KC Side. Possible new gun laws for KC.

ChiangShih said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Festus_Hagen said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree. The ground would be the best bet if you had the option.

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....

ChiangShih said:

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.

Click to expand...

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".

Just wow.

LMTD said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

LMTD said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

LMTD said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

LMTD said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

LMTD said:

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".

Click to expand...

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.

Well what if ... HYPOTHETICALLY , you fired into the air to stop a dog from attacking (or one of your other "hypothetical" situations ) , then the bullet kills a little kid coming down .

Should THAT be a felony ? Because it could surely happen.

Festus_Hagen said:

Well what if ... HYPOTHETICALLY , you fired into the air to stop a dog from attacking (or one of your other "hypothetical" situations ) , then the bullet kills a little kid coming down .

Should THAT be a felony ? Because it could surely happen.

Click to expand...

I don't believe that is what Chiang is saying at all. From everything he's posted, he appears to be saying that the mere act of firing into the air should not be considered a felony. Taken from Chiang's previous post:

.....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......

Click to expand...

I would tend to agree. When a bullet strikes something or someone, we already have statutory punishments in place to address those results.

With that said, I think it's important to realize that a bullet, once fired from any gun, can take a path that the shooter did not intend and for a variety of reasons. A bullet can strike a hard surface (even an unseen rock just under the surface in a properly constructed berm), or a surface such as water, subsequently ricochet, and strike someone that we can't even see and weren't even aware of. As another example, a bullet shot up into a tree at a squirrel could miss, or could even pass through the squirrel, and come down somewhere else causing an injury or property damage. However, I think the steps we take to mitigate such risks are what separates a criminal action from a negligent one, and a negligent action from an accidental one. I dare say that getting all drunked-up on New Years Eve and blasting off a half-dozen rounds into the air from your .300 Winchester Magnum at midnight in a heavily populated area is going to be looked at much differently than taking a shot at a squirrel in a tree with your .22 in a very rural area, in the event that someone is killed by (one of) your falling bullet(s). The first act could easily be defined as negligent homicide, the second act would likely come under RSMO 563.070 which would absolve you from any criminal penalty (though wouldn't absolve you from civil liability).

In the end, I agree with Chiang that this law is unneeded. We already have laws in place that deal with A) discharge of a firearm inside of city limits, and B) actions, whether negligent or accidental, that lead to a person being injured or killed.

cshoff said:

I don't believe that is what Chiang is saying at all. From everything he's posted, he appears to be saying that the mere act of firing into the air should not be considered a felony.

Click to expand...

It's just too "iffy" to say you can and it be "OK" in any instance IMO.

I agree, we already have laws in place for offenders, though.

Festus_Hagen said:

It's just too "iffy" to say you can and it be "OK" in any instance IMO.

I agree, we already have laws in place for offenders, though.

Click to expand...

I agree on both counts.

ChiangShih said:

I look forward to your next lengthy and irrespective harangue.

Click to expand...

Mine was lengthy? I know you like to argue, say something, then pretend you said something else etc, we have all seen it repeatedly out of you, using more words does not help.

The situation is not hypothetical at all, the law is about firing in the air, your scenario is about firing into the air.

Firing into the air is a KNOWN FACTUALLY BASED dangerous act, it has resulted in numerous deaths and injuries there is no question what so ever about it. It would also be factual that it has happened a great many times with no bad results what so ever.

Despite my agreement that it indeed does not need to be a felony, your scenario does nothing to sell that position and IMHO does the opposite by showing that some responsible gun owners have considered this dangerous act and under certain conditions may engage in it.

The only real debate that surrounds this at all is whether or not classifying it as a felony will indeed reduce it from happening thereby reducing the risk. I doubt that it will and actually think publication of he results that have happened when doing this actually is a much greater deterrent.

I suspect this proposed law may indeed die a silent death but I also do not expect to see any vocal opposition to it as there is nothing about taking that position that is positive.

Oddly enough in the St Louis area this is a new years activity more so than a 4th of July.

You are again welcome to blather another 500 words and try and twist it into something personal again but it is not going to change any of the facts around it or the general thought process on it, blather on.

Again with you

More irrespective dialogue, obviously you're having trouble reading or comprehending what I've already posted. Allow me to respond mostly with things I've already said, maybe you'll read them carefully this time.

LMTD said:

Mine was lengthy? I know you like to argue, say something, then pretend you said something else etc, we have all seen it repeatedly out of you, using more words does not help.

Click to expand...

Misunderstanding or creating a straw-man from what I've said does not = what I actually said. There is no pretending you didn't say something on a forum as the history is all in text.
Also, I just said this to you; don't try to turn it around on me. Here:

ChiangShih said:

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. 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.

Click to expand...

LMTD said:

The situation is not hypothetical at all, the law is about firing in the air, your scenario is about firing into the air.

Click to expand...

If the scenario is imagined to direct thought toward a thesis then it is hypothetical.

ChiangShih said:

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.

Click to expand...

LMTD said:

Firing into the air is a KNOWN FACTUALLY BASED dangerous act, it has resulted in numerous deaths and injuries there is no question what so ever about it. It would also be factual that it has happened a great many times with no bad results what so ever.

Click to expand...

ChiangShih said:

No one said shooting into the air is necessarily a good idea. I've never said that...I've never said firing into the air was a judicious act, nor do I think it to be one currently...I've never said or advocated using the pistol in a situation that didn't require justifiable self defense.

Click to expand...

LMTD said:

Despite my agreement that it indeed does not need to be a felony, your scenario does nothing to sell that position and IMHO does the opposite by showing that some responsible gun owners have considered this dangerous act and under certain conditions may engage in it.

