I’ve followed the four rules (it was actually 10 many years ago, as in “Ten Commandments of Safe Firearms Handling”) for 35 years, w/o a single incident.
In fairness, the 4 Rules are meant to engender an overall sense of safety awareness, not an A-B-C/1-2-3, step-by-step guide to safe firearms handling.
It’s no different than safety in a dangerous industrial environment; you can diligently follow every rule/policy/procedure, but if you’re not aware of the environment, you can still get mangled.
If you let those rules/policies/procedures guide you through an awareness of the potential hazards in your environment, then you’ll do just fine.
Care to answer the converse? Would these men, if armed, with this man already having discharged a firearm illegally, destroying their property, having been verbally threatened and shown a firearm by him, have been legally justified in firing upon him in some or “a lot of” states if they saw something that to them looked like he was reaching for his gun? And what are the legal standards for threatening with the use of deadly force?
Again, I’d prefer an answer to each, and from someone who actually knows the laws and is able to give not just another WAG, or what they think should be, but who can answer what is as a matter of law.
In that thread my read of that state’s laws was that the drone shooter was not within legal rights to threaten with the use deadly force and would not have been legally protected if they stepped on his property, but that the drone owners if they had been armed would have been legally covered (at least if they perceived his hand as moving to his weapon). But as I state there: IANAL.
I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. However, it’s helpful to remember that Castle Doctrines in general owe a great deal to Blackstone and English common law.
Here in Colorado, the fact of being on one’s own property trumps almost everything else. And having read the Kentucky statute, it appears that they have a similar standard, although I can’t tell if it goes as far.
Another point is that there were several of them, and only one of him. Using the “reasonable person” standard, being threatened by several people is considerably more serious than several people being threatened by one person. There are some scenarios in which the group might have been justified in using lethal force, but the situation would have had to go much farther than it actually did.
I must admit I am greatly disappointed that none of the lawyers here are willing to educate me about what the legal facts really are. I’ll do the best I can on my own then.
Best I can find on my own is that threatening the use of deadly force requires the same justifications as the use of deadly force.
If you threaten someone with deadly force without such cause you are the illegal aggressor and the the person(s) you so threaten could reasonably conclude that you are an imminent threat to their lives. Even if you make such a threat from within your property line.
Yes otherwise it depends on whether “a reasonable man” would conclude that death or severe bodily harm was imminent. Not just if such was perceived.
Castle Doctrine varies by states but Kentucky’s version is clear that the right to self-defense on your property without a duty to retreat requires both the person to be -
in reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm, and
not be in the process of doing something unlawful or of using the property in furtherance of an illegal activity.
Being on one’s own property does NOT trump almost everything else, at least there.
Of course they do. Many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of times a year. How often do concealed carriers blow each other’s heads off?
The numbers are not comparable.
So Tom reaches into his jacket. Click. Jerry sees a guy with his hand in his jacket and heard the click of a safety being released. He puts his hand on his AR’s pistol grip and thumbs off the safety.
Man. You’re one sudden noise away from a gun battle. This is high risk. That’s the problem. Nobody is any safer toting these guns around, you’ve created a scenario where human error is more likely to result in a death, not less.
If everyone put their guns away - the cops, private citizens, everybody kept their militia weapons in “militia clubs” that must be licensed and obey basic safety and weapon security procedures. Hunters would keep their guns in locked lockers on their hunting leases. Cops would keep their guns locked in quick action safes in the trunks of their patrol cars. Anyone caught with a gun out on the streets is a criminal and they would gradually be disarmed.
Note what I said about militia - I’d be fine if those militias could be easily formed, they didn’t have to be part of the national guard, etc. The restriction would be that they have to obey safety rules, have their practice and tactical shooting ranges located outside of built up areas, keep their weapons locked into secure facilities when not being practiced with, etc.
Concealed carry is legal in every state except Hawaii, Maryland, Rhode Island, and is also not permitted in DC. Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Delaware have restrictive enough policies that we’ll put them on the list, even though they technically permit concealed carry.
What remains in the country are 41 states in which a concealed carry permit must be issued to a requester unless the state can prove some disqualifying condition exists.
How many incidents have arisen in which one concealed carry permit holder has shot another in anything close to the circumstances suggested in this thread?
Oooh, *soo *close, you almost got us. Unfortunately, we were talking about open carry of a semi-automatic rifle in a restaurant. Not even the same as concealed carry.
Hate to nit pick, but all of those states are CCW states. Hawaii and Maryland suck balls, and Rhode Island has a weird double system of permitting. But Del, Conn and Mass are actually easy to get permits for. Connecticut is a “may issue” state but hands them out quite libertarianly. The rest of their guns laws are draconian.
Open carry is legal, in one form or another, in all but a handful of states (http://www.opencarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/OC_Summary.png is a bit dated, but close enough that you get the idea). While carrying a long gun into a restaurant is not very common, it’s often legal.
Why is the OP focusing on this virtually-never-happens-in-reality hypothetical? If he’s worried about gun carriers shooting each other, he simply has to chose to not carry a gun and he’s not in danger.
The fact is that the sort of people who go through the trouble of obtaining a concealed weapon permit are overwhelmingly law-abiding and safe with their firearms.
Well referring to gun enthusiasts as gun nuts is very demeaning…
Welcome to the Straight Dope; buckle in, there may be turbulence.
Yes, that’s true – one of the hypothetical players was indeed openly carrying a rifle. However, turning your attention back to the OP:
(emphasis added by me to help focus your attention)
So when I asked, “How many incidents have arisen in which one concealed carry permit holder has shot another in anything close to the circumstances suggested in this thread?” I instead should have said: “How many incidents have arisen in which one concealed carry permit holder has shot another person in anything close to the circumstances suggested in this thread?”
You’re quite right that my question seems to suggest two concealed carry users.
So I’m now asking:
How many incidents have arisen in which a concealed carry permit holder has shot any person in anything close to the circumstances suggested in this thread?
And how many incidents have arisen in which a person openly carrying a firearm has shot another person in anything close to the circumstances suggested in this thread?
Re: “Gun Nuts”.
To be fair those who use “gun nuts” do not include every enthusiast in that set: it usually refers to an extreme “gun rights trumps all” POV, including what my skim finds was its introduction in this thread, explicitly in reference to the fringe position.
It still nevertheless poisons the well to the same degree that “gun grabber” does. Both terms are best avoided but usually are not. “Muggle” though is kind of cute …
Really though it is most notable, and commendable even, how little offensive terms have been used in now three pages of a gun thread!
ElvisL1ves hasn’t put in an appearance.
By ‘must be licensed’ do you mean banned? Because that seems to be the idea you’re going for. In what way would a regular person be able to obtain a license that allows them to carry? People who obtain CCW permits are already licensed, and depending on the state, undergo varying levels of safety training.
What kind of Scotsman would be considered a gun nut then? Has anyone on this board espoused such positions? This seems like a convenient way to disparage a group while retaining some deniability.
Bolding mine.
The word “overwhelmingly,” is not, as you perhaps think, synonymous with “always.”
The claim is not, in other words, that concealed carry permit holders NEVER commit gun crimes, but rather that the incidence of gun crime amongst concealed carry permit holders is much smaller than for the general population.
I should hope so, as most of the general population doesn’t carry guns with them in public.
You have no way of knowing that.