Summations Only

No, when I aim at something in a defensive situation I intend to stop a behavior. I do not intend to kill anyone. I am willing to do that if that is the only way to stop the behavior.I agree that I would not use a gun to threaten someone. That is just silly.

Then you are ignorant of the purpose of a firearm and need to take classes to learn about their uses. Guns are not behavior modification tools (for the third time now), they are weapons designed with the sole intent to kill. You repeating that only solidifies my point that you are actually doing harm to your cause, not bolstering it.But we're just going round and round now, aren't we? You are an irresponsible gun owner, plain and simple.edit Then what is it you call using a gun not to kill but to stop a behavior?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Me either.The law says that the onus to retreat is not required. It most certainly does not mean for over reactive, mentally unstable, combative paranoids to interpret any and every physical altercation as means to justify their sick desire to blow someones shit away.imo.

I agree with 212002. You want the behavior to stop, and you are deliberately pushing a 'kill' button and not a stop behavior button. Saying you don't intend to kill is just silly rationalization.And from a legal stand point, deliberately pointing a gun at someone and shooting them with the intent that the bullet hit them is intent.And as far as threatening someone with a gun. Law enforcement does that routinely and they often get the results they need from showing that they intend to shoot if non compliance continues. That is not silly.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

How are you using a gun to stop a behaviour except by threatening to shoot?

Suppose an armed robber has taken the money and is running away. You point your weapon at him but you do not fire because you don't perceive an immediate threat. If he turns to shoot at you (and the instinct to use his weapon may well outweigh the instinct to run), you are ready to shoot first. In the above scenario, a Canadian police officer would not fire his/her weapon; he/she would give chase on foot and fire only if the alleged perpetrator turned to fire. The "threat" is therefore empty.

Okay. Now how does that relate to what I said to Jar? I don't disagree with what you've said or consider it unreasonable. I just don't see the relevance. Yes, sometimes a gun is an empty threat, but is the above the only scenario that law enforcement might encounter? How about the scenario where law enforcement encounters a thief coming out of a window with a gat in his belt and points a gun at him and says "Put the TV down"? Is the gun an empty threat?

Just that pointing a gun at somebody doesn't necessarily mean you intend to shoot them, only that you are prepared to shoot them if the need arises. I wouldn't call it a threat at all. If the cop says, "Put the TV down or I'll shoot," that would be an empty threat because the alleged thief knows that the cop won't shoot unless he has to. The cop's gun is ready in case the alleged thief pulls his gun (or throws the TV). It's no more a threat than starting your car is a threat to drive.

You could call it: "Shooting them in the leg."I get that you shouldn't point your gun at someone that you're not willing to kill, but that doesn't mean that you cannot point your gun at someone without intending to kill them.I don't think that purpose defines intent, so to say that a gun is designed to kill therefore your intent has to be to kill is a bad argument.And the combat training a soldier receives with an M-16 is gonna be different than that of a civilian carrying a handgun in public, so just because that's the training you got doesn't mean its the training that everyone gets.You're right that you shouldn't point your gun at someone if you're not willing to kill them, but that doesn't mean that you cannot point it at them without intending to kill them.

Sorry, I have a hard time believing civilians with no combat training or experience that have also admitted their weapons are for self defense in a high stress situations where they are fearful for their safety and well-being are able to aim where they point their weapon and strike the assailant in the leg. Soldiers have a hard enough time reacting quickly to high stress situations and they handle their weapon daily and realize it is a tool designed to kill and not some toy to collect. Both jar and marc9000 have admitted that they use their gun for irrational responses where their feelings dictate who lives and dies *(shooting a horny teenage boy???). yes, physically, you can point your gun wherever you want. Technically, you can aim wherever you want. I was talking about what responsible gun owners do. I am not making an argument, I am telling you proper gun handling procedure from actual, proper, gun handling experts. Aim at what you want to kill. end of discussion. If you point a weapon at something, you better be ready to kill it. Otherwise, don't point a gun at it. It's really not a matter of opinion. I get that. And from the sounds of it, y'all get no training whatsoever. That worries me because that means that all these gun nuts shoot based on quick, uninformed and untrained decisions out of fear. That is how innocent or undeserving people die. Just like just because I shouldn't drink rat poison doesn't mean I cannot drink rat poison.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Police targets don't have legs.

Agreed, and that's a much better way to phrase it too.

Nor can they be killed.

That's fine. But the position under discussion has to do with changing someone's behavior by actually shooting them. My position is that when you do that, you intend to kill. That's why I question the relevance of the examples you have raised.

You are neglecting the gun in the thief's waistband.In the US jurisdictions I am familiar with, (DC and NC) The police can shoot an escaping armed felon. That gun in the thief's waistband makes all the difference. The policeman is not required to wait for the thief to pull out the gun.Police are also authorized to use deadly force to prevent the escape of a felon who has committed a dangerous felonly in almost all US jurisdictions. And a burglary while armed is considered a dangerous felony.So the policeman is already authorized to use deadly force in this instance. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.