Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #19991
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    Under what conditions are you prepared to use lethal force? I noticed in some of the other threads comments about firing warning shots, is this a good idea or are you setting yourself for return fire?

    #20001
    Profile photo of freedom
    freedom
    Survivalist
    rnews

    Well here in Florida they just pasted a law that if you feel that someone is coming at you and you think that you are in danger you are aloud to put you gun out and even shoot a warning shot. But if the danger is coming at you with a gun then things change real fast. The danger needs to know that they need to drop the gun or you will shoot.

    You need to make sure that you are in danger and before shooting to make sure he or she has a weapon that will hurt or kill you if you do not take action.

    In a SHTF where the law is no were to be found then you need to defend your self and your family.

    #20002
    Pinhead
    Pinhead
    Prepper
    member2

    Lethal force is most times a last resort, but in some cases it should be a first. If someone has a gun trained on your family, or anyone else you have sworn to protect, you fire before anyone else has the chance. If someone has a gun on you and you have a concealed weapon, it’s best to wait it out and play the victim until the time is right. But basically if you or someone you are protecting is in danger of being killed, lethal force is okay in my book. It’s you or them right?

    Deeper than that, it goes to the philosophy and the moral high ground aspect of it all. If you rush into someone’s abode and point a gun at them, and they shoot you, they had the moral high ground. Lethal force was reasonable, and in the eyes of the defender, completely necessary. The defender always has the moral high ground unless he has created a situation wherein his need for defense is based on previous offenses in which he did not have the moral high ground.

    Killing someone should not be taken lightly… there are always repercussions… whether they be mental, retaliatory, or even as simple as missing your intended aggressor and hitting an innocent person. Shooting a gang member to save your family is almost a given, but the fact that he could be avenged by other gang members, is an entirely new problem beyond your decision to kill. There’s so many aspects to taking a life, that a simple pull of a trigger or twist of a knife is only the first chapter in most cases.

    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

    #20007
    Profile photo of Xocjm
    Xocjm
    Veteran
    member4

    Lethal force is most times a last resort, but in some cases it should be a first. If someone has a gun trained on your family, or anyone else you have sworn to protect, you fire before anyone else has the chance. If someone has a gun on you and you have a concealed weapon, it’s best to wait it out and play the victim until the time is right. But basically if you or someone you are protecting is in danger of being killed, lethal force is okay in my book. It’s you or them right?

    Deeper than that, it goes to the philosophy and the moral high ground aspect of it all. If you rush into someone’s abode and point a gun at them, and they shoot you, they had the moral high ground. Lethal force was reasonable, and in the eyes of the defender, completely necessary. The defender always has the moral high ground unless he has created a situation wherein his need for defense is based on previous offenses in which he did not have the moral high ground.

    Killing someone should not be taken lightly… there are always repercussions… whether they be mental, retaliatory, or even as simple as missing your intended aggressor and hitting an innocent person. Shooting a gang member to save your family is almost a given, but the fact that he could be avenged by other gang members, is an entirely new problem beyond your decision to kill. There’s so many aspects to taking a life, that a simple pull of a trigger or twist of a knife is only the first chapter in most cases.

    Well said Pinhead!

    #20008
    Profile photo of 74
    74
    Survivalist
    rnews

    I’m wondering specifically in a SHTF scenario what are your plans. For example; five people are approaching your location, 3 identified with firearms. They are 100 yards away and walking to your location checking each building. They station a sentry outside each time to watch. You are not observed yet but pulling away is not an option in this scenario. You’re not certain of your numerical advantage in fire power. Are you going to warn them away verbally, shoot a warning or engage them in a fire fight?

    #20020
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    Warning shots are for people who want to be killed.
    They signify you aren’t prepared to take a life.
    Crooks will assume you are bluffing and not serious.

    Here’s a thought, most places where self defense is legal, to justify your use of lethal force, you must be in eminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. If you are not in mortal danger, why are you using lethal force, I.e., the gun, when that level of force is not justified and is shown by your actions, that warning shot.

    You have to shoot, shoot to stop, if they die because of their actions, too bad for them.

    As to 74’s scenario, it would depend. Are these Nat’l Guard or Police looking for survivors? Are they obviously looters? Did they just kill the nice little old lady down the street?

