HAD A FIREARM WHEN NEEDED AND USED IT IN SELF DEFENCE.

[DEFENSOR]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Reasons why warning shots are foolish.

1. They waste ammo.

2. It is hard to shoot at and hit nothing.

3. It does not show that you are serious. Having it and using it to stop threats show that you are serious. Warning shots can signal that you are hesitant to actually shoot a person who threatens you.

4. They waste time.

5. "Leave or I will shoot you." conveys just as much information as the warning shot does.

There is a reason why professionals don't use warning shots.

Yes, I agree withmost of your points. Please reread my post and you will find that I was in no way advocating warning shots. I would not do it but I would not have criticizedHaz for doing iteither.The point that I do not agree with is #3 I think that in this case especially if they were underthe influence of something their perception of the shot may wellhave been that he wasvery serious.

Sincerely, DEFENSOR

 

[ixtow]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Reasons why warning shots are foolish.

1. They waste ammo.

2. It is hard to shoot at and hit nothing.

3. It does not show that you are serious. Having it and using it to stop threats show that you are serious. Warning shots can signal that you are hesitant to actually shoot a person who threatens you.

4. They waste time.

5. "Leave or I will shoot you." conveys just as much information as the warning shot does.

There is a reason why professionals don't use warning shots.

In the middle of nowhere, with 3 drunk guys who believe they have you seriously outnumbered and who's intentions are clear and nefarious; I'd say he was generous and there was nothing at all wrong or negative about what he did.

Aside from not just blowing them away outright...

Professionals don't use warning shots because they are usually in a populated area, and every round they fire has to be located and accounted for...

This was clearly not a populated area, and it is doubtful these 3 would have been concerned with words. It was also a Shotgun, preferred because they don't overpenetrate indoors or carry for long distances outdoors.

I doubt 'warning shot' is the appropriate term. "The next one has your name on it" shot, maybe? There is a difference.

Try not to ignore the context...

Urban Armchair Quarterbacking is senseless.

 

[utbagpiper]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Reasons why warning shots are foolish.

5. "Leave or I will shoot you." conveys just as much information as the warning shot does.

There is a reason why professionals don't use warning shots.

When confronted by a wild animal, a very loud bang conveys much more information than a statement about getting shot.

In the middle of nowhere we might well start to ask whether three drunk or high men can and should be dealt with as rational human beings, or more like dangerous animals.

Firing a shot with one of the men actually targeted creates a lot of issues not present if the bad guys are persuaded to leave unwounded but scared.

Charles

 

[eye95]

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Reasons why warning shots are foolish.

5. "Leave or I will shoot you." conveys just as much information as the warning shot does.

There is a reason why professionals don't use warning shots.

When confronted by a wild animal, a very loud bang conveys much more information than a statement about getting shot.

In the middle of nowhere we might well start to ask whether three drunk or high men can and should be dealt with as rational human beings, or more like dangerous animals.

Firing a shot with one of the men actually targeted creates a lot of issues not present if the bad guys are persuaded to leave unwounded but scared.

Charles

With a wild animal, it is not a warning shot. There is no warning. And, the animal has no idea what a shot is. It is a loud noise, and, as such, would probably work. Personally, even with an animal, if I feel threatened enough to shoot, I am going to shoot to put the bullet in the animal. Otherwise, I won't shoot.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Reasons why warning shots are foolish.

5. "Leave or I will shoot you." conveys just as much information as the warning shot does.

There is a reason why professionals don't use warning shots.

When confronted by a wild animal, a very loud bang conveys much more information than a statement about getting shot.

In the middle of nowhere we might well start to ask whether three drunk or high men can and should be dealt with as rational human beings, or more like dangerous animals.

Firing a shot with one of the men actually targeted creates a lot of issues not present if the bad guys are persuaded to leave unwounded but scared.

Charles

Bagpiper is absolutely right.

When a human being has drug/chemical induced reduction in cognitive thought process, specifically reasoning (the proven first thing to diminish with alcohol consumption), you might have to fluff your feathers a bit more.

Where he in a urban environment, I would be joining you guys in shaming him for his activities, but he was not. He was in a wide, outdoor environment, and most importantly, firing a shotgun, which dissipates its energy quickly, and the projectiles fall rather harmlessly by comparison to a regular rifle or pistol.

If the shucking did not stop them, the next reasonable thing to do may have been to shoot them. He chose an alternative last ditch effort to get his point across.

It worked.

Nobody died, and the would be attackers left in their drunken stupor.


Leave this guy alone, his daughters are safe, and nobody got hurt.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

utbagpiper wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Reasons why warning shots are foolish.

5.  "Leave or I will shoot you." conveys just as much information as the warning shot does.

