Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Guns should be for self defence. Shooting people running away from your property isn't right. Shooting people fleeing from a shop that you don't even work in is crazy. What exactly is the need there to make a potentially lethal attack on someone doing something as minor shoplifting goods in the street?

How many concealed carry people have a legitimate reason for carrying a gun, like late night commuting in rough areas, and how many tend to fantasise about being a crime fighting hero. Trying to shoot the tyres out on a car is just Hollywood nonsense, like firing warning shots and the like. You take out a gun and use it properly and responsibly. It's only a matter of time until someone kills bystanders when trying to shoot someone for stealing chocolate.

 feeder wrote:

 feeder wrote:
. To shoot Bad Guys is the reason anyone gets a CC permit.

Lot of disagreement on my statement here, with no real justification. If not to shoot Bad Guys, why else conceal carry?

I know several people who got a permit so they don't have to fill out a background check every time they buy a pistol. They have no intention of actually carrying.

Also I carry to protect myself and my family. I'm not hunting bad guys. A draw doesn't always end in a shoot.

The people involved in these cases are clearly acting recklessly.

The title of this thread - it feels as if it is missing something...like maybe the OP's whole point?

Is this really just a not so well disguised gun control(l) thread?

 Alpharius wrote:
The people involved in these cases are clearly acting recklessly.

The title of this thread - it feels as if it is missing something...like maybe the OP's whole point?

Is this really just a not so well disguised gun control(l) thread?

Yes.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Clearly more guns are the solution.

Who else would you have liked to have seen armed in that encounter?

If only the shoplifter were armed. Then they could have stood their ground and defended themselves against the person who was trying to kill them.

 Henry wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Clearly more guns are the solution.

Who else would you have liked to have seen armed in that encounter?

If only the shoplifter were armed. Then they could have stood their ground and defended themselves against the person who was trying to kill them.

Typically the SYG law will not cover people engaged in criminal activity.

 Alex C wrote:
Typically the SYG law will not cover people engaged in criminal activity.

I was for the most part being facetious, but really? So if somebody committed a minor crime and somebody else tried to kill them without sufficient justification, then they would have no right to defend themselves? I didn't know that and I'm not sure yet what I think about it.

 Henry wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Typically the SYG law will not cover people engaged in criminal activity.

I was for the most part being facetious, but really? So if somebody committed a minor crime and somebody else tried to kill them without sufficient justification, then they would have no right to defend themselves? I didn't know that and I'm not sure yet what I think about it.

I don't think it's as much a case of "you are not allowed to defend yourself" and more of a "it's illegal to be armed while committing a crime" thing.

I have my CC, but if I were to rob my local gas station it would still be armed robbery and I would face extra charges for being armed even though I'm "allowed" to be armed.

Well I thought the thread was relating to this incident

Man threatening Wal-Mart customers shot, killed by police

EAST STROUDSBURG, Pa. (AP) — Authorities say a man with a weapon threatening customers at a northeastern Pennsylvania Wal-Mart has been shot and killed by police.

Pennsylvania State Police say Sunday that 20-year-old Andrew Joseph Todd, of Mount Bethel, Pennsylvania, was shot when he refused officers' orders to drop his weapon inside the Wal-Mart late Saturday.

Police were dispatched to the store shortly after 10 p.m. Saturday on reports of an armed man threatening and pointing a weapon at customers. Officials say about 100 people were in the store at the time.

State police say officers ordered Todd to drop his weapon. He refused and continued to point it at officers. Police then fired at Todd, striking him in the upper chest. Todd was transported to Pocono Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead by the Monroe County coroner.

State police say no customers or officers were injured.

The Pocono Record reports Todd was carrying two guns and a machete.

Still waken up here

 Henry wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Typically the SYG law will not cover people engaged in criminal activity.

I was for the most part being facetious, but really? So if somebody committed a minor crime and somebody else tried to kill them without sufficient justification, then they would have no right to defend themselves? I didn't know that and I'm not sure yet what I think about it.

Don't commit petty crimes and you won't have to worry about not being able to defend yourself with lethal force if someone attacks you because of it. It's really not very high of a bar. Regardless of what you might think, there are some very strict limitations in place in regards to using lethal force in self defense, and that includes stand your ground. One of them being if you are committing a crime, you don't get the benefit of it.

 d-usa wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
this just reinforces that the only thing that matters is family. the rest all the rest is a threat and will try to harm your family. laugh while it burns and don't interfere.

There's a huge difference between helping a stranger in need and shooting at a fleeing shoplifter.

