Let's Talk Pistols.....
#43
Originally Posted by Mikey 97Z M6
My cousin actually mentioned CZ, because he has shot/owned quite a few with great success but I've never even held one of their handguns.
Last edited by MrsSeaHawk; 06-10-2007 at 01:59 AM.
#44
Launching!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Spanaway, WA
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting discussion... I'm planning my first firearm, for home security and protection while out camping at least. Never thought I would want one, when I grew up in a small midwest town, people never used them. But these are much different times we live in today.
If you goto a gun shop with shooting range, do they let you try different guns? I don't know much, but want to learn about handguns. Hopefully I don't get carried away with wanting an ultra expensive piece of hardware!
If you goto a gun shop with shooting range, do they let you try different guns? I don't know much, but want to learn about handguns. Hopefully I don't get carried away with wanting an ultra expensive piece of hardware!
#45
Originally Posted by Chris Stewart
If you goto a gun shop with shooting range, do they let you try different guns? I don't know much, but want to learn about handguns. Hopefully I don't get carried away with wanting an ultra expensive piece of hardware!
#46
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lynnwood, WA (North of Seattle)
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Stewart
Interesting discussion... I'm planning my first firearm, for home security and protection while out camping at least. Never thought I would want one, when I grew up in a small midwest town, people never used them. But these are much different times we live in today.
If you goto a gun shop with shooting range, do they let you try different guns? I don't know much, but want to learn about handguns. Hopefully I don't get carried away with wanting an ultra expensive piece of hardware!
If you goto a gun shop with shooting range, do they let you try different guns? I don't know much, but want to learn about handguns. Hopefully I don't get carried away with wanting an ultra expensive piece of hardware!
#47
Launching!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Spanaway, WA
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a scenario: Burgulars are breaking into your vehicle at your home. You have discovered them and bring your weapon. In defense of your property, you command them to stop.
Having a weapon helps protects you from being attacked. If they just run away, they go free. I think they should be shot. That could lead to me being jailed for shooting a burgular? Would I be justified in even serving a BEAT DOWN? Letting them get away and be free to attack again doesn't seem right...
What do you think?
Having a weapon helps protects you from being attacked. If they just run away, they go free. I think they should be shot. That could lead to me being jailed for shooting a burgular? Would I be justified in even serving a BEAT DOWN? Letting them get away and be free to attack again doesn't seem right...
What do you think?
#49
Originally Posted by Chris Stewart
Here's a scenario: Burgulars are breaking into your vehicle at your home. You have discovered them and bring your weapon. In defense of your property, you command them to stop.
Having a weapon helps protects you from being attacked. If they just run away, they go free. I think they should be shot. That could lead to me being jailed for shooting a burgular? Would I be justified in even serving a BEAT DOWN? Letting them get away and be free to attack again doesn't seem right...
What do you think?
Having a weapon helps protects you from being attacked. If they just run away, they go free. I think they should be shot. That could lead to me being jailed for shooting a burgular? Would I be justified in even serving a BEAT DOWN? Letting them get away and be free to attack again doesn't seem right...
What do you think?
If you do shoot a burgler, make sure you don't wound him/her. It really complicates things.
#50
Originally Posted by Chris Stewart
Here's a scenario: Burgulars are breaking into your vehicle at your home. You have discovered them and bring your weapon. In defense of your property, you command them to stop.
Having a weapon helps protects you from being attacked. If they just run away, they go free. I think they should be shot. That could lead to me being jailed for shooting a burgular? Would I be justified in even serving a BEAT DOWN? Letting them get away and be free to attack again doesn't seem right...
What do you think?
Having a weapon helps protects you from being attacked. If they just run away, they go free. I think they should be shot. That could lead to me being jailed for shooting a burgular? Would I be justified in even serving a BEAT DOWN? Letting them get away and be free to attack again doesn't seem right...
What do you think?
#51
12 Second Club
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 2,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Stewart
Here's a scenario: Burgulars are breaking into your vehicle at your home. You have discovered them and bring your weapon. In defense of your property, you command them to stop.