There is a reason why professionals don't use warning shots.

When confronted by a wild animal, a very loud bang conveys much more information than a statement about getting shot. 

In the middle of nowhere we might well start to ask whether three drunk or high men can and should be dealt with as rational human beings, or more like dangerous animals.

Firing a shot with one of the men actually targeted creates a lot of issues not present if the bad guys are persuaded to leave unwounded but scared.

Charles

Bagpiper is absolutely right.

When a human being has drug/chemical induced reduction in cognitive thought process, specifically reasoning (the proven first thing to diminish with alcohol consumption), you might have to fluff your feathers a bit more.

Where he in a urban environment, I would be joining you guys in shaming him for his activities, but he was not. He was in a wide, outdoor environment, and most importantly, firing a shotgun, which dissipates its energy quickly, and the projectiles fall rather harmlessly by comparison to a regular rifle or pistol.

If the shucking did not stop them, the next reasonable thing to do may have been to shoot them. He chose an alternative last ditch effort to get his point across.

It worked.

Nobody died, and the would be attackers left in their drunken stupor.


Leave this guy alone, his daughters are safe, and nobody got hurt.

+1

 

[eye95]

imported post

Just a reminder: I am not questioning the poster defending his family. Feel free to scroll up and check my posts on the topic.

I was specifically addressing the theoretical wisdom of warning shots, not criticizing the OP's actions. In that vein, I would advise, do not fire your weapon unless you have a specific target that you mean to hit in order to protect yourself.

The implication that I was second-guessing the OP is demonstrably false.

 

[marshaul]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Just a reminder:  I am not questioning the poster defending his family.  Feel free to scroll up and check my posts on the topic.

I was specifically addressing the theoretical wisdom of warning shots, not criticizing the OP's actions.  In that vein, I would advise, do not fire your weapon unless you have a specific target that you mean to hit in order to protect yourself.

The implication that I was second-guessing the OP is demonstrably false.

I didn't mean to support that implication. I saw your earlier post, and +1'd that as well.

So, to summarize, I agree warning shots are generally a bad idea. I also agree that, in this case, we are in no position to second-guess the scenario in question, which ended in an acceptable result. I also agree that you made no attempt to criticize this particular warning shot, for that same reason.

 

[eye95]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Just a reminder: I am not questioning the poster defending his family. Feel free to scroll up and check my posts on the topic.

I was specifically addressing the theoretical wisdom of warning shots, not criticizing the OP's actions. In that vein, I would advise, do not fire your weapon unless you have a specific target that you mean to hit in order to protect yourself.

The implication that I was second-guessing the OP is demonstrably false.

I didn't mean to support that implication. I saw your earlier post, and +1'd that as well.

So, to summarize, I agree warning shots are generally a bad idea. I also agree that, in this case, we are in no position to second-guess the scenario in question, which ended in an acceptable result. I also agree that you made no attempt to criticize this particular warning shot, for that same reason.

Perhaps I should develop a postulate on the subject, trademark it, and spend the rest of my life defending it?

 

[ixtow]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Personally, even with an animal, if I feel threatened enough to shoot, I am going to shoot to put the bullet in the animal. Otherwise, I won't shoot.

So, instead of scare it off, no harm done, you'll wait for the situation to get bad enough that instead of potential danger, there is clear and present danger?

While it is valid to claim there are better ways to 'scare off' two-legged predators, It seems you're advocating plain ol' blood lust.

You're right. Animals don't understand. And, no, they aren't equal in life-value to a human. But why not nip a situation in the bud, instead of wait for it to get that bad?

I get the feeling, from reading many of your posts, that you aren't really a giant a-hole, you just lack experience and a process of though involving the synthesis of reality.

Animal that can kill me snooping around:

1) Eyeball it and wait for things to get 'that bad,' so that I get to kill something!
2) Make a big noise and scare it off.

OMG! It's commin' right for us!

I don't see the sense in enticing this scenario when it can be avoided. Much like those who claim CC is some kind of advantage...

 

[eye95]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Personally, even with an animal, if I feel threatened enough to shoot, I am going to shoot to put the bullet in the animal. Otherwise, I won't shoot.

So, instead of scare it off, no harm done, you'll wait for the situation to get bad enough that instead of potential danger, there is clear and present danger?

Nope. That's not what I am saying. That's a strawman. Let me see if I can say what I mean in as crystal-clear a way as is humanly possible:

Personally, even with an animal, if I feel threatened enough to shoot, I am going to shoot to put the bullet in the animal. Otherwise, I won't shoot.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

ixtow wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Personally, even with an animal, if I feel threatened enough to shoot, I am going to shoot to put the bullet in the animal. Otherwise, I won't shoot.