    Untrained? 5:1 odds, they may be in trouble. I can get at least two before the others can react, if not more. At what distance? Thats gonna depend on the weapons involved.

    Firefight or gunfight? I hope not. I’d prefer to be involved in a shooting than a gunfight. In a shooting the bullets only go one way.

    As to the moral and legal issues, study your local and state laws to know when you’re legal. Only you can decide on the moral implications.

    #20024
    Profile photo of matt76
    matt76
    Survivalist
    member8

    I have to agree with Whirli on this one. Warning shots are dangerous both legally and tactically. My CHL instructor summed it up pretty well when he said every bullet had a lawyer attached to it ready to sue you. My opinion is they got their warning when they passed the no trespassing sign. Warning shot also indicate location. If I am outnumbered I want the element of surprise on my side. The other thing is, in SHTF, warning shot is more than likely going to guarantee return fire. I want to be reducing the number of incoming rounds each time I squeeze the trigger. The moral standpoint is one you have to decide for yourself before this scenario takes place. Trying to solve a moral dilemma in the moment might get you or someo you love killed.

    #20027
    Selco
    Selco
    Survivalist
    member6

    I would try to see is there any other options first, if not then I would definitely use lethal force without hesitation and mercy.
    Hesitation, mercy and warning shots too usually works in movies, in real life it can be problem, so forget it.

    74
    If I am in position to win, I think I would not hesitate there, if I am definitely outnumbered in that combination (and without way out), is it possible to stay hidden? Maybe I would approach it different, try to convince them that they are safe, or that they are outnumbered, confuse them then take them.

    There are many variables there, how deep is SHTF (who are they most likely) is my location my home actually etc.

    #20028
    Mr. Red
    Mr. Red
    Survivalist
    member7

    The idea of warning shots are stupid. I’d be the one yelling commands to back off or I’d shoot, and if they came too close, then I will shoot until the target is no longer a threat. But that is the last resort. Talking someone down from being a threat is a better option, but if it came down to it you can’t ***** foot around with warning shots.

    Funny how this is coming from a guy in Canada, where self defence, especially that with a firearm, is a very iffy subject, one in which if you went down that road of using a firearm in defence against a threat, you’d be in a worse place than the person originally trying to do you harm.

    Canadian Patriot. Becoming self-sufficient.

    #20030
    Malgus
    Malgus
    Survivalist
    member8

    Partially agree with Whirl…

    I actually have given this some thought in the past, so this isn’t an off-the-cuff answer.

    When TSHTF, I will just assume we are on a war footing. What does that mean? Well, it means we circle the wagons, Katie Bar the Door and – providing I can get everyone on the same page – our little enclave here will be sealed off. We will control who enters and exits.

    That means, unless proven otherwise, anyone not of your group is one of “them”. Assuming they can read, warnings will be posted both in English and pictorially. Anyone disregarding those warnings and crossing the barriers will be considered a hostile.

    Firing a “warning shot” in this situation has an actual name. It’s called a “spoiler”. Your “warning shot” – intentionally missing – will, as Brother Whirl has stated, demonstrate your lack of will to shoot someone. It will also telegraph your position to “them” (whoever “them” turn out to be) and you will probably get dead soon afterwards. Maybe along with others of your group. So, no warning shots. Besides, in a SHTF scenario, there probably won’t be any ammo being made for some time – which means you will only have what you have, or less. Probably never “more”. Which means payroll accountability of every round. No warning shots, no ‘practice’. Hunting, defense or battle.

    I will differ with Brother Whirl in one respect. He is falling into the lingo and practices of the cop – which usually parses down words till they’re paper thin. They are told to “shoot to stop the threat”. Not “shoot to kill”. This is sort of a weasel way of saying “We killed him” without opening themselves up to obvious repercussions.

    In a lawful, polite society with the machines of government and courts fully functional, this is a decent practice – even if only from a liability standpoint. (I mean, could you imagine the uproar if a cop actually admitted they “shoot to kill”? Not only does that open a big Pandora’s Box of vicarious liability, but it’s a PR nightmare. Plus, some shyster will flambé them with a lawsuit, brought by the surviving family – “You deprived mah baby of his cibbil rahts!!”… That sort of thing.) Not saying it’s right or wrong. It just is.

