It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Warning Shots: What NOT To Do!

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by centhwevir1979
Sounds good, sadly some folks in law enforcement are just as reckless as some of these folks firing warning shots. Actually, they are downright dangerous. One example out of many

A good friend of mine recently passed his final test for being a conceal and carry trainer, one of the tests was to keep a tight pattern with a AR-15 and a 9 mil. He outshot the local PD and 2 swat members.. That is concerning as three of the local PD an 2 of the Sheriffs didnt even make the cut.. and these guys can legally carry weapons.




posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by kmb08753
reply to post by projectvxn
 


If confronted with bodily harm, pull your weapon. So defending you or someone else, you will be alright.
If they are trying to rip you from your car, you may have a legal right to pull your firearm.

I wonder how it would have gone for you if you had fired, however. You weren't in your home, which according to Grimpachi, that might be an important legal factor.

Sounds like a lose-lose situation. I hope I am never faced with it.

Either way, stray bullets are bad.


If the guy hadn't immediately capitulated I would have shot him and under Nevada law I would not have been charged. The man was on drugs, aggressive, and decided to arm himself with a deadly bludgeon.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny
A gun is the last resort. It is not a deterent.

If you are at the point where you are left no choice but to use a gun, it's 2 in the chest, 1 in the head.

Worst possible situation to be forced into. Damn.


First of all don't give false tactical information. "2 in the chest 1 in the head" is not feasible in a chaotic, adrenaline filled, frightening situation.

Always aim center mass. Fire only as many rounds as are needed to stop the threat. Not everyone is a navy seal. Even SEALs train on center mass.
edit on 18-7-2013 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-7-2013 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Bird shot from a shotgun is not dangerous, as duck hunters have been plagued by lead rain for ages. Other bullets yes.

I think if people want to fire warning shots, they may as well load blanks in a gun specifically for that use. Load two blanks, fire one as a warning shot.

If you need a real bullet, load the third with a live cartridge and fire 3 rounds if needed. Hopefully that would hold up in court.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


It won't hold up in court.

Most cities, counties, and states have unlawful firearms discharge laws.
It's a good way to lose your rights.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
In the last CCW course I sat in on the instructor mentioned this one point many, many, times - if you are going to engage a threat they should only see your weapon on their way to the ground with a new orifice center mass. You do not present your weapon to threaten or intimidate. You do not present your weapon to fire warning shots. You do not wave your weapon around to protect personal property. Ever. If the weapon comes out of the holster there needs to be a clear and immediate threat of grave bodily harm to you or those with you* and deadly force is then used to stop the threat. No more, no less.

In this state, anything else is brandishing, unlawful discharge or worse. Laws aside, it's also just plain irresponsible. As others above have mentioned - if you don't have a valid sight picture of your target and a solid knowledge of what's behind it you don't have a shot. Your finger should never touch the trigger until those two considerations are met and you are prepared to engage the threat.

*Although the law allows for lethal force to be used in defense of yourself, your family, your associates or complete strangers (in public), more than one instructor has cautioned against playing hero. They gave a great example that happened years ago in a nearby city:

Man with a LTC hears a woman screaming in an alley. She yells "Help! Rape!" so the citizen charges into the alley, presents his weapon and drops the man that was attacking the woman. The woman then runs off into the dark. That's when the citizen saw the badge on the belt of the man he shot. The woman was a drug dealer and the undercover officer was making a lawful arrest. Thankfully the officer survived, but the citizen was immediately arrested by the back-up waiting in a unmarked vehicle around the corner.

Keep calm and carry on!



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   


If the weapon comes out of the holster there needs to be a clear and immediate threat of grave bodily harm to you or those with you* and deadly force is then used to stop the threat. No more, no less.


So if the attacker stops and/or decides to run away or back off, you still shoot him anyway? Sure sounds like that is what that post is stating.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Having a firearm is a tremendous responsibility.

If you have a gun and you have 0 training on its proper use, you are a Liability to yourself and your neighbors.

Just like anything that is capable of causing harm, you should know the proper regulations, laws and usage of, to do anything less is being a determent to us all.



posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 



Good message, most responsible firearm owners know this.


Warning shots are BAD!

They scare away the target!





I Hope The VP's staff can have him stop by this thread and learn something...