So, instead of scare it off, no harm done, you'll wait for the situation to get bad enough that instead of potential danger, there is clear and present danger?

Nope. That's not what I am saying. That's a strawman. Let me see if I can say what I mean in as crystal-clear a way as is humanly possible:

Personally, even with an animal, if I feel threatened enough to shoot, I am going to shoot to put the bullet in the animal. Otherwise, I won't shoot.

It is not a Straw Man because I am not arguing that point. I'm a suggesting a thought you seem unable to have on your own, even thought you very nearly suggested it yourself.

My point is that, with an animal, there may be other reasons to shoot than merely because you are in imminent danger.

After all, as you said, to the animal, it's just a big noise. I believe a creature snooping about, but not yet dangerous, is plenty of call for a big noise to make sure it doesn't come to that.

And 3 drunk guys might be considered in this category (woot, on topic!)

With an animal, one need not currently be threatened to realize the situation could get worse, and with a big noise at my disposal, why not use it?

 

[Superlite27]

imported post

I noticed they were affected by strong drink

Ware those that taketh the devil into thieir mouths!

Thee was most wise to guardeth against yon hooligans and blasteth into the airwith thine trusty Remington pump action model 870.

 

[ixtow]

imported post

Superlite27 wrote:

I noticed they were affected by strong drink

Ware those that taketh the devil into thieir mouths!

Thee was most wise to guardeth against yon hooligans and blasteth into the airwith thine trusty Remington pump action model 870.

Does this make a "Boom Stick" into a "Devine Rod of Thunder?"

I've got my Plus 20 Shirt of Smiting on, and my Pants of Excrement Retention.......

 

[eye95]

imported post

ixtow wrote:

eye95 wrote:

ixtow wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Personally, even with an animal, if I feel threatened enough to shoot, I am going to shoot to put the bullet in the animal. Otherwise, I won't shoot.

So, instead of scare it off, no harm done, you'll wait for the situation to get bad enough that instead of potential danger, there is clear and present danger?

Nope. That's not what I am saying. That's a strawman. Let me see if I can say what I mean in as crystal-clear a way as is humanly possible:

Personally, even with an animal, if I feel threatened enough to shoot, I am going to shoot to put the bullet in the animal. Otherwise, I won't shoot.

It is not a Straw Man because I am not arguing that point. I'm a suggesting a thought you seem unable to have on your own, even thought you very nearly suggested it yourself.

My point is that, with an animal, there may be other reasons to shoot than merely because you are in imminent danger.

After all, as you said, to the animal, it's just a big noise. I believe a creature snooping about, but not yet dangerous, is plenty of call for a big noise to make sure it doesn't come to that.

And 3 drunk guys might be considered in this category (woot, on topic!)

With an animal, one need not currently be threatened to realize the situation could get worse, and with a big noise at my disposal, why not use it?

If the danger is sufficient that I need to discharge my weapon, I am not going to take the chance that the animal will react by attacking, with a round and valuable time now wasted. If I am threatened to the point where I will use my weapon, I will do my damnedest to put a round in the animal, center mass.

If I foolishly assume that a big noise will help, I'll kick some garbage cans.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Perhaps I should develop a postulate on the subject, trademark it, and spend the rest of my life defending it?

I may just need a change of underwear, and a box of tissues after this piece of commentary.

:lol:

 

[ixtow]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

ixtow wrote:

eye95 wrote:

ixtow wrote:

eye95 wrote:

Personally, even with an animal, if I feel threatened enough to shoot, I am going to shoot to put the bullet in the animal. Otherwise, I won't shoot.

So, instead of scare it off, no harm done, you'll wait for the situation to get bad enough that instead of potential danger, there is clear and present danger?

Nope. That's not what I am saying. That's a strawman. Let me see if I can say what I mean in as crystal-clear a way as is humanly possible:

Personally, even with an animal, if I feel threatened enough to shoot, I am going to shoot to put the bullet in the animal. Otherwise, I won't shoot.

It is not a Straw Man because I am not arguing that point. I'm a suggesting a thought you seem unable to have on your own, even thought you very nearly suggested it yourself.

My point is that, with an animal, there may be other reasons to shoot than merely because you are in imminent danger.

After all, as you said, to the animal, it's just a big noise. I believe a creature snooping about, but not yet dangerous, is plenty of call for a big noise to make sure it doesn't come to that.

And 3 drunk guys might be considered in this category (woot, on topic!)

With an animal, one need not currently be threatened to realize the situation could get worse, and with a big noise at my disposal, why not use it?

If the danger is sufficient that I need to discharge my weapon, I am not going to take the chance that the animal will react by attacking, with a round and valuable time now wasted. If I am threatened to the point where I will use my weapon, I will do my damnedest to put a round in the animal, center mass.

