Open carry vs concealed carry-

[Unqualified]

Because intentionally shooting not to kill produces reasonable doubt to threat of life in court and to a jury.

That should not be the parameter to judge you. I guess they wouldn’t understand mercy on the guy. But one should get a big bore and have mercy and shoot them in the leg. Liberals don’t understand mercy. Or maybe you guys want mercy killing?! of criminals.

 

[98cwitr]

That should not be the parameter to judge you. I guess they wouldn’t understand mercy on the guy. But one should get a big bore and have mercy and shoot them in the leg. Liberals don’t understand mercy. Or maybe you guys want mercy killing?! of criminals.

One can make the ideological counter arguments all day; trust me, I've made the same one you're making. At the end of the day, it's pointless...this is about how courts, juries and judges are presented information by the prosecution. Bottomline, if you're going to defend your life with a firearm and avoid going to jail because of it, you shoot to kill. Period.

 

[Unqualified]

Maybe not in “Kalifornica”. You can’t prevent going to jail. They say illegal home entry is not a killing offense and even if you scared to death you may do jail time. Maybe they would show mercy if you did save his life . Always the exception.

I know it important to do what the judge wants, saving a life seems like a winner. Are they going to be harder on you if you save his life or cripple him. Maybe. ?? In Florida you can’t say well I wasn’t afraid I just objected to him being there so I made him get out. But you had mercy. But the law says kill him? Just like the cops and that’s the first place it would change.

Then they would take you to civil court too for doctor bills and get rich off of that. But if you can’t pay?!

 

[Silverback]

That should not be the parameter to judge you. I guess they wouldn’t understand mercy on the guy. But one should get a big bore and have mercy and shoot them in the leg. Liberals don’t understand mercy. Or maybe you guys want mercy killing?! of criminals.

Spending time trying to talk them out of it, warning shots, trying to inflict non lethal wounds takes your sight off the ball, and puts you in danger. Don't say a word to them, and just keep shooting them until they are no longer a threat, or, you run out of ammunition.

They aren't in your house to play checkers, they are where they have chosen to be, and doing what they have chosen to do

The only thing left for you to do afterwards, is wash walls.

 

[Unqualified]

Love the sinner hate the sin? Do you want justice or mercy? Sure they are no good scumbags. Do they have one chance in hell or do we judge them evil and kill. I’m taking this out as far as it will go because it has some merit. Who’s right us or God. Mercy or erase them off the face of the map. Where is the justification? If some bad guys came and said deny Christ or we’ll kill your family and you are unarmed what are you gonna do? Or if you are armed! Kill them all? Where is the righteousness.

 

[98cwitr]

Love the sinner hate the sin? Do you want justice or mercy? Sure they are no good scumbags. Do they have one chance in hell or do we judge them evil and kill. I’m taking this out as far as it will go because it has some merit. Who’s right us or God. Mercy or erase them off the face of the map. Where is the justification? If some bad guys came and said deny Christ or we’ll kill your family and you are unarmed what are you gonna do? Or if you are armed! Kill them all? Where is the righteousness.

Is Genesis 9:6 still applicable?

Being in opposition to some law that requires me to either reject Christ or be jailed/hanged/etc is one thing....saying you're going to kill my family/brothers/sisters is another.

 

[Silverback]

Is Genesis 9:6 still applicable?

Being in opposition to some law that requires me to either reject Christ or be jailed/hanged/etc is one thing....saying you're going to kill my family/brothers/sisters is another.

Agreed, home invasions are not really about theft, they are about perpetrating extreme violence. People need to understand that 50% of the residents at home during a home invasion are either murdered, raped, brutally assaulted, or abducted.

If you leave your Rolex on the kitchen counter, they will seal it, and they will also abduct people to drain their accounts at an ATM...then assault, rape, and kill the person.

1.3 million home invasions annually, all planned to strike when the family is likely to be home.

BTW...they usually kill all your pets as well...just say'n.

