Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 36

Thread: KC Side. Possible new gun laws for KC.

  1. #1
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628

    KC Side. Possible new gun laws for KC.

    http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-11ye...,2000561.story

    The parents of the 11 year old girl that was shot in the neck by a stray celebratory bullet are calling for stricter gun laws in the KC area. They seek to make it a felony to discharge a firearm into the air. Currently the offence comes with a misdemeanor charge; although, I doubt it remains a misdemeanor if it results in someones death. If nothing else I'm sure there are already laws in place that would cover harsher punishments for individuals who do this; something in the realm of negligent homicide. If firing the gun within city limits is a crime and it then results in someones death, is that not the definition of negligent homicide? That would also make it a felony.
    What happened to this girl and her family is truly a tragedy and I could not imagine, nor would I want to imagine, what they are going through; however, are more gun laws to punish something that laws already exist to cover the way to go? Seeking felony charges for discharging a firearm within city limits when it -doesn't- harm anyone seems iffy. If this law goes through it opens an avenue for disproportionate punishment; a negligent discharge, possibly a manner of self defense, could result in a felony conviction.

    Thoughts?
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  2. #2
    Regular Member Tony4310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florissant, MO
    Posts
    474
    Not sure why the parents assume stricter gun laws will solve the problem. They have historically never work and never will. Why punish guns and law abiding gun owners because of someones moronic choice.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Big Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    443
    that's the reaction to everything these days. Even if it's not about guns. They just scream, "Lets make it a felony!!"

    Felonies are thrown around way to easily these days. That title ruins someones life.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Boy View Post
    that's the reaction to everything these days. Even if it's not about guns. They just scream, "Lets make it a felony!!"

    Felonies are thrown around way to easily these days. That title ruins someones life.
    I'm kind of split on this one. I would not be in favor of the ordinance from what I've heard from Chiang. But, there's a chance he could be wrong about the ordinance (the information is pretty scant at this point.)

    The current ordinance is here: http://library.municode.com/HTML/101..._S50-263DIFIGE

    It shall be unlawful for any person within the limits of the city to shoot or discharge any gun, revolver, air rifle or air gun, pistol or firearms of any description, whether it is loaded with powder or ball or shot or with blank cartridges, or any kind of explosives whatsoever; provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to persons discharging firearms in the defense of person or property; or to legally qualified sheriffs or police officers and other persons whose bona fide duty is to execute process, civil or criminal, make arrests or aid in conserving the public peace; or to persons discharging blank cartridges as a final salute at a military funeral or memorial service as members of a ceremonial firing party or firing squad; or to persons discharging firearms while engaged in a wildlife management program under the control of the city on property on or around its airports owned or leased by the city through the aviation department.
    Looks like defense of persons or property is an affirmative defense. So, if they maintain the structure of the ordinance and just up the penalty, that would be different than if they remove the defense of defense and up the penalty. I guess we'll have to see the actual bill to know for sure.

    In other news, I don't see a penalty above, or in this section in general. How do I go from this ordinance to its associated penalty? All it says is that it's unlawful. Also, I didn't know it was a ordinance violation to use your city trash cart for storing anything but trash. I guess I better get my kids out of there.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Big Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    STL, MO
    Posts
    443
    What if you have a negligent discharge? Are you then considered a felon because said negligent discharge happened in city limits?

  6. #6
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Boy View Post
    What if you have a negligent discharge? Are you then considered a felon because said negligent discharge happened in city limits?
    This is what I would be worried about.
    Or hypothetically you find yourself in one of those situations where you fire your gun into the air to scare off a pack of animals or people or something. An option rather than firing directly at a blood and flesh target. Say your friend gets jumped but there are bodies everywhere and you cant risk shooting your buddy. You're yelling but getting no attention, so you blast a shot into the air. In this scenario, a warning shot may disperse the crowd, save your buddies life, and keep you from having to appear in court for homicide.
    I know its an unlikely situation, but I don't like the idea of making things a felony all willy nilly.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Sir,

    the rules of engagement are clear. Under rsmo 563 you are covered in defense.

    I am sorry in advance, but there is NEVER justification for firing a firearm in a direction that you are not CLEAR on the outcome of doing so and firing it into the air is indeed gross negligence.

    The ground is a much better choice and if that is not possible due to pavement, the reality is, you had better focus, breath, draw a bead, and squeeze the trigger on a target you intend to destroy in order to stop the threat or do not fire at all.