If I foolishly assume that a big noise will help, I'll kick some garbage cans.

Your Urban Armchair Quarterbacking is showing. I've never seen garbage cans 200 miles from nowhere. But I've seen plenty of Bears and Coyotes...

You're stuck soundly on the notion that a firearm should not ever be used unless you wait until a clear and present threat exists.

I, unfortunately, carry a gun, not a bunch of garbage cans. Had I known how effective garbage cans were in eliminating an imminent deadly threat, or even a potential one, I would have invested in at least 3 dozen.

It is not my intention to change you choices, but merely to show that, by your own suggestion, a gun has more uses than killing stuff.

 

[Haz.]

imported post

25sierraman wrote:

wouldn't those men have also been trespassing since it was private property?

Hi.

Yes they were trespassing. There are signs on the main gate to the property and at various positions along the outer fence linesthat it is private property.

 

[Mo]

imported post

Haz,

I'm very glad you were able to protect your family. Glad it did not turn out different.

I see no reason to be critical.

 

[Haz.]

imported post

eye95 wrote:

Reasons why warning shots are foolish.

1. They waste ammo.

2. It is hard to shoot at and hit nothing.

3. It does not show that you are serious. Having it and using it to stop threats show that you are serious. Warning shots can signal that you are hesitant to actually shoot a person who threatens you.

4. They waste time.

5. "Leave or I will shoot you." conveys just as much information as the warning shot does.

There is a reason why professionals don't use warning shots.

Hi eye95.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion and I am not about changing it. Here is my opinion regarding your 5 points.

Reasons why warning shots are foolish.

1. They waste ammo.

1. (Not in this case, it worked a treat, as I said they sh*t themselves and took off like scalded cats.)


2. It is hard to shoot at and hit nothing.

2. (No, its quite an easy thing to do. I have witnessed plenty of people at my rifle and pistol club aim at, shoot at a targets and hit nothing.)


3. It does not show that you are serious. Having it and using it to stop threats show that you are serious. Warning shots can signal that you are hesitant to actually shoot a person who threatens you.

3. (Sorry, they came at me after I told them I wanted no trouble and suggested they leave.Seeing they were ignoring my suggestion by sniggering and coming toward me, I grabbed my shotgun and let a round go over their heads. I believe they in their innebriated state thought one of them had been hit. They literally sh*'t themselves scrambling back to their vehicle. They must have thought it worked, they never got in their vehicle and said "HE MISSED" lets go back and get him.) They knew better. You dont mess with an armed man protecting his family, a man who will pull the trigger.

4. They waste time.

4. (Really, I have never seen three men take off so fast. Their arrival and menacing threats and questions tookless thana minute or so. As soon asI had my pump in my hands and let that round off, they vacated my camp in about two seconds never to be seen again.)

5. "Leave or I will shoot you." conveys just as much information as the warning shot does.

5. Never worked this time. They were strangers to me, trespasses on privat property. They conveyed to me that they were up to no good as soon as they got out of their vehicle. They never said, G-Day mate, nice day, hows the fishing. By they way, we know were on private property without permission and were lost, or were low on fuel, you couldn't help us out could you? THEY SAID, "Where are the F%@#N women we saw earlier." I said the women were my family. I want no trouble and would you please leave my camp. They came at me sniggering, thinking three alcohol pumped thugs against one family man will be a walk in the park. They never had the brains to think this guy might be armed, being way out here in the middleof nowhere. I knew what I had to do. Had the warning shot failed the next three would have been direct hits no problems at all! Leave or I will shoot would have been a waste of time. Chuck-chuck, BOOM worked a treat.

I dont mean to put you down personally, maybe you might have been able to convince them to leave by talking nicely to them Please leave or I will shoot might have worked. I was'nt about to find outiftalking to drunken crackheadsworked or not.

When one lives in a vast empty country like ours and one enjoy's hunting, fishing, camping, with family and we have people likeAllan Baker and Kevin Crumpwandering about the place;

"In rural New South Wales, Australia, Allan Baker and Kevin Crump murdered a complete stranger for $20, a packet of cigarettes and a couple of gallons of gasoline. Then, for no other reason other than that one of the men had once worked for her family as a farm hand, they kidnapped Virginia Morse, a young mother of three, from her home. Morse was raped and tortured repeatedly while Crump and Baker drove to neighboring Queensland. Next, they tied her to a tree and shot her execution-style."

And theres been plenty more like them and there will continue to be, onedoesnt mess about talking to compleate strangers in the middle of no wherewho boldly enter amans camp and ask nothing more than's, "Where the F'n women we saw earlier?

Haz.