 

[98cwitr]

Agreed, home invasions are not really about theft, they are about perpetrating extreme violence. People need to understand that 50% of the residents at home during a home invasion are either murdered, raped, brutally assaulted, or abducted.

If you leave your Rolex on the kitchen counter, they will seal it, and they will also abduct people to drain their accounts at an ATM...then assault, rape, and kill the person.

1.3 million home invasions annually, all planned to strike when the family is likely to be home.

BTW...they usually kill all your pets as well...just say'n.

Granted, the "only in the night" clause is odd, but Scripture even addresses this:

Exodus 22:2-3

 

[Unqualified]

Your family would go to heaven. Have you heard of people loving and praying for torturers while being tortured. Praying amidst all their evil that they’d get saved. Very deep faith and mercy can turn their hearts to God when they see the beauty of God in the mercifuls life. But to take a life and send to hell forever. Paul never lifted a hand against those who beat and whipped him. Jesus never uttered a reviling word. He constantly gave tough love to the Pharisees! Jesus and Paul always had the sentence of death upon them. Almost being killed before they were executed.
It’s not over till it’s over.

I can’t think of anything worse than losing my family but there are worse things. Like going to hell or someone you love going.
Jeffrey Dalmer got saved. Sending one that God loves till the end to hell for forgivable crimes, would you repent of that? Could you go on with such a decision? Soldiers killing is ok. Are Christians non violent?

 

[RDKirk]

Why not shoot them in the leg for crimes that are not executable.
That’s why they are mad at cops. They use lethal force for a rebellious teenager running away. If the only way to arrest somebody is to shoot him, drug crazed or something, then shoot him in the leg or both legs. This is a good thing for cops and concealed or open carry. And you have mercy on him and give him another chance. Death is so final and liberals cry out for every life- a good compromise? Shoot to kill?

Maybe you were joking, but trying to shoot someone in the leg is most likely going to be a miss and may hit someone on the other side. Even a hit will most likely pass through the leg and may hit someone on the other side.

 

[RDKirk]

The clear answer to all of this is longer sentences, better treatment, and sensible rehab programs, for lawbreakers. We also need a model that determines whether an individual can or cannot be rehabilitated. Those that can't, even though they commit petty crimes, should never be released.

One retiring warden had the opinion that if a man hasn't gone straight by age 35, then keep him imprisoned until age 70. I suspect that's probably about right. A great many men don't gain wisdom until 35.

 

[RDKirk]

Because intentionally shooting not to kill produces reasonable doubt to threat of life in court and to a jury.

That too, and I should have mentioned it earlier.

Shooting to wound pretty much means "shooting to miss." And if you don't miss, a shot in the arm or thigh is unlikely to stop a truly deadly threat. That certainly gives reason to think that if it was feasible to risk missing...then shooting at all was probably not necessary.

 

[RDKirk]

Your family would go to heaven.

Maybe they would, maybe not. I don't necessarily know the eternal fate of my family. Only God knows what's truly in their hearts. But I do know I have a responsibility to protect them.

Have you heard of people loving and praying for torturers while being tortured. Praying amidst all their evil that they’d get saved. Very deep faith and mercy can turn their hearts to God when they see the beauty of God in the mercifuls life. But to take a life and send to hell forever. Paul never lifted a hand against those who beat and whipped him. Jesus never uttered a reviling word. He constantly gave tough love to the Pharisees! Jesus and Paul always had the sentence of death upon them. Almost being killed before they were executed.
It’s not over till it’s over.

I keep in mind a quotation from Nathan Saint: "I am prepared to meet my Maker...they are not." He would agree with you. Nate Saint was actually killed by Peruvian Indians while trying to evangelize their tribe. Years later, his son successfully evangelized that same tribe, and the man who had killed Nate became like a godfather to his son. For God, that was win-win.