Very true. I'm not a big advocate of using your gun to protect anyone else other than you and yours, although I'm not going to argue that you shouldn't use it to help others if you really think that you can make a difference. Lots of folks I know like to talk about how they are going to take out the guy robbing the gas station. My take is that the gas station has insurance to cover that loss and I'm just going to stay low and not draw any attention to myself.

But I think all of us here would pass the very first test here:

Is the life of anyone endangered by what is happening? If not, then shake your head and be on your merry way.

You misperceive. To be clear if you want to help others cool. But if there is a criminal situation one should only protect themselves and family.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The apparently small number of incidents like this one, compared to the number of concealed carry permits, tends to suggest that most CC people are sensible with their guns.

The evidence suggests that is in fact the case

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Or the incidents in which a gun could potentially be used to prevent a crime or stop a criminal is very small...

Estimates are that defensive gun uses run somewhere between 1 million and 2.5 million incidents per year in the study by Kleck and Gertz. An opponent of gun control had this to say about the study;

Criminologist Marvin Wolfgang, who described himself "as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country" and whose opinion of guns was "I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people" defended Kleck's methodology, saying "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator". He went on to say that the NCVS survey did not contradict the Kleck study and that "I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

(emphasis mine)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_gun_use

 LethalShade wrote:
He was being sarcastic.

I am aware he was being facetious., unfortunately I'm sure you can see that others are quite willing to hope on the bandwagon and start to derail the thread.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Guns should be for self defence. Shooting people running away from your property isn't right. Shooting people fleeing from a shop that you don't even work in is crazy. What exactly is the need there to make a potentially lethal attack on someone doing something as minor shoplifting goods in the street?

Agreed

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
How many concealed carry people have a legitimate reason for carrying a gun, like late night commuting in rough areas, and how many tend to fantasise about being a crime fighting hero. Trying to shoot the tyres out on a car is just Hollywood nonsense, like firing warning shots and the like. You take out a gun and use it properly and responsibly. It's only a matter of time until someone kills bystanders when trying to shoot someone for stealing chocolate.

A legitimate reason? You mean like self defense? The possibility of being a victim of crime is not just limited to "rough areas", no one has the luxury of scheduling when they may be the victim of crime.
I see the good old "blood in the streets" argument used also. Given the infinitesimally small number of these incidents occuring I think your fears are misplaced.

 Henry wrote:
If only the shoplifter were armed. Then they could have stood their ground and defended themselves against the person who was trying to kill them.

Stand your ground laws do not apply when engaged in the commission of a crime. That's like saying a criminal threatening someone with a firearm may claim self defense when the police respond. I understand that you were being facetious, like so many others in this thread so far, but comments like this are generally unhelpful

So if you pirate a film while in posession of a gun does that count as being armed piracy?

Or you are parked on double yellow lines and someone gets agressice about it as you exit the car, can you use your concealed weapon to defend yourself?

 SilverMK2 wrote:
So if you pirate a film while in posession of a gun does that count as being armed piracy?

Or you are parked on double yellow lines and someone gets agressice about it as you exit the car, can you use your concealed weapon to defend yourself?

I suggest you take a good concealed carry class and then if you still have questions, talk to a lawyer.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
So if you pirate a film while in posession of a gun does that count as being armed piracy?

Or you are parked on double yellow lines and someone gets agressice about it as you exit the car, can you use your concealed weapon to defend yourself?

Of course, I mean if you have a CHL its important to whip out your piece and fire a few rounds into the air if anyone even looks at you funny.

 Alex C wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 feeder wrote:
. To shoot Bad Guys is the reason anyone gets a CC permit.

Lot of disagreement on my statement here, with no real justification. If not to shoot Bad Guys, why else conceal carry?

I know several people who got a permit so they don't have to fill out a background check every time they buy a pistol. They have no intention of actually carrying.

Ah, I did not know that. Thanks!

Also I carry to protect myself and my family. I'm not hunting bad guys. A draw doesn't always end in a shoot.

I did not mean CC permit holders are looking to hunt down criminals. But let's not pretend that people who do actively CC do so for any other reason than the ability to shoot a Bad Guy should the need arise.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The apparently small number of incidents like this one, compared to the number of concealed carry permits, tends to suggest that most CC people are sensible with their guns.

Or the incidents in which a gun could potentially be used to prevent a crime or stop a criminal is very small...

Arguably, I'd say it's a bit of both.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The apparently small number of incidents like this one, compared to the number of concealed carry permits, tends to suggest that most CC people are sensible with their guns.