    If you are indeed truly concerned about the situation you described along with any others whom might agree, I would highly suggest a lot of consideration to frag ammo like glazer which has lower penetration etc and disintegrates on impact.

    I am no fan of gun laws, but am indeed a fan of significant penalties for negligent discharges and firing your weapon without intent on a target you fully intend to hit I do consider negligent and think being held accountable for doing so is a very wise position for people to take.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    This is what I would be worried about.
    Or hypothetically you find yourself in one of those situations where you fire your gun into the air to scare off a pack of animals or people or something. An option rather than firing directly at a blood and flesh target.
    Last edited by LMTD; 07-14-2011 at 01:40 AM.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  8. #8
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    ...

    I am sorry in advance, but there is NEVER justification for firing a firearm in a direction that you are not CLEAR on the outcome of doing so and firing it into the air is indeed gross negligence.

    The ground is a much better choice and if that is not possible due to pavement, the reality is, you had better focus, breath, draw a bead, and squeeze the trigger on a target you intend to destroy in order to stop the threat or do not fire at all.

    I am no fan of gun laws, but am indeed a fan of significant penalties for negligent discharges and firing your weapon without intent on a target you fully intend to hit I do consider negligent and think being held accountable for doing so is a very wise position for people to take.
    I don't think I agree. The reality of reality is chaotic. The biophysical reactions in your body, the visual stimuli going on in front of you, any physical trauma you may have suffered, etc. These are all contributing factors to the reality of drawing your weapon in self defense, you'd be hard pressed to find an average man who has had to pull his gun who did so then "focused, took a breath, drew a bead, and squeezed off a round". There a plenty of hypothetical scenarios one can imagine where drawing firing into the air or into the ground, where a warning shot in general would be a better option for all those involved than taking someones life. Making someone a felon for dispersing a dangerous crowd and saving someones life without taking anyone else's.

    Don't get me wrong, those who fire rounds for no purpose still need to be punished, and those who do so and kill someone need to be charged with negligent homicide. But those laws already exist.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  9. #9
    Regular Member Richieg150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Show Me State
    Posts
    433
    Added new gun laws, isnt going to stop people from doing STUPID or illegal things with guns. There are ENOUGH safesuards and checks to keep the guns out of the hands of those who shouldnt be in posession of guns now.All more laws do is constrict the law abideing citizens. The case was a real bad deal, but more laws wont bring her back. The more reasonable thing to do is prosecute the ones who shot the round in the air, to the fullest extent of the law MAYBE sending a message of how this type of behavior is delt with.
    Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
    Psalm 144:2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me. Pro 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    I don't think I agree. The reality of reality is chaotic. The biophysical reactions in your body, the visual stimuli going on in front of you, any physical trauma you may have suffered, etc. These are all contributing factors to the reality of drawing your weapon in self defense, you'd be hard pressed to find an average man who has had to pull his gun who did so then "focused, took a breath, drew a bead, and squeezed off a round". There a plenty of hypothetical scenarios one can imagine where drawing firing into the air or into the ground, where a warning shot in general would be a better option for all those involved than taking someones life. Making someone a felon for dispersing a dangerous crowd and saving someones life without taking anyone else's.

    Don't get me wrong, those who fire rounds for no purpose still need to be punished, and those who do so and kill someone need to be charged with negligent homicide. But those laws already exist.
    I think what LMTD was trying to say is that there is never a valid self-defense scenario to fire a round into the air. You disagree, so would you mind providing a couple?

    In my mind, firing into the air violates one of the 4 basic gun safety laws (always be sure of your target and what's behind it.) And I try really really hard to never break those, because they're meant to keep all of the good guys alive. What would be your defense if the round came down and killed someone? Self-defense in that case is going to be an extremely hard sell.

    Again, I'm not sure it needs to be a felony, but it does need to be treated very harshly by the justice system. And the person doing this type of thing in a populated area needs to go into gun time out until they can show better common sense or self-control. But it gets really sticky at that point...

  11. #11
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I think what LMTD was trying to say is that there is never a valid self-defense scenario to fire a round into the air. You disagree, so would you mind providing a couple?