There's no point. He’s oblivious and unconcerned.




posted on Jul, 18 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel



If the weapon comes out of the holster there needs to be a clear and immediate threat of grave bodily harm to you or those with you* and deadly force is then used to stop the threat. No more, no less.


So if the attacker stops and/or decides to run away or back off, you still shoot him anyway? Sure sounds like that is what that post is stating.


Certainly not, but I see how my statement could be read to mean how you interpreted it. Using your scenario, there would no longer be a threat and at that point deadly force is no longer justified. Please allow me to rephrase...

Before you produce your weapon (removing it from concealment), there there needs to be a clear and immediate threat of grave bodily harm to you or those with you. Deadly force can then be used to stop the threat. If by producing the weapon the threat mitigates itself (bad guy drops his knife and runs away) then everyone gets to live another day.

The key is assessing the "clear and immediate threat of grave bodily harm". A threat that turns and runs when he sees that he brought a knife to a gun fight is no longer a threat. No one should be shot in the back, and I'll never put a round in the dirt to scare them off - if they have time to see my weapon and choose to retreat, it's good for everyone involved.

That said, if a bad guy pulls a gun on me they had better hope they are faster and more accurate than I am. Provided the opportunity, as soon as my weapon clears the holster I will pull the trigger. There will be no chance of retreat for either of us. The irony in that scenario however is that the threat did exactly what citizens with a LTC are trained not do do - brandish a weapon as a means of intimidation. That can cost you (or them) a life.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I have knowledge of the 2nd one on your list, and it's not a case of warning shots. She left, came back with a gun, and fired in the vicinity of her son. Knowing this, can't take the rest of your post seriously.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by boncho
 


It won't hold up in court.

Most cities, counties, and states have unlawful firearms discharge laws.
It's a good way to lose your rights.


I'm not condoning or promoting the idea. I'm just wondering if a gun loaded with blanks would still be considered the same.

Probably wouldn't matter though, as shooting a gun blanks or not would justify a police officer shooting you. So... Usually anything that would cause them to react that way, it tends not to be legal, nor be a good argument in court.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I have knowledge of the 2nd one on your list, and it's not a case of warning shots. She left, came back with a gun, and fired in the vicinity of her son. Knowing this, can't take the rest of your post seriously.


That's even worse.

She left the scene, came back with a gun and illegally discharged her weapon. She says they were warning shots. And maybe to her they were.

This post is about gun safety. If you don't want to take it seriously because I didn't do a full dissertations on the case, go right ahead.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I would think that blanks could easily get a person a disturbing the peace charge at minimum. If the police thought the person was in anyway being aggressive then even worse charges.

A side note, in my state there is no distinction between loaded or unloaded firearms.The person at the barrel end probably isn't going to know about the bullets.



posted on Jul, 19 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


Discharging blanks is still discharging a firearm.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
How much damage bullet fired in air can do? I mean when it fall's what damage will it do if it will hit someone? Or am I gettin this very wrong?

And what if you shoot a bullet near you on the ground? Does it ricochet and if yes at what speed, compared to the bullet speed at the beggining of shot?



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
If you want a chance to scare someone away with doing no harm, buy a shotgun, and learn to cock that sucker really loud. Seriously, the sound that makes is unmistakable, it really does work. If that doesn't scare someone off, neither would a fired warning shot, so get ready to take the shot.
edit on Sun, 21 Jul 2013 07:20:54 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Raizekas
 


Huge difference depending on the type of ammo really. Shotguns are allowed to be used for hunting a lot closer to towns, houses etc, than rifles. They are not as powerful, the ammo is softer. Shotguns are great for closer up work, rifle bullets can travel very far, and penetrate walls. IMO it is better to err on the safe side and KISS, do not fire guns into the air, or at a wall etc. Only fire at a legitimate threat, and make sure you actually spend time to get proficient with the weapon to hit what you are aiming at.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Yea, I understand that, but it would be very interesting to find info about this. Maybe there are any occasions where the alarm shot did significant damage to someone?



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Just because you own a weapon and are prepared to use it in a life altering situation, doe not mean that you are trigger happy or truly prepared to take another's life. I believe that there are instances where a warning shot can be appropriate.

This is just more preconditioning folks to comply and will not end well for the second unless you are police, military or a high politician.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join