ensure that you and your family's future is protected. You carry for self preservation. Shooting that robber could cause you to incur hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. Does that really ensure the best future for your family? Now of course you are gonna say "but if I'm dead..." You have a point if that robber is standing right there in front of you with the gun pulled, but if you are in the back of the store and see this happen, the best thing for your own self preservation is to duck down, pull your gun, and hold.
Escalating the situation has no "good" outcome. Someone is gonna end up dead and possibly someone's financial security will be ruined. This whole "carrying a big stick" mentality that is going around more and more recently is just disturbing.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2013 11:06am
WebFire;1540326 wrote:So you are ok with the clerk getting shot and killed while you stand by watching with a gun on your hip?
So you are ok with all 3 people dying in a shootout because you escalated the situation? Or the clerk shooting you because he thought you were also a robber because you put yourself into the situation?
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 21, 2013 11:08am
Talk about a hypothetical. Please show me a case where a clerk has shot a CHL holder who was shooting the bad guy.LJ;1540333 wrote:So you are ok with all 3 people dying in a shootout because you escalated the situation? Or the clerk shooting you because he thought you were also a robber because you put yourself into the situation?
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 21, 2013 11:09am
I don't disagree with this part, but the law be based on scenarios.LJ;1540332 wrote:but if you are in the back of the store and see this happen, the best thing for your own self preservation is to duck down, pull your gun, and hold.
Me?
Posts: 547
Nov 21, 2013 11:10am
Who the hell said anything about escalating the situation?
said_aouita
Posts: 8,532
Nov 21, 2013 11:10am
That's all we need....another nut job with a gun (like George Zimmerman) who goes all Jr. badge wanna-be cop on us.
Scary shit.
Scary shit.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Nov 21, 2013 11:10am
Knowing that the odds of someone getting shot in that situation are miniscule, that is correct. Additionally, the laws are clear, you have a right to SELF defense. You don't get to play pseudo-cop.WebFire;1540331 wrote:I see. So you'd rather play the hypothetical game? It's not enough of a threat to have a gun pointed at someone?
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 21, 2013 11:12am
Define self defense. That is the whole issue here, and why these laws are being put into place.queencitybuckeye;1540338 wrote:Knowing that the odds of someone getting shot in that situation are miniscule, that is correct. Additionally, the laws are clear, you have a right to SELF defense. You don't get to play pseudo-cop.
With the current law, you are neither guaranteed to walk free and be jailed in any of these situations.
Q
queencitybuckeye
Posts: 7,117
Nov 21, 2013 11:12am
Wrong word, it's not hypothetical, it's statistical. No, you don't get to shoot someone holding a gun on someone else when the odds are thousands to one that the trigger will not be pulled.WebFire;1540326 wrote:So you are ok with the clerk getting shot and killed while you stand by watching with a gun on your hip?
said_aouita
Posts: 8,532
Nov 21, 2013 11:12am
Is the clerk an Indian?WebFire;1540326 wrote:So you are ok with the clerk getting shot and killed while you stand by watching with a gun on your hip?
Not the red skin type. I'm talking dot head Mr. Patel type of Indian.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2013 11:14am
Me?;1540336 wrote:Who the hell said anything about escalating the situation?
The second you add yourself with a gun into a situation where you are not already immediately involved.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 21, 2013 11:14am
Wow really? So playing the stat game with your life is cool with you? It's not with me. I don't want to be on the wrong side of that stat.queencitybuckeye;1540341 wrote:Wrong word, it's not hypothetical, it's statistical. No, you don't get to shoot someone holding a gun on someone else when the odds are thousands to one that the trigger will not be pulled.
And assuming an outcome is exactly a hypothetical.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2013 11:15am
It's no more hypothetical than the clerk getting shot. The #1 reason you don't get involved into a situation is because of the high risk of mistaken identity, either on your part, or another's part.WebFire;1540334 wrote:Talk about a hypothetical. Please show me a case where a clerk has shot a CHL holder who was shooting the bad guy.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 21, 2013 11:16am
Please define immediately. If I'm first in line, am I immediately involved? 2nd? 3rd? Next line over but in the line if gun sight?LJ;1540346 wrote:The second you add yourself with a gun into a situation where you are not already immediately involved.
I need to know so I know if I can escalate a situation and defend myself.
Me?
Posts: 547
Nov 21, 2013 11:17am
You said, duck, pull your gun and hold. I never said that was a bad idea, or that I would just start shooting. I never said anything about escalating the situation. But if I'm in a small store and someone is waving a gun around, I am immediately involved.LJ;1540346 wrote:The second you add yourself with a gun into a situation where you are not already immediately involved.
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2013 11:17am
WebFire;1540349 wrote:Please define immediately. If I'm first in line, am I immediately involved? 2nd? 3rd? Next line over but in the line if gun sight?
I need to know so I know if I can escalate a situation and defend myself.
Go ahead and make that decision yourself and you can pay the consequences when they come to you. Myself, I'm about self preservation. I'll never escalate a situation myself.
W
WebFire
Posts: 14,779
Nov 21, 2013 11:17am
Exactly right. Which is why you don't base these decisions on hypothetical (or stats).LJ;1540348 wrote:It's no more hypothetical than the clerk getting shot.
Fact: gunmen in store with the potential to kill.