Brandishing and firing off a shot?

[Lexington]

I think the general consensus is that making brandishing legal benefits the gun community, even if you need nonsensical scenarios to support that position.

Like the libshits say, if it saves just one child...

Millions of nonsensical scenarios seem to play out each year, then.

[markshere2]

because the general public are not charged with the task of enforcing laws.

a. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rhetorical

2. So "brandishing" is an effective technique used by LE?

thirdly, "Brandishing" prohibited in some places, by law, because ....??? Second Class Citizens?

[alpacaheat]

I think her mistake was firing the pistol into the air. There are documented cases of people being killed by bullets fired as warning shots by armed citizens. A gun is not a 'noise maker'. It is a lethal weapon that fires a projectile each time the trigger is pulled.

And 3 times. Even if she fired a warning shot into the ground, don't waste 3 of your shots...they'll hear the first one. If she had a revolver, she just wasted half of her capacity.

[itchinesu]

Millions of nonsensical scenarios seem to play out each year, then.

correction, nonsensical scenarios & grossly inflated use case figures. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Lexington]

correction, nonsensical scenarios & grossly inflated use case figures. Thanks for pointing that out.

All right, let's use the low end figure, then. I think that's somewhere in the area of 80,000 defensive gun uses a year, and that's from someone with a pro gun control agenda, so I would imagine that would be grossly deflated, but whatever. So, we've got tens of thousands of "nonsensical" scenarios playing out per year in this case. That's either a lot of inaccurate lead flying since the dead/wounded numbers don't add up, or a lot of situations where the mere show of force ended an encounter before it got bloody.

[Bang]

SLAM

[GunLawyer001]

I think the general consensus is that making brandishing legal benefits the gun community, even if you need nonsensical scenarios to support that position.

Like the libshits say, if it saves just one child...

"Brandishing" without justification is already illegal in PA, but not called that; if you bring a gun into play in a threatening manner without legal need, you can be charged with reckless endangerment, assault, terroristic threats, disorderly conduct....you can't be arguing with your auto mechanic about prices and then pull a gun and wave it at him. You can peacefully OC without breaking PA law (nb: don't try it in any of the other states around these parts.)

Nobody here has been arguing in favor of a right to scare innocent people with guns.

What some of us HAVE been doing is pointing out that the introduction of a firearm by the would-be victim is quite often useful in preventing an imminent assault. These aren't nonsensical scenarios, any NRA member has read about some of them every month. John Lott did methodical research and interviews and determined that it happens millions of times per year. It's not only common sense to believe that bullies will flee when outgunned and that home invaders will reverse course upon encountering an armed homeowner, there's massive empirical evidence that they do so every day of every week.

As for police "brandishing" or "waving guns around", anyone who's been paying attention knows that the number of times that police guns are drawn vastly exceeds the number of times that perps are shot. Gaining compliance by threatening to use a weapon happens every minute in this country, from police pepper spray to Tasers to guns to K9's.

To make the argument that you can't get compliance by pulling a gun and threatening to use it, just defies common sense. It's illegal for bank robbers and kidnappers, it's already legal for imminent crime victims. Walk into a liquor store and demand cash, and if the clerk pulls a gun on you, see which of you goes to jail.

[GunLawyer001]

Some research on Defensive Gun Uses.....

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/91d...639a1c1116.pdf

"The Hart survey results implied a minimum of about 640,000 annual DGUs involving handguns, while the Mauser results implied about 700,000 involving any type of gun."

“Kleck and Gertz’s survey (1995, pp. 182-3) of 10 other nationwide polls implies a range of 764,036 to 3,609,682 defensive uses of guns per year.”

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/myth...leck-and-gertz

"A recent study funded by the National Institute of Justice, and conducted by criminologists Phillip J. Cook of Duke University and Jens Ludwig of Georgetown University, on behalf of the pro-"gun control" Police Foundation (a non-profit Washington D.C.-based research group spun off from the Ford Foundation in 1970), found a reported 1.5 million annual DGUs in 1994, . . ."

[itchinesu]

do you have anything supporting your OPINION from this millennium ?

Certainly the FBI must have published statistics documenting events happening millions of times per year, right?

[markshere2]

Geeze itchi...

Like you're NOT pushing opinion?