    But in a SHTF scenario, I don’t see the machines of government or courts functioning at all – Rule of Law goes out the window. Which means if you have to use your weapon, then you will probably have to kill the bad guys. Yes, on purpose. No time, nor inclination, to parse phrases at this point. “Stopping” them means they might still be alive when their buddies run away and leave them in a pool of blood. NOW what, Rambo? Can’t call the cops or an ambulance.

    You have three choices, two of which most people would find morally repugnant. You can 1) put them out of their misery with a pistol shot behind the ear. 2) leave them there to die slow in considerable agony or 3) you can render aid, thereby depleting your supplies meant for your group and/or family and then devote time, people and resources to care for them afterwards – if even for only a short time.

    Yeah, I know someone on here will try and build one of those impossible ethical boxes that you cannot escape in order to mess with me :) … sort of a Doomer’s version of the Kobayashi Maru scenario where there is no right answer… only wrong answers of varying levels of wrongness…

    One thing I tried to think of is an “out”. In other words, how to communicate with strangers – finding out who they are, what they want, etc – without exposing you or your buddies to risk.

    Then I thought of the old TA-312’s the military used, once upon a time. Two phones, some D-cell batteries and a reel of wire. Put the phone in an obvious place, well marked. A quarter mile away, or thereabouts, is the other phone and an observer keeping Phone 1 under observation. This would allow communications without risking anyone’s life… of course, this all begs questions like “What’s to keep someone from stealing the phone, the batteries, the handset, etc? just because they’re dicks? Don’t have all the answers… more Kobayashi Maru stuff…

    Post something like this… they should get the message…

    The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1

    Attachments:
    You must be logged in to view attached files.
    #20041
    Whirlibird
    Whirlibird
    Survivalist
    member10

    <div class=”d4p-bbp-quote-title”>Malgus wrote:</div>Partially agree with Whirl…

    Firing a “warning shot” in this situation has an actual name. It’s called a “spoiler”. Your “warning shot” – intentionally missing – will, as Brother Whirl has stated, demonstrate your lack of will to shoot someone. It will also telegraph your position to “them” (whoever “them” turn out to be) and you will probably get dead soon afterwards. Maybe along with others of your group. So, no warning shots. Besides, in a SHTF scenario, there probably won’t be any ammo being made for some time – which means you will only have what you have, or less. Probably never “more”. Which means payroll accountability of every round. No warning shots, no ‘practice’. Hunting, defense or battle.

    I will differ with Brother Whirl in one respect. He is falling into the lingo and practices of the cop – which usually parses down words till they’re paper thin. They are told to “shoot to stop the threat”. Not “shoot to kill”. This is sort of a weasel way of saying “We killed him” without opening themselves up to obvious repercussions.

    In a lawful, polite society with the machines of government and courts fully functional, this is a decent practice – even if only from a liability standpoint. (I mean, could you imagine the uproar if a cop actually admitted they “shoot to kill”? Not only does that open a big Pandora’s Box of vicarious liability, but it’s a PR nightmare. Plus, some shyster will flambé them with a lawsuit, brought by the surviving family – “You deprived mah baby of his cibbil rahts!!”… That sort of thing.) Not saying it’s right or wrong. It just is.

    But in a SHTF scenario, I don’t see the machines of government or courts functioning at all – Rule of Law goes out the window. Which means if you have to use your weapon, then you will probably have to kill the bad guys. Yes, on purpose. No time, nor inclination, to parse phrases at this point. “Stopping” them means they might still be alive when their buddies run away and leave them in a pool of blood. NOW what, Rambo? Can’t call the cops or an ambulance.

    You have three choices, two of which most people would find morally repugnant. You can 1) put them out of their misery with a pistol shot behind the ear. 2) leave them there to die slow in considerable agony or 3) you can render aid, thereby depleting your supplies meant for your group and/or family and then devote time, people and resources to care for them afterwards – if even for only a short time.

    Actually it’s the civilian firearms instructor in me.
    Any advice and information I give in a class may come back to bite me in court pre-SHTF, so I use careful words.