Having a weapon helps protects you from being attacked. If they just run away, they go free. I think they should be shot. That could lead to me being jailed for shooting a burgular? Would I be justified in even serving a BEAT DOWN? Letting them get away and be free to attack again doesn't seem right...
What do you think?
Having a weapon helps protects you from being attacked. If they just run away, they go free. I think they should be shot. That could lead to me being jailed for shooting a burgular? Would I be justified in even serving a BEAT DOWN? Letting them get away and be free to attack again doesn't seem right...
What do you think?
Before
After
But at much as I wish I could shoot them I can't, not unless I fear for my life. (Even then you could still get screwed) Personally I'd attempt to detain them until the police arrived, i.e. while I'm out there trying to stop them and detain them my fiance would be calling the police. It's hard to justify fearing for your life if they're running away. You shoot them and graze them they come back and sue you for it and win. You shoot some "near misses" and they end up going through the neighbors wall and injuring one of them. (Granted that'd be why I would personally use a .45 acp for less risk of overpenetration or a shotgun loaded with rocksalt) That and if I am going to take the chance of legal trouble and shoot them I'm gonna go for a disabling center mass shot.
For reference here is the RCW (Revised Code of Washington) law for Justifiable Homicide
RCW 9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.
(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or
(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.
(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:
(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;
(ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or
(iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or
(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.
(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:
(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.
Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.
(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.
(4) This section shall not be construed as:
(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or
(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.
[1986 c 209 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.040.]
Notes:
Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.
(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or
(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.
(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:
(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;
(ii) To prevent the escape of a person from a federal or state correctional facility or in retaking a person who escapes from such a facility; or
(iii) To prevent the escape of a person from a county or city jail or holding facility if the person has been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a felony; or
(iv) To lawfully suppress a riot if the actor or another participant is armed with a deadly weapon.
(2) In considering whether to use deadly force under subsection (1)(c) of this section, to arrest or apprehend any person for the commission of any crime, the peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a "threat of serious physical harm" are the following:
(a) The suspect threatens a peace officer with a weapon or displays a weapon in a manner that could reasonably be construed as threatening; or
(b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.
Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.
(3) A public officer or peace officer shall not be held criminally liable for using deadly force without malice and with a good faith belief that such act is justifiable pursuant to this section.
(4) This section shall not be construed as:
(a) Affecting the permissible use of force by a person acting under the authority of RCW 9A.16.020 or 9A.16.050; or
(b) Preventing a law enforcement agency from adopting standards pertaining to its use of deadly force that are more restrictive than this section.
[1986 c 209 § 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.040.]
Notes:
Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]
RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.
Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:
(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or
(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he is.
[1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.050.]
and last but not least the Law regarding use of force
RCW 9A.16.020
Use of force — When lawful.
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.
[1986 c 149 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 244 § 7; 1977 ex.s. c 80 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.020.]
Notes:
Effective date -- 1979 ex.s. c 244: See RCW 9A.44.902.
Purpose -- Intent -- Severability -- 1977 ex.s. c 80: See notes following RCW 4.16.190.
Use of force — When lawful.
The use, attempt, or offer to use force upon or toward the person of another is not unlawful in the following cases:
(1) Whenever necessarily used by a public officer in the performance of a legal duty, or a person assisting the officer and acting under the officer's direction;
(2) Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;
(3) Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary;
(4) Whenever reasonably used by a person to detain someone who enters or remains unlawfully in a building or on real property lawfully in the possession of such person, so long as such detention is reasonable in duration and manner to investigate the reason for the detained person's presence on the premises, and so long as the premises in question did not reasonably appear to be intended to be open to members of the public;
(5) Whenever used by a carrier of passengers or the carrier's authorized agent or servant, or other person assisting them at their request in expelling from a carriage, railway car, vessel, or other vehicle, a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful and reasonable regulation prescribed for the conduct of passengers, if such vehicle has first been stopped and the force used is not more than is necessary to expel the offender with reasonable regard to the offender's personal safety;
(6) Whenever used by any person to prevent a mentally ill, mentally incompetent, or mentally disabled person from committing an act dangerous to any person, or in enforcing necessary restraint for the protection or restoration to health of the person, during such period only as is necessary to obtain legal authority for the restraint or custody of the person.