    In my mind, firing into the air violates one of the 4 basic gun safety laws (always be sure of your target and what's behind it.) And I try really really hard to never break those, because they're meant to keep all of the good guys alive. What would be your defense if the round came down and killed someone? Self-defense in that case is going to be an extremely hard sell.

    Again, I'm not sure it needs to be a felony, but it does need to be treated very harshly by the justice system. And the person doing this type of thing in a populated area needs to go into gun time out until they can show better common sense or self-control. But it gets really sticky at that point...

    Well my scenario is hypothetical. If it would be considered self defense or defense of another individual that would be a good thing; however, you get a mean enough prosecutor they can pursue it anyway. I also agree with trying not to break gun safety protocol, i'm just saying in the real world, **** happens, i don't want to face a felony for a split second decision that may save my ass and keep me from having to take someones life. Also, if you fire the round straight up it will fall at terminal velocity, studies have found that falling bullets are unlikely to kill if the initial velocity it gained from being fired has been expended.
    The little girl that was killed died because the bullet was fired at an angle into the air, it arched and came back down retaining much of its muzzle velocity.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  12. #12
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    I don't think I agree. The reality of reality is chaotic. The biophysical reactions in your body, the visual stimuli going on in front of you, any physical trauma you may have suffered, etc. These are all contributing factors to the reality of drawing your weapon in self defense, you'd be hard pressed to find an average man who has had to pull his gun who did so then "focused, took a breath, drew a bead, and squeezed off a round".
    And I would have to disagree with that. In many cases, people who have had to use deadly force to defend themselves against a deadly threat later recall having a substantial amount of mental clarity during the act. They remember vivid sight pictures, they remember holding their breath, and they remember, in detail, the exact thoughts they had at that moment in time. Now with that said, it is often hours or days later before they recognize those memories, but it is a pretty regular phenomenon.

    There a plenty of hypothetical scenarios one can imagine where drawing firing into the air or into the ground, where a warning shot in general would be a better option for all those involved than taking someones life. Making someone a felon for dispersing a dangerous crowd and saving someones life without taking anyone else's.

    Don't get me wrong, those who fire rounds for no purpose still need to be punished, and those who do so and kill someone need to be charged with negligent homicide. But those laws already exist.
    There is no such thing as a "warning shot" in this state. When you fire a gun because you are in fear for your life, regardless of which direction you fire it, you have used deadly force. And you will be treated as such if your bullet damages property or life. There are so many practical and tactical liabilities associated with firing a "warning shot", that the entire notion is simply preposterous.

  13. #13
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    And I would have to disagree with that. In many cases, people who have had to use deadly force to defend themselves against a deadly threat later recall having a substantial amount of mental clarity during the act. They remember vivid sight pictures, they remember holding their breath, and they remember, in detail, the exact thoughts they had at that moment in time. Now with that said, it is often hours or days later before they recognize those memories, but it is a pretty regular phenomenon.
    Well we will have to agree to disagree because I believe that to be a pretty rare and extraordinary phenomenon. I've heard my fair share of war stories and half of them end with "i pissed my pants and held down the trigger"


    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    There is no such thing as a "warning shot" in this state. When you fire a gun because you are in fear for your life, regardless of which direction you fire it, you have used deadly force. And you will be treated as such if your bullet damages property or life. There are so many practical and tactical liabilities associated with firing a "warning shot", that the entire notion is simply preposterous.
    Again, I disagree. There is not some BS samurai "if it comes out of its sheath it must draw blood" code. I can think of many reasons why I would much rather let a round off straight up or into the ground (if its grass or earth). If I can avoid taking someones life unless I have too I would. I wont hesitate to take someones life if I need too. But just because I have a gun, or just because I draw my gun, doesn't mean I have to shoot a man dead. I'll deal with property damage liability over a homicide case where use of fatal force ends up getting questioned by a anti-gun prosecutor in front of some anti-gun judge.

    Different philosophies.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  14. #14
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    Well we will have to agree to disagree because I believe that to be a pretty rare and extraordinary phenomenon. I've heard my fair share of war stories and half of them end with "i pissed my pants and held down the trigger"
    A "war story" is a lot different than an actual lethal force encounter that happens on the street or in the home. A person on a battlefield is in a much more chaotic environment than a person in a street fight. Chaos = disorientation.

