One thing I’m wondering about: Do bears make the same connection between guns and dying (or at least pain) that humans do? I could see a bear reacting to a warning shot by thinking “Oh, he’s pointing a stick at me, and made a loud noise with the stick” instead of “OMG he could kill me!”.
Anyway,
One distinction I made in my survey answers was “no” to “Shooting at somebody who has said he is about to attack you”, but yes to “Shooting at somebody who you think is about to attack you”. In my mind someone saying they are going to attack you is not proof that they actually are going to attack you (c.f. all-talk loudmouth douchebags), and if their threat is credible they fall into the latter category already.
Maybe if your definition of “successful defense” involves doing jail time. :rolleyes:
This depends on the jurisdiction, of course, but even in most pro-gun and pro-self defense states, warning shots are illegal (even if sometimes prosecutors look the other way). If the situation wasn’t so immediate and serious that the criminal needed to be STOPPED RIGHT NOW, then it wasn’t so serious that you needed to fire a shot.
A large firecracker will have the same effect, as will typically a object thrown with a near miss. Bears can perform a lot of the same manipulations as humans, but they cannot throw objects, so this is kind of like magic to them. However, a bear which has become acclimated to either, i.e. has learned that they are not a threat, may not be desuaded. However, aerosoled oleoresin capsicum (“pepper spray”) is highly effective as a persistent deterrent.
Warning shots are contraindicated for all of the reasons previously espoused, and I don’t know of a single law enforcement agency which permits peace officers to discharge their sidearms in warning under normal circumstances.
Well, if somebody was stealing my car, that’d piss me off. If it was my neighbor’s car, that’d probably piss him off. I wanted to keep this survey below a hundred questions.
Without more context, none of these can be said for certain to be defensive. To take an extreme example, shooting a two year old who was attacking you, but could not possibly harm you would not be defensive.
I’d say all but the “someone who pissed you off” options could, in some circumstances, be defensive.
I asked the questions listed, phrased the way they are, because these have all showed up in various threads and news stories and survey results over the past few months as examples of what people felt to be proper defensive gun use. Some of these people are currently having serious difficulties with the legal system.
I disagree with most of them as I don’t see firearms as defensive weapons. Too much Star Trek, I guess. I also disagree with the idea of linking up “defense” with “shooting somebody who’s not currently a threat to you”. I take even more exception with the “use” of a gun without shooting it, and particular exception with the last one on the list because, even though one of the largest surveys allows this as an example of a defensive gun use, you don’t have to fire the gun, it doesn’t have to be loaded, and, really, you don’t even need to have a gun.
So what is “charging phasers”? Is that not displaying or announcing the presence of a weapon, and readiness to use it? If that leads to an aggressor backing down, with no actual fire exchanged, is this not a defensive use of a weapon?
With the way it’s phrased, though,there isn’t enough context, while much of it is open to interpretation. In some states, you have legal right to defend yourself with broader protection(s) than others.
In addition, since you’ve asked for our belief/opinion, it doesn’t necessarily mean it has to align with the law (since we are allowed to agree/disagree with the legality of any given situation, while trials/judges are used to interpret it, and by extension, the consequences).
The way I read your thread, if I was able to think of any possible situation where I could answer “yes” to the question, it technically had to fall under the condition of defensive usage (legal or better decisions, withstanding).
And that would be why the low estimate for DGU is 55,000 per year and the high is 2.5 million. Neither number is inherently more accurate than the other.
I voted for all instances of what I would consider “defensive” gun use. I didn’t consider whether such use was bone-headed and inadvisable, as long as it was actually defensive. Not sure if that was the intent or not.
is this a real question, or is it a segue into a lecture about how there’s no such thing as a “defensive” use of a firearm, and if I’m ever attacked it’s my civic duty to cower and comply and hope the police arrive within the next hour before I get hurt or worse?
Real question. People were discussing the various types of defensive gun use in other threads and I thought it would be interesting to see what sort of opinions the people hereabouts had.
None of us are bound to whatever you like to define “defensive use” as. If someone attacks me, I produce a gun, and they break off and run away without me firing a shot, I’ve used my gun defensively. The presence of my gun convinced them to break off their attack. Win-fucking-win. I live, he lives for the cops to (hopefully) chase him down. How is that not defensive use?
