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: 3
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


In the olden days people loaded them with rock salt too. Many a butt has been filled with rocksalt and that was a great deterrent without having to kill.




posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


Ouch! I suppose it is better than birdshot/buckshot in a way. Unless there is something similar you can get from salt to lead poisoning.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by TKDRL
 


In the olden days people loaded them with rock salt too. Many a butt has been filled with rocksalt and that was a great deterrent without having to kill.


Ahhh, the good old days.


Using rocksalt nowadays will land you in a load of hot water, law suits are the first thing that springs to mind.



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raizekas
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?


In both cases, enough to kill.

Firing into the air, a shotgun projectile travelling upward at 1200 fps will reach 2 or 3000 feet before coming back down. You're talking about a piece of expanded lead coming back down at or close to 250mph. That's enough to kill.

Ricochets are reduced in speed 30-50 percent depending on the projectile and what it hits. That's also enough to kill.
edit on 21-7-2013 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


We're not talking particulars.

To me, it doesn't matter if you fire blanks or birdshot, or rocksalt. If you fire a weapon at anything other than your target in a legitimate self defense scenario you will end up paying fines or in jail. Your right to arms will be in danger.

It would be prudent to investigate state and local self defense and firearms laws. But the general rule is what I have been discussing here.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


I know... well the rednecks I am surrounded by have talked about using ice pellets so there would be no evidence...



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


He,he,he! Good idea there, maybe some itch powder put into the rock salt!



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Down to earth reply, you are right and it does make sense to check with your local authorities before ever making the firm decision of how best to protect your family. I have to admit, although on the story of the lady who gets 20 years I sense something missing from that which lead to her time.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


What's missing in that case, after some review, is the minimum sentencing laws that the judge was forced to follow. But that is a subject for another thread in another forum.

If she had shot the guy and claimed self defense she would be facing half the time on a manslaughter conviction, or no time at all.

This case certainly illustrates the need to understand tactical employment of firearms in such situations. I'm starting to believe in the concept of mandatory training.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


I know... well the rednecks I am surrounded by have talked about using ice pellets so there would be no evidence...


Now that I would like to see.


They'd have to keep the shotgun in a freezer all the time or at least the shells.

Then you have the problem of the water expanding distorting the shell as it freezes, etc, etc.

Just make sure that you're there with a video camera and make sure they say prior to firing...

"Hey Y'all! Watch this!"



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by projectvxn
 


I have to admit, although on the story of the lady who gets 20 years I sense something missing from that which lead to her time.



The full story is somewhere in this thread. But long story short, she broke multiple laws prior to and upon discharge of her firearm.

But I do think that 20 years is a bit extreme. I'm sure that it it will be appealed and she will recieve a lessor sentence.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


Training is always a good thing, if you can afford it. The more the better, it's one of those types of investment I don't regret a bit. And what is obvious to me, practice shooting regularly so you can hit what needs hitting, it's not obvious to everyone. Plenty of people buy a gun and some ammo, throw it in the night stand and that is it.

I am also not to keen on the minimum sentencing laws, would be a great topic for discussion IMO. If I can find the time, it's one of the topics I want to start a thread on actually.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Russian first day of school.




posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Seems like they are setting a precedence with her. An example for the public and then as you said hopefully reascend the sentence.

Admittedly I did not read the full explanation in this thread, but from the Op I gathered she left the house to get the gun then returned, that was a mistake without the police being called before she reentered. Her children were in the house so it makes perfect sense she would return to ensure their safety, but the children seemed to side with the Dad in the Op link rather than the Mom and that was what made me wonder what her mental stability was prior to this indecent.

I am sure noone ever dreamed she would get 20 years for this. There have always been funky laws governing the subject, lots of grey areas like the old adage of "Drag em in the house" and the likes.

I can see this as just another brick in the wall against the freedom to protect ones self and property. It's a mess for sure and gives me a very uncomfortable feeling.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I need to reenlist. There are too many fools in the real world for me to deal with sometimes. Between warning shots and firing blanks I've never had so many SMH moments haha. don't feel bad though, even professionals make mistakes once in a while. Usually due to lack of sleep. Irregardless, target acquisition is the most critical aspect. If you don't have a target in your sites- DO NOT FIRE. Not a warning shot and definitely not a blank. While you're posturing someone else could be preparing to fire a lethal shot at you and all the rounds in the world aren't going to save you at that point. I don't carry outside of the house anymore so I tend to only have to worry about an instance when someone breaks into my home. If they make it the the first alarm(2 Akitas) and make it to the stairs then its likely their farewell. Mostly because I'm going to be really p*ssed that they hurt my dogs more than violating my home. But the stairs are the demarkation between "You can still leave breathing" and "My kids are up here sleeping so now it's on".



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I can understand how some could see a "warning shot" as being reckless. However, I think I have greater understanding (not to mention sympathy) with the other side-- that it is preferable in many cases to taking a human life or having to seriously injure someone, if you can "let them know you mean business" without resorting to injury or fatality. And I think in many situations it could be minimally risky, if done right.


Regardless, maybe the points in the OP (especially the legal ones) are reason enough, should I ever find myself in such a situation, to fire a "warning shot" directly into their kneecap.





posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by iwilliam
 


Trust me, skip the kneecap. The only warning shot should be center mass. If staring down the barrel isn't enough to scare them off all a warning shot does is give your target time to react. Always remember that physics is more powerful than good intentions. When firing straight up into the air you could become your own inadvertent target.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by Raizekas
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?


In both cases, enough to kill.

Firing into the air, a shotgun projectile travelling upward at 1200 fps will reach 2 or 3000 feet before coming back down. You're talking about a piece of expanded lead coming back down at or close to 250mph. That's enough to kill.


As an avid duck and doe hunter for over 30 years I can say with confidence this post ispure falsehood.

I've been peppered with birdshot falling and its as light as a heavy rain. The ricochet figures quoted above are also bs. Too many variables to state those figures. Sand will stop a round dead. No ricochet.

I do not condone warning..shots but too many "experts" here are passing out false information.


Ricochets are reduced in speed 30-50 percent depending on the projectile and what it hits. That's also enough to kill.
edit on 21-7-2013 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by peter vlar
reply to post by iwilliam
 


Trust me, skip the kneecap. The only warning shot should be center mass. If staring down the barrel isn't enough to scare them off all a warning shot does is give your target time to react. Always remember that physics is more powerful than good intentions. When firing straight up into the air you could become your own inadvertent target.




See, that's why I don't entirely agree with that view.

Would you agree to say that some people out there might pull a gun far more readily and easily than they would be able to bring themself to pull the trigger?

Knowing this, someone on the other side of that gun might think "Aw, he's just a punk-- he doesn't have the guts to actually use it."


Now, I probably wouldn't be comfortable firing on someone center mass unless I felt reasonably assured that my life could be in danger Which in many cases would mean facing an active threat. Active being a key word. They'd have to be coming at me, or be in some kind of major superior position.


A guy is standing 10 feet away with a big knife? Maybe, but not necessarily. Again-- that would be highly circumstantial. But given some circumstances, I could see myself being a little reluctant to end a life. But neither would I necessarily want to wait until the guy is advancing toward or actually attacking me, to try to make the decision and effectively pull the trigger. In which case a "warning shot," could potentially seem appropriate.
edit on 27-7-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by iwilliam
 


Yes, I would definitely agree that there are some people out there who find it easier to pull the gun than actually pull the trigger. And those are the people I'm most concerned about. They are the ones who are more likely to have gone out and purchased a firearm and ammo but neglected to learn the basics of firearm safety. Rule one is only pull your weapon if you actually intend to fire it. Second is know what your aiming at and what's behind your target so that you only shoot what you intend to.

I'm curious why you would be uncomfortable firing center mass but more comfortable kneecapping them or firing warning shot? In most states you're going to end up getting the pants sued off of you and likely be liable for injuries, med bills pain and suffering etc. additionally a wounded foe is still capable of firing their weapon at you if they are likewise armed. I see where you're coming from and truly sympathize with your position. Ending another life is something to never be approached lightly and your reluctance to do so is a credit to your character. But I just can't in any way support firing a warning shot. What if you fire into the air and that round comes down a 1/4 mile away through the ceiling of a child's bedroom. Are you prepared for in intended casualties on your conscience because you're unsure if yourself in the face of a direct threat to yourself or your family? I'd rather kill someone on purpose and take a chance on defending myself in court as opposed to living with the guilt of an unintended casualty or taking a well deserved manslaughter charge for unintended consequences of an unanticipated warning shot. Just my own thought on the matter. In the end we all need to make the best choice for ourselves and be ready to accept what goes with the outcome. I'm just trying to help people avoid the collateral damage that can result from poor firearm etiquette, not trying to be snooty or anything. Just laying out the facts as best I can so you can make an educated choice.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join