    Again, I disagree. There is not some BS samurai "if it comes out of its sheath it must draw blood" code. I can think of many reasons why I would much rather let a round off straight up or into the ground (if its grass or earth). If I can avoid taking someones life unless I have too I would. I wont hesitate to take someones life if I need too. But just because I have a gun, or just because I draw my gun, doesn't mean I have to shoot a man dead. I'll deal with property damage liability over a homicide case where use of fatal force ends up getting questioned by a anti-gun prosecutor in front of some anti-gun judge.

    Different philosophies.
    It's not about whether you agree or not or differing philosophies. That is completely irrelevant. The fact is, you may not use deadly force unless such force is justified under our defense of justification laws. If you use such force when it is not justified, you have committed a crime. If the situation in front of you is not so dire that you feel you need to use the gun to defend yourself, yet you feel compelled to fire off a round into the air anyway, your defense under RSMO 563 has been flushed down the toilet.

  15. #15
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    A "war story" is a lot different than an actual lethal force encounter that happens on the street or in the home. A person on a battlefield is in a much more chaotic environment than a person in a street fight. Chaos = disorientation.
    Semantics I hate arguing them. I also don't agree that a pistol fight in an american city is any less chaotic than a battlefield. All of these situations differ. Allow me to clarify, when I use the term war story I include the stories of pistol self defense state side. I have spoken to many people who used their gun in self defense and exhibited the same sort of disorientation as people who saw combat over seas. In a stressful situation an individual often reverts to their lowest level of training. Also, I -was- talking about a gun fight. It is also difficult to logically generalize a multitude of engagements on a battlefield, some are simply small arms fire 300 yards away. A civvy in the US may have to fight it out pistol to pistol within a few feet. You cant generalize engagements is my point. -edit-

    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    It's not about whether you agree or not or differing philosophies. That is completely irrelevant. The fact is, you may not use deadly force unless such force is justified under our defense of justification laws. If you use such force when it is not justified, you have committed a crime. If the situation in front of you is not so dire that you feel you need to use the gun to defend yourself, yet you feel compelled to fire off a round into the air anyway, your defense under RSMO 563 has been flushed down the toilet.
    I've never said or advocated using the pistol in a situation that didn't require justifiable self defense. Please don't sum up an argument I never made; it tends to mislead people and cause long threads over a straw-man.

    I'm simply offering a hypothetical, that in the right circumstances, and in conjunction with a possible felony charge, the law could provide a new avenue for anti-gunners to attempt to prosecute. I'm in no way advocating the use of a hand gun in a situation where self defense is not legally justified.

    The -hypothetical- scenario I was intending to get across was a situation where defense of yourself or someone else leads to a momentary decision to fire a warning shot directly into the air. Even though you feel the situation was legally justified, it goes to court and gets questioned because of the new felony law. Whereas before it may have been considered a minor enough offence to take your word for it. Again, I was only using a hypothetical to express my disagreement with harsher penalties for things that are already illegal. So lets not argue a hypothetical situation any longer as I'm sure you and I both have more important things to do with our time.

    As for disagreements and philosophies, those statements had nothing to do with claims of legality. Those were meant to relate to the question of warning shots. That is entirely a matter of opinion and philosophy if the discharging of a firearm is legally justified. So please read carefully before you discount parts of my post as irrelevant. I tend to find that to be rude and it puts me in a rather defensive mood.
    Last edited by ChiangShih; 07-14-2011 at 08:57 PM.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  16. #16
    Regular Member afcarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southeast of KC Mossouri
    Posts
    206
    Any psycho-physical phenomenon that may occur at the time is entirely subject to the training level of the individual in question. Once that adrenal gland opens up, muscle memory takes over and your brain goes to auto pilot. Physical location has nothing to do with it. Battlefield or not, this may happen in a car crash, too. These symptoms may manifest themselves in the for of tachypsychia, tunnel vision, or short term memory loss. With an absence of situational awareness it can lead to the worst case scenario: negligent homicide.