    Same goes for any verbal commands, “Stop!” is the normal one given/used in class because everyone can remember it and it’s pretty much universal, everyone understands it and it fits most situations.

    Bad guy attacks me, I’m shooting to stop him.
    Be it shooting him in the chest and waiting for him to bleed out while the ambulance drives slow
    or post SHTF and I remove his foot from under the car with a shotgun and wait for the shock and blood loss to kick in. He is stopped, dead is either a bonus or a bad day, depending on who you are.

    #20042
    Profile photo of freedom
    freedom
    Survivalist
    rnews

    OK so what about a group of hungry people coming at you with no weapon in a SHTF time? Group 10 or more which are demanding food to the point that they will die for it. No weapons so what do you do? Does a warning shot apply?

    #20060
    Malgus
    Malgus
    Survivalist
    member8

    Aaaaand, freedom is the first to play the Kobayashi Maru card…

    Free, there’s no “right” answer, if that’s what you’re looking for… there’s what you can do, what you have to do, and what you can live with…

    If they’re hungry enough to come at you and you are armed, then I offer the following:

    1. No matter how much food you have set back for you and yours, if they overpower you and clean you out, that food is only postponing the inevitable. They’re walking dead, and nothing you can provide them with can change that.
    1a. If you choose to give them some food, this will only encourage them to come back. Only the next time, if you refuse them, they will think they are “entitled” to your stuff and will probably become violent. Payback is almost assured.
    2. If you choose to shoot the ones who pose the biggest threat – usually the largest males, then you are eliminating their security and also cutting their chances of finding other food considerably. Result? See point #1.
    3. If you think a big group of unarmed folks does not pose a threat, then I urge you to go find out what happened to Reginald Denny back during the 92 LA riots.. actually, ‘flash-mobbing’ is a rough equivalent of that. Large groups of unarmed, violent “youths” have taken down and killed people in recent memory…

    There’s no “Right” answer, bro… there is only what you can live with. It’s a math problem so simple, you can do on a cocktail napkin. Each person needs at minimum 2000 calories to stay healthy and active. This means you have “X” food divided into “Y” people. This gives you “Z” days of food for everyone @ 2000 calories a day. Giving food away only decreases the amount available for you and yours. When you have a basement full of preps, this might not seem like much. But I’m betting your attitude will change when you’re down to your last little bit of food and you start thinking of what you gave away to folks who are probably already dead…

    Edit: So, no… no “warning shots”. Burn ammo doing nothing more than making noise? That’s stupid. In the absence of the Rule of Law or any sort of government, you have to do what your conscience dictates. If you’re looking for an “out”, then have a failsafe line… posted, of course. “ANYONE CROSSING THIS POINT WILL BE FIRED UPON.”

    The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1

    #20062
    Malgus
    Malgus
    Survivalist
    member8

    Calm yourself, Brother Whirl…

    My remarks were not bashing you, personally. They were directed towards the fact that – no matter where the “advice” comes from – in today’s litigious society, we have to resort to weasel words to keep from being sued by dickheads who get their little feelings hurt… or by those seeking to win the Ghetto Lottery, or slimy shyter lawyer types…

    If anything, it is an indictment of why we can’t be honest and just say “If you’re going to pull a gun, then you better be prepared to use it. And if you use it, then you best kill the sumbitch trying to kill you.”

    Honestly has no place in today’s “civil” society. That’s what I was getting at. You and I both know anyone teaching self defense carry classes has to do “the dance”, as well as formal civilian police departments because of one thing – vicarious liability. You and I both know what that is and why it just screams “TORT REFORM!”. (But, that is a whole ‘nother can of worms for another day…)

    That I illustrate the point by showing that you fall into those speech patterns is not a reflection on you. You’re just CYA.

    So, don’t take it personally…

    The wicked flee when none pursueth..." - Proverbs 28:1

    #20064
    Profile photo of freedom
    freedom
    Survivalist
    rnews

    Malgus, Good points. I just wanted to hear you brother. I will post signs. The signs are in my plan all along and do believe in the total SHTF we do not have a choice but to shoot anyone that passes the warnings. Agree.

    There you go everyone Malgus is right on this one, a warning shot in a SHTF may just get you killed. This applies when the rule of law is no where to help you protect your family.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.