[1986 c 149 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 244 § 7; 1977 ex.s. c 80 § 13; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.16.020.]
Notes:
Effective date -- 1979 ex.s. c 244: See RCW 9A.44.902.
Purpose -- Intent -- Severability -- 1977 ex.s. c 80: See notes following RCW 4.16.190.
#52
Banned
iTrader: (115)
Didnt read all that hoopla but the short of it is you can match force but you can't kill someone for stealing your car in your driveway unless they have what appears to you to be a deadly weapon and threaten you with it.
That could be a hand in pocket insinuating a gun and thats all I'd need to unload. I felt in fear for my life officer, he point what appeared to be a gun in his pocket at me. I have kids behind me in the house and took no chances of them getting injured or killed from this maniac stealing my car and threatening me and my family with violence.
On a side not I'd love a black powder pistol. Civil war'ish era with the removable cylinder. single action hand cannon
That could be a hand in pocket insinuating a gun and thats all I'd need to unload. I felt in fear for my life officer, he point what appeared to be a gun in his pocket at me. I have kids behind me in the house and took no chances of them getting injured or killed from this maniac stealing my car and threatening me and my family with violence.
On a side not I'd love a black powder pistol. Civil war'ish era with the removable cylinder. single action hand cannon
#53
Launching!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Spanaway, WA
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Josh that's really good information. Thanks to everyone for your opinions I appreciate it. Glad to see how others think about these things, in case it actually happens I need a reality check.
#54
Banned
iTrader: (115)
Originally Posted by Chris Stewart
Wow Josh that's really good information. Thanks to everyone for your opinions I appreciate it. Glad to see how others think about these things, in case it actually happens I need a reality check.
I see some stealing my car I'll call the cops first and then go out there with a hockey stick (aluminum w/ fiberglass reinforced blade) if they look like a punk or my SKS if they look dangerous. If they run I'm not going to shoot because its illegal to discharge a firearm unless your life is being threatened but I will wack and hack away with the stick no problem. Someone running from you is not a threat and you'd be prosecuted for firing warning shot. In Oregon you can legally kill someone entering your house but the body must fall inside. Driveway doesnt count
#55
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: WA
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post Hitman. Sorry to see that happen to your friend's car. Its truly unfortunate that there is scum out there like that who show such a disregard for other people and their property.
#56
12 Second Club
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 2,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The worst part about it was she has collision but didn't have comprehensive on it at the time.
Personally I always thought she looked better next to an F-body
anyways back on topic...
I plan on going to Sam's up in Everett here in the next few weeks to get my fix and introduce Amanda to firearms as she's never shot one. Also going to take her to Kenmore to get an experience shooting a shotgun.
Personally I always thought she looked better next to an F-body
anyways back on topic...
I plan on going to Sam's up in Everett here in the next few weeks to get my fix and introduce Amanda to firearms as she's never shot one. Also going to take her to Kenmore to get an experience shooting a shotgun.
#57
Launching!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Spanaway, WA
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HitmanLSX
Personally I always thought she looked better next to an F-body
#58
Originally Posted by Chris Stewart
I went to a place today called Marksman Gun Shop & Pistol Range in Puyallup on Canyon Road. They asked if I had any questions, and I explained I've never owned one and when I actually did ask questions, the guy got all dick tone on me. Said I should do research and goto a 4 hour training for $80 and get my answers. Pissed me off and I left... Hell if I give them any business after that bullshit.
Mike
#60
Originally Posted by Chris Stewart
I went to a place today called Marksman Gun Shop & Pistol Range in Puyallup on Canyon Road. They asked if I had any questions, and I explained I've never owned one and when I actually did ask questions, the guy got all dick tone on me. Said I should do research and goto a 4 hour training for $80 and get my answers. Pissed me off and I left... Hell if I give them any business after that bullshit.