    Quote Originally Posted by cshoff View Post
    It's not about whether you agree or not or differing philosophies. That is completely irrelevant. The fact is, you may not use deadly force unless such force is justified under our defense of justification laws. If you use such force when it is not justified, you have committed a crime. If the situation in front of you is not so dire that you feel you need to use the gun to defend yourself, yet you feel compelled to fire off a round into the air anyway, your defense under RSMO 563 has been flushed down the toilet.
    There is no samurai code and I must admit, even though I would be hesitant to drawing my weapon ( based, of course on the individual situation) I would rather use the exposed weapon as a possible deterrent before I began firing at the individual. In some cases where a pointed weapon may have no effect (for example, a rabid dog) I may elect to fire my weapon in an attempt to scare the threat. My point of aim would ideally be three inches right of my left foot or wherever the most solid backstop would be. But either way, if you can use lethal force in a non-lethal manner and achieve a similar result with no loss of life or limb, ill take option B.
    Last edited by afcarry; 07-14-2011 at 09:03 PM.
    An individual should not choose the caliber, cartridge, and bullet that will kill an an animal when everything is right; rather, he should choose ones that will kill the most efficiently when everything goes wrong

  17. #17
    Regular Member cshoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , Missouri, USA
    Posts
    687
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    Semantics I hate arguing them. I also don't agree that a pistol fight in an american city is any less chaotic than a battlefield. All of these situations differ. Allow me to clarify, when I use the term war story I include the stories of pistol self defense state side. I have spoken to many people who used their gun in self defense and exhibited the same sort of disorientation as people who saw combat over seas. In a stressful situation an individual often reverts to their lowest level of training. Also, I -was- talking about a gun fight. It is also difficult to logically generalize a multitude of engagements on a battlefield, some are simply small arms fire 300 yards away. A civvy in the US may have to fight it out pistol to pistol within a few feet. You cant generalize engagements is my point. -edit-
    You say you don't like to argue semantics, yet you made a statement in which your word selection required just that. The statement in question being, "....you'd be hard pressed to find an average man who has had to pull his gun who did so then "focused, took a breath, drew a bead, and squeezed off a round....". While there is certainly some truth to your statement, it most definitely doesn't apply in every situation.

    There are plenty of gunfight survivors out there who have very detailed recollections of what happened during an incident, from beginning to end. Some of these folks remember very vivid details down to the sound of the empty brass bouncing off the concrete or seeing the sights fall back into place for a follow-up shot. This happens enough that it could even be called common.

    But I digress, I don't have any issues with your opinion on the subject. In fact, I even agree with part of it to a certain extent. What I took issue with was the way you handled your unwillingness to accept that your opinion on this does not apply in every situation or perhaps not even in the majority of situations.

    I've never said or advocated using the pistol in a situation that didn't require justifiable self defense. Please don't sum up an argument I never made; it tends to mislead people and cause long threads over a straw-man.

    I'm simply offering a hypothetical, that in the right circumstances, and in conjunction with a possible felony charge, the law could provide a new avenue for anti-gunners to attempt to prosecute. I'm in no way advocating the use of a hand gun in a situation where self defense is not legally justified.

    The -hypothetical- scenario I was intending to get across was a situation where defense of yourself or someone else leads to a momentary decision to fire a warning shot directly into the air. Even though you feel the situation was legally justified, it goes to court and gets questioned because of the new felony law. Whereas before it may have been considered a minor enough offence to take your word for it. Again, I was only using a hypothetical to express my disagreement with harsher penalties for things that are already illegal. So lets not argue a hypothetical situation any longer as I'm sure you and I both have more important things to do with our time.

    As for disagreements and philosophies, those statements had nothing to do with claims of legality. Those were meant to relate to the question of warning shots. That is entirely a matter of opinion and philosophy if the discharging of a firearm is legally justified. So please read carefully before you discount parts of my post as irrelevant. I tend to find that to be rude and it puts me in a rather defensive mood.
    You can respond however you see fit. It doesn't really make a whole lot of difference to me, though I would certainly never wish to see you prosecuted for something that you could have easily avoided. As I've already pointed out, there is no such thing as a "warning shot" in the eyes of the law in this state. Your discharge of a firearm in a defensive situation will always be viewed as the use of deadly force. It's possible that nothing would ever come of it (depending on where your bullet impacted), but it's also possible that such an action could cost you dearly (again, depending on where your bullet impacted).

    As for the ordinance that the OP talks about, I believe it to be completely unnecessary. It will do nothing to reduce crime or gun related injuries. It is a feel-good measure. Nothing more.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    I don't think I agree. The reality of reality is chaotic. The biophysical reactions in your body, the visual stimuli going on in front of you, any physical trauma you may have suffered, etc. These are all contributing factors to the reality of drawing your weapon in self defense, you'd be hard pressed to find an average man who has had to pull his gun who did so then "focused, took a breath, drew a bead, and squeezed off a round". There a plenty of hypothetical scenarios one can imagine where drawing firing into the air or into the ground, where a warning shot in general would be a better option for all those involved than taking someones life. Making someone a felon for dispersing a dangerous crowd and saving someones life without taking anyone else's.