That's why I do not consider homicide in the circumstance of self-defense (with me being "ready to meet my Maker") or even in defense of the innocent to be a "righteous" act. I don't believe Jesus would be observing the event with a smile on His face. The entire incident would be tainted, enshrouded in sin.

I'd have to pray through something like that. But I'm not prepared to allow those to be killed whom I'm committed to protect.

 

[public hermit]

Honestly, open carry folks bother me. If you're into open carry, chances are you're probably more afraid than intentionally seeking to cause harm. People who are afraid are usually the ones who show their gun, imo. That's fine, but people who are afraid also make stupid mistakes and are often dangerous, unintentionally.

The only time open carry makes sense to me is for utility. If you need a snake charmer while messing with your cows, I get it. But if you're belting one on to shows folks you got one, you worry me. No offense intended, don't shoot me, please.

 

[RDKirk]

I prefer concealed carry for tactical reasons.

Some people argue that if bad guys see the gun, they'll go elsewhere. Maybe, maybe not.

Other people argue that if bad guys see the gun, they'll shoot that guy first. Maybe, maybe not.

From what I can tell, bad guys more often aren't observant enough to have seen the gun, and just depend on "shock and awe" to cow everyone into compliance.

And there is the possibility that while a robbery seems to be going down without anyone being hurt, the woman behind the gun owner will shout, "You've got a gun! Do something!"

The problem with open carry is that people around me would be making judgments and decisions about me and my gun...and I won't know what those judgments and decisions are.

I'd prefer for them not to notice me at all.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

One retiring warden had the opinion that if a man hasn't gone straight by age 35, then keep him imprisoned until age 70. I suspect that's probably about right. A great many men don't gain wisdom until 35.

I agree. In the words of Garrison Keillor, "Some people are just...no good.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Both equally effective

I prefer concealed because if someone is planning an attack those who are openly carrying their firearm will be their primary targets. I’d rather no one knows I’m carrying a firearm so I have the element of surprise.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I prefer concealed carry for tactical reasons.

Some people argue that if bad guys see the gun, they'll go elsewhere. Maybe, maybe not.

Other people argue that if bad guys see the gun, they'll shoot that guy first. Maybe, maybe not.

From what I can tell, bad guys more often aren't observant enough to have seen the gun, and just depend on "shock and awe" to cow everyone into compliance.

And there is the possibility that while a robbery seems to be going down without anyone being hurt, the woman behind the gun owner will shout, "You've got a gun! Do something!"

The problem with open carry is that people around me would be making judgments and decisions about me and my gun...and I won't know what those judgments and decisions are.

I'd prefer for them not to notice me at all.

That’s another good point because timing is everything in that situation and if someone alerts the attacker that you have a gun they’ve just ruined your element of surprise. Personally I could care less about a robbery, I’m not going to intervene to save someone’s material possessions. I would only act if someone’s life is at risk.

 

[Sif]

I live in a rural area and I sometimes open carry, like many other residents of the county. Seeing firearms where I live is noting out of the ordinary. The county in which I live has, maybe, 15 thousand to 18 thousand people. I do conceal carry when I go into a city or more populated areas. Don't want to advertise I am armed in such places.

I do open carry when I am hiking or snow shoeing. Only every had one incident where another hiker was "offended" I was armed. I let him rant then when he saw the bear tracks he suddenly calmed down and asked if he could hike along with me.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Because intentionally shooting not to kill produces reasonable doubt to threat of life in court and to a jury.

Although, really you are supposed to shoot to stop the threat. In other words if you shoot and it kills them then assuming it was reasonable use of force that is fine. If you shoot and it only wounds them, but they are no loner a threat have dropped the weapon, prone on the ground whatever else that is not a threat and you shoot them some more anyway that can get you in legal trouble. You may not kill if they are clearly no longer a threat. Now, it is legal to hold them at gunpoint after they are no longer a direct threat while waiting for the police to get there, but you can not just empty a clip on someone that is no longer a threat and expect to not be charge with anything.