Good reason to have a conceal and carry permit......

[Die Hard]

What is positive about the press? 

[Larry]

What is positive about the press? 

Some of the female reporters are hot. That's all I can think of.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I must say I'm unfamiliar with this law. Could you enlighten me since you've studied the topic?

Which law is it you are unfamiliar with? If you are unfamiliar with laws regarding the discharge of firearms, especially the firing of so called "warning shots", then you need to look at your state and local statutes. Each locality will have a particular wording. There's no way I'm going to attempt to quote law, I'm not a lawyer. I can tell you that all of the classes I was required to complete included having local and state attorneys  (prosecutors) come to class and explain to us how various laws apply, and that we could be prosecuted under various state and local statutes for firing a warning shot. This was explained to us both when I was working for the wildlife agency and when I was a sheriff's deputy. It was explained again when I got my permit, and again when my wife got hers.

Since you are so determined to believe that firing a warning shot is legal and acceptable, I suggest you look up your state and local statutes before you find yourself in a situation where you are inclined to do so.

[DYNAMITE]

^^^ well said, and sound advice-

[Steve]

Turns out he got lucky

He sure did. You go ahead and surrender yourself to the criminals and let them decide if you live or not.   Good luck.     Me, I'll take part in the decision making process.     

[mechanic]

Fair enough Steve, I would probably own some guns if i lived in the states. I just cannot believe all the people here saying they would play Duke Nukem in the streets would not have nightmares for the rest of their lives about the images of their own bullets ripping through childrens faces.

[Shuffler]

Fair enough Steve, I would probably own some guns if i lived in the states. I just cannot believe all the people here saying they would play Duke Nukem in the streets would not have nightmares for the rest of their lives about the images of their own bullets ripping through childrens faces.

I would have images of my family enjoying a good meal. Going on vacations and such. Not my family in caskets. I have no feelings for a criminal at all.

 Any places in the US where guns are restricted suffer a higher crime rate. Taking guns from law abiding citizens does not hamper the criminal at all. He gets his guns illegally. All that taking law abiding folks guns does is ensure the criminal is empowered.

[slimmer]

dmbear is back 
 

[Apeotomy]

Question for thoose more knowledgeable.

For the shoot to be legal would he have to be engaging those actively pursuing him? Surely shooting indiscriminately into a crowd is not O.K. (Assuming the ones being shoot are not pursuing you as a target.)?

[Steve]

Fair enough Steve, I would probably own some guns if i lived in the states. I just cannot believe all the people here saying they would play Duke Nukem in the streets would not have nightmares for the rest of their lives about the images of their own bullets ripping through childrens faces.

Well these "children" were dangerous attackers. For myself, I think you are right though. It would be an unpleasant and haunting memory, no matter how righteous the shoot.

[Die Hard]

Called a LEO friend of mine, and a colleague that has some experience with this sort of case. They say that a warning shot is legal in situations where lethal force is justified. In other words if you can legally shoot someone in self defense you can fire a warning shot (why you would want to is a different issue). "The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent." My state has adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and so has Ohio where the assaulted man in question resides. He was assaulted by a large number of assailants and certainly was in danger of grave bodily harm, possibly even death.

[Anodizer]

I would have images of my family enjoying a good meal. Going on vacations and such. Not my family in caskets. I have no feelings for a criminal at all.

 Any places in the US where guns are restricted suffer a higher crime rate. Taking guns from law abiding citizens does not hamper the criminal at all. He gets his guns illegally. All that taking law abiding folks guns does is ensure the criminal is empowered.

I have been of the exact same thinking for many years..  Somehow, certain kinds of people can't seem to understand this..  Their argument is remove guns or restrict them to a degree where all you can do is pretty much shoot once at some small birds and then spend 1/2 an hour reloading the thing..  Ultimately, we all know why certain powers that be(trying to stay a way from anything political) would have a field day with more restrictive gun laws..  But, as my fellow squadie Shuffler says: Criminals aren't going to go to a gun store to obtain their weapons..  So any kind of stricter gun laws will not inherently affect them for a long time..  There's quite a large amount of unregistered firearms out there..  It would take a long long time to gather them all..  A long time..
Until then, the average guy with more than the other guy is going to even more of a target than he already is..

Case in point..  Since hand guns have been made mostly illegal in England (Scotland and Ireland have more lax laws), violent crime incidents have risen steadily, especially burglaries..
This is showing that criminals know the chances of being shot when committing a crime are very low..  Also, crime rate in the UK is higher per capita than the U.S. (again due to hand guns being made illegal for anyone to own unless it had to do with your job which restricts them to police, security or military)..  Also, criminals in need of a gun in England still have very little problems obtaining them..  So, England's strict-arsed gun laws pretty much did the opposite of what they expected..  

[Steve]

Called a LEO friend of mine, and a colleague that has some experience with this sort of case. They say that a warning shot is legal in situations where lethal force is justified. In other words if you can legally shoot someone in self defense you can fire a warning shot (why you would want to is a different issue). "The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent." My state has adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and so has Ohio where the assaulted man in question resides. He was assaulted by a large number of assailants and certainly was in danger of grave bodily harm, possibly even death.

shenanigans

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Fair enough Steve, I would probably own some guns if i lived in the states. I just cannot believe all the people here saying they would play Duke Nukem in the streets would not have nightmares for the rest of their lives about the images of their own bullets ripping through childrens faces.

Taking the life of another, for any normal law abiding citizen, is the absolute last resort. Lethal force is the final option, after all others have been exhausted. Rest assured it will change you forever.

When you decide to carry, you first make the decision that you are willing to take the life of another in defense of yours or an innocent. This is not a decision you put off until faced with it. If you cannot make that decision with reasonable certainty, do not carry.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Called a LEO friend of mine, and a colleague that has some experience with this sort of case. They say that a warning shot is legal in situations where lethal force is justified. In other words if you can legally shoot someone in self defense you can fire a warning shot (why you would want to is a different issue). "The use of lethal force that can end in homicide is justified in the situation of immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent." My state has adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and so has Ohio where the assaulted man in question resides. He was assaulted by a large number of assailants and certainly was in danger of grave bodily harm, possibly even death.

Seen the results, seen officers fired and left to the wolves (read: lawyers), and seen people prosecuted. Nothing I've been told or taught by any professional tells me a warning shot is anything close to a good idea in any circumstance. I'll not be firing any warning shots. If you choose to do so, good luck.