    Don't get me wrong, those who fire rounds for no purpose still need to be punished, and those who do so and kill someone need to be charged with negligent homicide. But those laws already exist.
    What goes up must come down and a shot into the ground could possibly casue a ricochet in what direction no one knows if a rock or other hard substance were hiding under the grass.

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    I don't think I agree. The reality of reality is chaotic.

    Don't get me wrong, those who fire rounds for no purpose still need to be punished, and those who do so and kill someone need to be charged with negligent homicide. But those laws already exist.
    I understand and the cool part of life is folks never have to agree.

    I think my choice of words might have been a little confusing. When I say "focus" I am not speaking about eye sight, I am talking about internal focus on the situation at hand, recalling your training, and thinking the situation through. I am aware that many respond very poorly in such situations and no training will ever be perfect, but the best weapon you have is indeed your mind and you need to be in full swing using it to be sure you make the right choices.


    My position remains unchanged as well, sir I can not develop a single situation where firing a weapon into the air knowing I have no target I intend to destroy beats an alternative, I simply can not agree at all. I think shooting into the air makes for good tv and westerns but in reality is a negligent decision.

    Also on a side discussion that developed, I may be misunderstanding the law on this but for clarity for others interested I think it is good to put it out there for everyone.

    hoff said firing the weapon is use of deadly force under law, I THINK another is also.

    If you pull your weapon it is showing deadly force, but if you actually point it at someone I believe that is also the use of deadly force whether you fire or not is important but not relevant in the courts eyes on "the use of deadly force".

    Again I thought about this quite a bit yesterday and I do not find your thoughts compelling enough to consider firing into the air a good idea so we will indeed not agree on this one. I understand your point and it is valid but it fails the risk assessment every time.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  20. #20
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Again I thought about this quite a bit yesterday and I do not find your thoughts compelling enough to consider firing into the air a good idea so we will indeed not agree on this one. I understand your point and it is valid but it fails the risk assessment every time.
    The only point I've tried to make (which seems to be constantly derailed by a hypothetical situation I spontaneously created) Is that firing a shot into the air for whatever reason (some more reasonable than others), if no harm comes from it, should not be a felony.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    The only point I've tried to make (which seems to be constantly derailed by a hypothetical situation I spontaneously created) Is that firing a shot into the air for whatever reason (some more reasonable than others), if no harm comes from it, should not be a felony.
    Problem is, you NEVER know where it will come down. It's like playing russian roulette with others lives. I understand what you are saying, and I agree that stopping the threat without having to shoot someone is a good ending, shooting into the air can lead to nothing but trouble. As was said before, I'd fire into the ground IF I fired at all in that situation.

  22. #22
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628
    Quote Originally Posted by Festus_Hagen View Post
    Problem is, you NEVER know where it will come down. It's like playing russian roulette with others lives. I understand what you are saying, and I agree that stopping the threat without having to shoot someone is a good ending, shooting into the air can lead to nothing but trouble. As was said before, I'd fire into the ground IF I fired at all in that situation.
    I agree. The ground would be the best bet if you had the option.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

  23. #23
    Regular Member Richieg150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Show Me State
    Posts
    433
    You could take a high powered rifle and shoot at concrete...............say maybe a concrete crocadile, like Independence police, and never a mention on WHERE those rounds ended up......but those were highly trained LEO'S, doing the shooting....they have their own set of rules....
    Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
    Psalm 144:2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me. Pro 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

  24. #24
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by ChiangShih View Post
    The only point I've tried to make (which seems to be constantly derailed by a hypothetical situation I spontaneously created) Is that firing a shot into the air for whatever reason (some more reasonable than others), if no harm comes from it, should not be a felony.
    I think the only point getting lost is that shooting into the air is a bad idea. It is not hypothetical at all, it is directly on point of what the law is about, shooting into the air for any reason. The law is not trying to regulate warning shots, it is regulating shooting into the air. Since it is very widely known and understood that this is a really bad idea, there really is no argument to be had beyond there simply is no reason for another gun law designed to stop the criminals and the stupid, but the criminals and the stupid do not care.

