Well then...what if you start shooting at them and they start shooting back as they are trying to leave the premises. Unfortunately, my family and I are in their line of fire. My best option might be to shoot you so they can leave and thereby eliminate the risk for my family.
You cool with that?
First I live in Washington so knowing the laws of the state where I am is not silly any more than knowing the laws of any State I am visiting. I have no idea of what your travel plans are and thats your business. There have been many(too many)instances of a mass shootings that could have been prevented or minimized IF a properly armed and prepared person took action. What if the BGs got spooked or decided that witnesses were a bad thing? IF the same situation that took place in Texas was to happen to me I would have to take action. There is always a risk and variables that can change the scenario as I said on an earlier post,but in my opinion doing nothing can be deadly. If you need an example look at an incident at a resturant in Texas several years ago.Why would I read the laws for Washington if I don't live there and have no plans to go there? That's a pretty silly suggestion. A man walks into Denny's and goes up to the cash register with a gun and demands cash. How is he threatening you with a gun? If a man comes at you with a tire iron that's a completely different scenario and the way it should behandled is completely different. In the case of Denny's there were two BGs. You're putting the life of the cashier and everyone in the building in jeapordy rather than helping if you pull your gun. If their intention is to take the money and run, which is more often than not the case, you just started a fire fight for nothing. Shoot first and ask questions later works well in movies but in real life.....not so much.
... and in any case, it is perfectly within THEIR legal rights to preclude guns from private property.
Why is it that while expounding on the virtues of OUR rights, we tend to forget that others have rights also? Is it not said that your rights stop the moment when they interfere with mine?
So the bottom line for me is that I can understand others exercising their rights, even if they interfere with mine. I only tend to get REAl testy when the "others" decide to completely take my rights away in favor of their rights.
Not on my watch.
GG
This was not in reference to rights at all. We understand everyone has rights. This is about the reasoning for the no guns signs, not about whether they have the right to or not.
This was not in reference to rights at all. We understand everyone has rights. This is about the reasoning for the no guns signs, not about whether they have the right to or not.
Hey now nogods, going a bit far aren't ya?
1) Are you saying that you'd shoot an innocent man for defending another human beings life? Rich, you really agreeing with that? Did it not occur that hey, here's this guy firing on the BGs, maybe I should join him, not shoot at him? See how that line of logic works with the prosecutor.
2) I'm POSITIVE that you two would be in the minority on this.
3) Where are your morals? I bet everything I own that both of you would LOVE for someone to come to YOUR defense if the need arose.
4) Considering your comments here, neither of you deserve it, both of you are morally deprived and not worth your flesh.
Hey now nogods, going a bit far aren't ya?
Are you saying that you'd shoot an innocent man for defending another human beings life? Rich, you really agreeing with that? Did it not occur that hey, here's this guy firing on the BGs, maybe I should join him, not shoot at him? See how that line of logic works with the prosecutor.
Ever heard of "alter ego" provisions in SD laws? I'm assuming your states dont have one because something must be in the water around there that you two would heartlessly stand idly by while a living breathing human beings life hung in the balance. Mine specifically provides for my criminal and civil immunity in just such a case because...well ya know....its just the right thing to do.
Well here's to navy, me, anyone to agree in this thread, my whole state legislature, probably most in my state, oh and other state legislatures that disagree with you by passing identical legislation and most likely most of their citizens...hell to be honest, I'm POSITIVE that you two would be in the minority on this.
Where are your morals? I bet everything I own that both of you would LOVE for someone to come to YOUR defense if the need arose.
Considering your comments here, neither of you deserve it, both of you are morally deprived and not worth your flesh.
"threat analysis and resolution. Target priorities assigned accordingly."
GG
During PP classes we have an attorney on-hand to teach the defense of justification (use of force / deadly force). He makes it very clear that even a clean defensive shoot will probably ruin your life. He tells the class if you come to him charged in a shooting death he requires a $20K retainer and then charges at $350 per hour plus costs. Total cost? About $50K and he might lose.Take some training if you want to see who's in the minority here. Hint: it's the tough guy internet commandos who think they're prepared to save the day. When criminals have as many rights if not more than their victims you also need to think long and hard about stepping into a situation involving a total stranger when it more than likely will ruing the rest of your life. Look what happened here:
Man Pleads Innocent to Assaulting Alleged Thief - Swampscott, MA Patch
Then what we say when we carry "because we have a right to" does not hold true for their right to post signs precluding you (and I) from "sullying" their precious business domain, because "they have a right to"?
They post the signs in accordance with Law out of pure exercise of their rights to do so. They need no more "reason" than that. It's a personal thing and, most assuredly, has everything to do with "rights".
GG
Your assuming I carry a gun because I have a right to do so. Well I also have a right to protest but I never protest, so my right to carry is not why I do carry. I have the right to open carry also but I dont. I carry because of safety and I like my handgun and want it with me. My guns are very precious to me!
I just reread the entire thread (to see if I got the same "experience" you seemed to have) and have concluded that it WAS interesting! Wasn't it?
It certainly provided a lot of info on various "attitudes" of various posters. Some good, some not so good. Some "smart", some not so smart.
From statistical records (easily found), the bottom line is that, on average, you have twice the chance of getting killed through accidental gunfire from legit gun owners than you have of properly dispatching a legit bad guy. Now I know why.
Just sayin'.
GG
I'm glad to know you're absolutely sure that you don't have instructors in your state that think differently than you. I'm glad to know you are absolutely sure that people who live on the East coast think differently than you. I'm very glad to know that you have researched and found that instructors on the East coast are absolutely worse than those on the west coast. I'm glad to know that you are better educated on the subject than Mas Ayoob, who recommends one disengage. I'll sleep better at night now.Firefighterchen said:I'm starting to see my respect level for firearms instructors closing in on my LEO respect level. I like what the other poster wrote on another forum, if I ever need to refer someone to "bend over 101" I know where to send them. I love living in Washington, I'm glad we don't have instructors here like the east coast.
Generalizations illustrate ignorance on the part of the observer. No two people are alike whether they're LEO, instructors, crackheads, doctors or janitors. A generalization is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who ever studied sociology or behavioral sciences. Remember, when one has a problem with every neighbor, it's probably not the neighbors' fault.
I don't know, have you ever heard of insurance???? Who let the sheep in here?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?