Click to expand...

ChiangShih said:

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.

Click to expand...

ChiangShih said:

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.

Click to expand...

ChiangShih said:

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.

Click to expand...

LMTD said:

The only real debate that surrounds this at all is whether or not classifying it as a felony will indeed reduce it from happening thereby reducing the risk. I doubt that it will and actually think publication of he results that have happened when doing this actually is a much greater deterrent.

I suspect this proposed law may indeed die a silent death but I also do not expect to see any vocal opposition to it as there is nothing about taking that position that is positive.

Oddly enough in the St Louis area this is a new years activity more so than a 4th of July.

You are again welcome to blather another 500 words and try and twist it into something personal again but it is not going to change any of the facts around it or the general thought process on it, blather on.

Click to expand...

I'm not twisting anything, sadly this is pathetic form of projection in attempt to save face on an argument you've clearly misread and lost. You look silly, so you project motive and intention on my posts by summarizing them as a tactic I've not employed. Its nothing personal, you should not take it that way, you've simply misunderstood my position. I don't know why you're mad about it. We can be adults here when you come to the realization you were fighting a straw-man this whole time and we agree on the actual point of this conversation which is,

ChiangShih said:

Simply put: I do not believe firing a gun into the air should be a felony.

Click to expand...

ChiangShih said:

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.

Click to expand...

ChiangShih said:

. Its nothing personal, you should not take it that way, you've simply misunderstood my position. I don't know why you're mad about it. We can be adults here when you come to the realization you were fighting a straw-man this whole time and we agree on the actual point of this conversation which is,

Click to expand...

LOL, now that is some comedy. Here is a thought for you, I do not get "mad" on the internet, I consider it very insignificant.

I wasn't fighting anyone or a straw man at all. You are still pretending it is something it never was at all.

I clearly stated that the best argument for not doing it remains that it is simply another gun law and for that reason alone there is no reason to support it.


You have made your position clear, you do not want to see it become a felony because you feel it COULD be justified to fire into the air and you do not want the accountability to be held at the felony level if there are no injuries or deaths from the act.

What you fail to understand is any position beyond your own so you go off into your tirade and rant on about how the other person is twisting things while in reality it is all you are doing yourself.

It is not hard to understand my position, it is PLAIN. The act of shooting into the air without a target is never justified and since it is never justified holding persons accountable for doing so should be an option, stepping that accountability up from misdemeanor to felony is likely because the misdemeanor classification is not curbing the activity.

I suppose it depends upon view of the activity as to whether it meets felony IMHO. To me, felony should be a crime against persons with a weapon, gross negligence against persons for example armed robbery or DUI resulting in accident or death kind of thing. I can most certainly see a prosecutor arguing gross negligence a lot easier than a defense atty could defend it, the only question is since it can, does and could happen should the penalty be raised because of the ongoing gross negligence of some in the past and others in the future.

This discussion is about nothing else, it certainly does not involve emotion or any of the other BS you are trying to add to it.

LMTD said:

LOL, now that is some comedy. Here is a thought for you, I do not get "mad" on the internet, I consider it very insignificant.

I wasn't fighting anyone or a straw man at all. You are still pretending it is something it never was at all.

I clearly stated that the best argument for not doing it remains that it is simply another gun law and for that reason alone there is no reason to support it.


You have made your position clear, you do not want to see it become a felony because you feel it COULD be justified to fire into the air and you do not want the accountability to be held at the felony level if there are no injuries or deaths from the act.

What you fail to understand is any position beyond your own so you go off into your tirade and rant on about how the other person is twisting things while in reality it is all you are doing yourself.

It is not hard to understand my position, it is PLAIN. The act of shooting into the air without a target is never justified and since it is never justified holding persons accountable for doing so should be an option, stepping that accountability up from misdemeanor to felony is likely because the misdemeanor classification is not curbing the activity.

I suppose it depends upon view of the activity as to whether it meets felony IMHO. To me, felony should be a crime against persons with a weapon, gross negligence against persons for example armed robbery or DUI resulting in accident or death kind of thing. I can most certainly see a prosecutor arguing gross negligence a lot easier than a defense atty could defend it, the only question is since it can, does and could happen should the penalty be raised because of the ongoing gross negligence of some in the past and others in the future.

This discussion is about nothing else, it certainly does not involve emotion or any of the other BS you are trying to add to it.

Click to expand...

Your ability to project your own emotional and argumentative tactics onto the person you are speaking with is pretty uncanny, or maybe just relentless(either way fallacious). I think if people take the time to read the thread it will become clear who misdirected or misunderstood the conversation.

ChiangShih said:

Your ability to project your own emotional and argumentative tactics onto the person you are speaking with is pretty uncanny, or maybe just relentless(either way fallacious). I think if people take the time to read the thread it will become clear who misdirected or misunderstood the conversation.

Click to expand...

LOL Chiang, I am an INTJ personality type, we simply do not do emotions. It is not one of the common type being typically less than 1% of the population, but it is indeed the most consistent type and emotions virtually no impact on us at all. I can only assume you continue to reference it due to your own emotional involvement, that or you employ it as a tactic of defense when you find yourself wrong. I really could not care either way, though I know you likely do not understand that.

Word

LMTD said:

LOL Chiang, I am an INTJ personality type, we simply do not do emotions. It is not one of the common type being typically less than 1% of the population, but it is indeed the most consistent type and emotions virtually no impact on us at all. I can only assume you continue to reference it due to your own emotional involvement, that or you employ it as a tactic of defense when you find yourself wrong. I really could not care either way, though I know you likely do not understand that.

Word

Click to expand...

Derp.

ChiangShih said:

Derp.

Click to expand...

Word