    Since you are of a different opinion and feel there may indeed be a circumstance that firing into the air would be justified, then by your own comments the law is going to serve a purpose as no one finds you to be a criminal or stupid so the law will in fact stop you from doing it, thereby it is indeed effective so perhaps it is needed.

    If you do not think the anti's will not use your "hypothetical" as the very example of why it is needed, you are wrong, they will, and then they will call someone well known such as massaad to testify it is never justified and no senator with good sense as few as there are can indeed advocate for shooting in the air.

    The only argument against this at all is it is not really possible not to shoot into the air since there is air in the barrel and the bill may not be well defined, at that point the bill becomes stupid because even to fire a bullet at a BG it must first pass through the "air".
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  25. #25
    Regular Member ChiangShih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    628

    Just wow.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    I think the only point getting lost is that shooting into the air is a bad idea. It is not hypothetical at all, it is directly on point of what the law is about, shooting into the air for any reason.
    Hypothesis- 2. an assumption used in an argument without its being endorsed; a supposition
    3. an unproved theory; a conjecture
    Now when you apply this to a loosely constructed or imagined situation based on nothing but the imagined or theoretical principal behind the contextual argument, you get a hypothetical scenario. But as I said before I hate arguing semantics. I'm not surprised you're still arguing them though, as it seems you didn't read too deeply into my other posts in which I've already resolved my position.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    The law is not trying to regulate warning shots, it is regulating shooting into the air. Since it is very widely known and understood that this is a really bad idea, there really is no argument to be had beyond there simply is no reason for another gun law designed to stop the criminals and the stupid, but the criminals and the stupid do not care.
    No one said shooting into the air is necessarily a good idea. I've never said that. I've only said there could be a situations in the real world in which a person could be sparked to do so, and if it does not result in further negative repercussions it should not be a felony. Even when stating my personal position in relation to firing in the air I've stated it is not the best option and if possible other methods of deterring should be taken.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Since you are of a different opinion and feel there may indeed be a circumstance that firing into the air would be justified, then by your own comments the law is going to serve a purpose as no one finds you to be a criminal or stupid so the law will in fact stop you from doing it, thereby it is indeed effective so perhaps it is needed.
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here as it is pretty poorly worded, but I doubt you will find anyone on this forum that agrees the law (which already exists) should be upgraded to felony status. Also, if you wish to get into my philosophy of using deterrent force instead of lethal force in a real world situation I'd be happy to talk to you in another thread or in private. Not in this thread as it again redirects the flow of conversation away from the point of the post and the original opinion, which is firing into the air should not be a felony.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    If you do not think the anti's will not use your "hypothetical" as the very example of why it is needed, you are wrong, they will, and then they will call someone well known such as massaad to testify it is never justified and no senator with good sense as few as there are can indeed advocate for shooting in the air.
    Again, this is you having nothing more to add to the conversation but feeling the need to say something more. All this does is redirect the point of the thread to a misperceived point that has already been resolved, and its growing tiresome.This seems to be the case on OCDO with a lot of people. As I said before, the "hypothetical" was merely posted as an example where firing into the air in some spur of the moment chaos filled situations may have a more legitimate cause than drunken celebrations. I never once said it was a good idea and the example was rather spontaneous and not meant to be a point of argument. If you want to make an entirely new thread about the moral or philosophical controversy of firing into the air, feel free.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    The only argument against this at all is it is not really possible not to shoot into the air since there is air in the barrel and the bill may not be well defined, at that point the bill becomes stupid because even to fire a bullet at a BG it must first pass through the "air".
    Cool, use whatever argument you want to prove my original point, which is firing into the air should not be a felony.


    I'll summarize for you and others. It has become clear to me many of you don't bother reading before you post more irrelevant resolved banter imbued with emotion just to see your name pop up on screen.

    The scenario I provided was merely to offer a different, more sensible situation in which an individual could be incited into firing into the air, rather than it simply being an action perpetrated by drunk irresponsible gun owners. I've never said firing into the air was a judicious act, nor do I think it to be one currently.
    Simply put: I do not believe firing a gun into the air should be a felony.

    I look forward to your next lengthy and irrespective harangue.
    Tiocfaidh Ar La

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •