Why carry compact?

fullsize

In the state I live in you in the scenario you have described you will get jail time at least 2 years for committing a felony for firing the gun plus more time.

Gun laws have been changed to allow people to carry guns to defend themselves not act to stop, detain, contain or apprehend persons commuting crimes. You can and should act only if that violent act is directed at you and no other means of escape are available to you. Now we know all of us would break that law to protect our family. For me I would not use deadly force to protect property.

Your scenario is a le issue to me nothing about what you describe would to me be a wise choice
 
As for GTA, I'd have to go look at the Arkansas criminal code. I'm pretty sure that "GTA" goes by some other name here.

fullsize only, one of the first things that I learned in law school is that the devil really is in the details. I can't give you a hard and fast answer with the examples that you've given. For one thing, the examples you've given involve something more akin to a citizen's arrest, rather than an SD shooting. There's a different legal statute for defense of property, Ark. Code Ann. 5-2-609:

A person is justified in using nondeadly physical force upon another person when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes the use of nondeadly physical force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's:

(1) Commission or attempted commission of theft or criminal mischief; or

(2) Subsequent flight from the commission or attempted commission of theft or criminal mischief.
Click to expand...

Note, however, that it refers to NONDEADLY force. Is shooting out a tire "nondeadly?" Off the top of my head, I don't know.

As for stopping a violent carjacking by shooting the carjacker, again, the devil is in the details. Let's say that I know that there's only one person in the car, and that the carjacker shoots the driver in the head, instantly killing him, hops in the car and drives away. Can I reasonably believe that the carjacker still presents an imminent threat of death of substantial bodily harm to the driver? Compare that to a scenario where I see a "Baby on Board" sticker on the car and hear crying after the gunshot. In that case, can I reasonably believe that there's a baby in the car and that the carjacker poses an imminent threat of death of substantial bodily harm to the baby?

sigcurious, if you'll read the retreat section carefully, you'll see that, when it comes to defense of a person, there's not much of a duty to retreat in Arkansas:

5-2-607. Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;

(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or

(3) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.

(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:

(1) (A) By retreating.
Click to expand...
(emphasis supplied)
 
fullsize only said:
So if some shoots a person, carjacks another, I watch see it and I engage him and stop him, by shooting his tire out, firing a warning shot, or neutralizing him, I go to prison for stopping him?
Click to expand...

You are still talking about firing warning shots? Please do not shoot in the air. It is very irresponsible
 
I'm still waiting for him to explain how a car being driven away stops him from retreating in complete safety or heck just standing there in complete safety.

The statute does provide latitude, in what constitutes a need to retreat, but I'm just going off the scenario fullsize made up, which says nothing about his safety or anyone else's safety being in question after the BG starts driving off. As you said Spats, there are possibilities in which there may be a continued threat to someones safety, however fullsize did not stipulate that in his scenario.
 
to spat mcgee

I agree with what you are saying. My whole attempt was mostly geared toward the devil being in the details and if put in the position, do you trust what you carry. If you have to take a long shot, do you trust what you carry? Fullsize guns give you the most range of capability within the law. Not harping on statistics or retreating, but all laws and details in your favor, EVERYONE, especially sigcurious and rodeo roy, do you trust what you have to make the shot? If not, why carry compact? You have the right to carry what you want, for comfort, concealment, performance, etc. That's the beauty of this country. But because life can bring things as elaborate as the discussions, laws and scenarios we presented today, why not carry what can handle the biggest part of these?
 
m

My main point wasn't just the details of laws, because it was too many to discuss in one posting, heck it took us days. My main point was if you were put in the sitution with all laws abiding, all details accounted for, all the stars and planets aligned, do you trust what you carry, if not, why carry it. By the way, in my state, other peoples safety can be taken in to account, not just mine. I guess the only way to answer your question is if the thug decides to shoot at all the witnesses or if he's driving in my direction but stilll retreating and willing to run over everyone in his path.
 
to tennjed

Honestly, I don't believe in shooting in the air, my idea of a warning shot is a nonlethal mark, I just said in the air because I saw on myth busters that a shot in the air is not dangerous because once the bullet loses momentum towards the sky, it doesn't fall with nearly enough force to penetrate a human skull or significantly damage anything.
 
fullsize only said:
Honestly, I don't believe in shooting in the air, my idea of a warning shot is a nonlethal mark, I just said in the air because I saw on myth busters that a shot in the air is not dangerous because once the bullet loses momentum towards the sky, it doesn't fall with nearly enough force to penetrate a human skull or significantly damage anything.
Click to expand...

I posted a link from myth busters. Your post about losing momentum is very misleading. If you will go back and read what mythbusters actually said, it is far more likely for the bullet to maintain momentum and fall to the ground with lethal force. It is dangerous and stupid to shoot in the air. Please don't give out dangerous advice
 
to tennjd

You're right. I do apologize. But as I said, not what I would do. But you should go back and read the whole article. Or at least more than just the myth at the headline. It wss plausible, but it stated the bullet tumbles and loses momentum
 
Last edited:
First and foremost I trust myself to be able to determine what is a threat to me and mine. I also know in the examples given, taking a 50yd shot for the purpose of self defense is unlikely. I could happen in some far reaching situation. I spend my training time on the things I deem more useful as everybody should, for you and others thats long shots with pistols and that's cool. I too have tried long shoots for fun, but it's not what I train.