Or the incidents in which a gun could potentially be used to prevent a crime or stop a criminal is very small...

Arguably, I'd say it's a bit of both.

In my experience, it's definitely a bit of both.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Or you are parked on double yellow lines and someone gets agressice about it as you exit the car, can you use your concealed weapon to defend yourself?

Depends on the facts and circumstances. Is there reasonable cause to believe that there is a threat of death or seriously bodily harm to yourself or a 3rd Party?

 Alpharius wrote:
The people involved in these cases are clearly acting recklessly.

The title of this thread - it feels as if it is missing something...like maybe the OP's whole point?

Is this really just a not so well disguised gun control(l) thread?

All threads here are gun control threads, given long enough.

does concealed carry or open carry apply if you're assaulted or robbed? for example if you're carrying a bag and I push you to the ground from behind, grab the bag and run off, is that grounds for opening fire?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
does concealed carry or open carry apply if you're assaulted or robbed? for example if you're carrying a bag and I push you to the ground from behind, grab the bag and run off, is that grounds for opening fire?

I think that depends on individual state laws regarding SYG or other "Castle Doctrine" type laws.

AFAIK, at least here in NYS, you can only respond with deadly force to deadly force. So if someone is threatening you with a gun, you are allowed to respond, but if someone grabs your purse and runs, you aren't.

That certainly makes the most sense to me. If people aren't actively attacking you (or others), there is no justification to respond with a gun.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
does concealed carry or open carry apply if you're assaulted or robbed? for example if you're carrying a bag and I push you to the ground from behind, grab the bag and run off, is that grounds for opening fire?

If you're opening fire when the perpetrator is moving away, the answer is almost always no. The only instance I can think of in which you could potentially be justified in which the perpetrator is moving away from you is an instance in which the perpetrator is aggressively approaching someone else who you are trying to protect, and you reasonably believe that the perpetrator is about to inflict grievous bodily injury or death upon them if you do not exercise lethal force.


In summary, you or someone else has to be in danger of death or grievous bodily injury. If that's not the case, then no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
does concealed carry or open carry apply if you're assaulted or robbed? for example if you're carrying a bag and I push you to the ground from behind, grab the bag and run off, is that grounds for opening fire?

Serious question though: Did you really imagine that that would be something that would be okay in the US? Do you really imagine that the US is such a ridiculous wild west stereotype that shooting someone in the back who is running away is something that would be permissible? I just ask because I know you've participated in gun threads before and you seem to have a genuine interest in the subject. But if I didn't already have that context, your question would read like a troll post. Do a lot of Europeans really have impression that that is what CCW is all about?

To be clear, CCW for citizens in the US is only to be used for defense of life or against grievous bodily injury. Not property.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
does concealed carry or open carry apply if you're assaulted or robbed? for example if you're carrying a bag and I push you to the ground from behind, grab the bag and run off, is that grounds for opening fire?

You can only use deadly force in response to the threat of death or grievous bodily harm. If someone has knocked you over, taken your bag, and run off, you could not legally shoot them.

If however, while they were in the process of laying hands on you, and you drew your weapon and fired, that would be legal, but once it's clear that the threat is no longer there (e.g., they've run off), you are no longer defending yourself.

You can only use deadly force in response to the threat of death or grievous bodily harm. If someone has knocked you over, taken your bag, and run off, you could not legally shoot them.

Unless you live in Florida, pursue the person you thought knocked you down, or might knock you down, or could possibly one day knock you down, get into a fist-fight with them, resulting in you getting your ass kicked, *then* you can draw your firearm, kill them, and claim self-defense.

See, that's why we keep the Zimmerman square on the bingo card

No trolling from me, Hordini. I was curious about grey areas in regards to the SYG law . Here in the UK it's only been a short time since our home defence laws were finally clarified, so everybody at last knows where they stand.

Do I think the USA still has a wild west mentality? Of course not.

 Alpharius wrote:
Is this really just a not so well disguised gun control(l) thread?

It might be the intent but I prefer to look at it as an anti-vigilante thread. There is a clear difference between defending yourself or another when faced with grievous injury or loss of life and trying to be a modern day Judge Dredd.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
No trolling from me, Hordini. I was curious about grey areas in regards to the SYG law . Here in the UK it's only been a short time since our home defence laws were finally clarified, so everybody at last knows where they stand.

Do I think the USA still has a wild west mentality? Of course not.

What was the result of the clarification in the UK?

When I was there, people were getting in trouble for defending their own homes. Is it different now?