When it comes to defense a getaway is as effective as an attack. At 50yds I think a getaway would be favorable to an attack or to the point defense with a gun. Any prosecutor would question why one did not run, escape, hid, drive off etc. What is the defense in court, "I was sure my full sized gun could make the shoot cause I practice gun fu" or "any one firing a gun in my vacinity is a threat so I took them down". You do know that compact guns can make a 50yd shoot, right.

I just have questioned the need to have to do it, others have pointed out and rightly so if it would be legal, in my state the cases purposed are not legal and for me not prudent or safe.

RR's rule for a gunfight, get home safe, by any means, and that may mean avoid the fight altogether. What has been described so far is street justice, not defense.
 
You're right. I do apologize. But as I said, not what I would do. But you should go back and read the whole article. Or at least more than just the myth at the headline. It wss plausible, but it stated the bullet tumbles and loses momentum
Click to expand...

Okay, I have let this dangerous statement go long enough before voicing my thoughts on the matter...

Fullsize, you are wrong, plain and simple. Unless the bullet is shot (and remains) directly vertical, it will not tumble and lose momentum. It will travel in a parabolic path, and it will hit the ground with enough force to kill any two-legged creature with ease.

Now, is it "plausible" for a round to remain at a perfect 90 degree flight path relative to the earth? Sure.....but it is so hard to do that you can shoot 1,000,000 and it will never happen. Even if you get the angle right for the shot, there will be wind that will push it off of the perfectly vertical flight path.

NEVER fire a round into the air (except birdshot). I am one who is against warning shots for the most part, but I am always against stupid advice. This was stupid (and very dangerous) advice.
 
NEVER fire a round into the air (except birdshot). I am one who is against warning shots for the most part, but I am always against stupid advice. This was stupid (and very dangerous) advice.
Click to expand...


100% agreed with this. That's for Hollywood and 3rd world country celebrations. Big no no.
 
fullsize only said:
to spat mcgee
I agree with what you are saying. My whole attempt was mostly geared toward the devil being in the details and if put in the position, do you trust what you carry. If you have to take a long shot, do you trust what you carry? Fullsize guns give you the most range of capability within the law. Not harping on statistics or retreating, but all laws and details in your favor, EVERYONE, especially sigcurious and rodeo roy, do you trust what you have to make the shot? If not, why carry compact? You have the right to carry what you want, for comfort, concealment, performance, etc. That's the beauty of this country. But because life can bring things as elaborate as the discussions, laws and scenarios we presented today, why not carry what can handle the biggest part of these?
Click to expand...
fullsize only, I didn't get into this discussion until it took a turn into legalities. The short answer to "Why carry compact?" is: for concealability and convenience. In some sense, it's also a matter of weighing the odds of what one is likely to actually encounter.

A buddy of mine is fond of saying, "If I'd known I was goin' to a gunfight, I'd'a brought a rifle." If I knew that I was going to have to take that 50-yard shot that you've discussed, I would most assuredly go with a long gun for that. Few of us can conceal an AR on a daily basis, though, and LE tends to take a dim view of guys with semi-automatic rifles under their trench coats. So the next choice is a pistol, then.

Do full-sized pistols have better accuracy? Sure. Most modern full-sized pistols are capable of better accuracy than I am. Weather and wardrobe permitting, I prefer to carry a full-sized pistol, too. Like many folks, though, work and weather often force me to weigh several factors in my carry decision. For example, if I have to go to court, I have to either skip carrying, or leave my gun somewhere while I'm in court.

Is there some chance that, during the course of my usual workday, I will one day have to decide whether to take a 50-yard shot with my pocket pistol? Sure, but the odds are extremely remote. Much more likely is a scenario in which I am accosted at bad-breath-range by one of the homeless guys that lives downtown. At that range, the difference in accuracy between full-sized and compact isn't terribly important.
 
I trust that my carry pistol is mechanically accurate enough to make a long shot. I even practice at a variety of distances. However, I do not practice at longer ranges with the anticipation that I might need to shoot at those distances in defense of myself or others.

I carry a firearm to protect myself, and situationally, those that are with me(family/friends). My line of thinking is that as the distance to the threat increases the threat to me decreases, and more importantly as distance increases, the number of options to keep myself and others(family/friends) safe also increases, particularly those options that do not involve use of force.
 
So if some shoots a person, carjacks another, I watch see it and I engage him and stop him, by shooting his tire out, firing a warning shot, or neutralizing him, I go to prison for stopping him?
Click to expand...
You sure might go to jail in California.

Typically, it's considered a bad idea to fire on a fleeing felon for several reasons. First and foremost is that shots are likely to miss and in {sub}urban areas which can endanger innocent people. If the person is in a vehicle, a hit on that person may cause the vehicle to become a projectile that kills or injures other innocent persons. These principles apply to LEOs and civilians alike.

As a general rule, California does not allow civilians to fire at fleeing felons. Police may do so, under specific circumstances. One exception is that the civilian must know (not suspect or believe) that a felony was committed and have a reasonable belief the subject committed the felony and that the fleeing person poses an real and immediate danger to persons after the crime committed.

Someone who carjacks a car, robs a liquor store or even stabs another person and is leaving the area does not necessarily meet that criteria. That is because, legally, the perp got what he wanted and is leaving the scene

One could claim that someone involved in a mass shooting or who boldly shoots several "random" people in broad daylight is likely to repeat the crime and/or to kill others to avoid capture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top