Morons like this don't help us responsible CC citizens.

[Firefighterchen]

I'm with geezer, not enough information to judge.

Curious, do you think calling people morons is a good image for gun owners?

If the shoe fits, best the "morons" wear it. (Lest the rest of us get accused of being just like him.)

Just sayin'.

While I admit that our "rights" are at stake here, thus my proclivity to support only the barest minimum of interference in those "rights", I will be the first to admit, amongst our fellow 2nd Ammendment supporters, that there exist any number of persons, while "legally" permitted to have weapons, have absolutely no business with them. Be it a disregard of safety, simply a "bad" attitude or individuals who are really too stupid to have guns.

Unfortunately, just like the gun laws supposedly aimed at the "Bad Guys" in spirit, any effort to keep the 10%'ers noted above from having guns would only affect the rest of us adversely.

One type of chaff one simply cannot separate from the wheat. Ya gots to take the bad with the good. Unavoidable aspect of freedom, it applies equally to everyone. The good, the bad and the ugly.

GG

Heh...i know no one is innocent of name calling in their lives. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to better ourselves. To jump judgement and name call immediately is wrong. There is much better ways to disapprove of someones behavior than to call them silly names.

[Deserteagle]

At what point have you exhausted all attempts to allude a deadly threat? I know it is different for different people, and in the end the line is wherever a jury finds it to be, but for instance, in an assault, if you don't try to run away before firing, do you believe that to be a good shoot? If he has a knife, do you have to try to fight hand to hand before using a gun?

If my life is in danger, and I attempt to stop the threat, and in doing so the bad guy ends up hurting someone else, his actions are not my responsibilty.

These situations are tough, only thing I can offer is to know your law. This is mine: http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext...main-h.htm&cp=

Full law is in the link, here are some of the key parts I cut out:


18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.


(1) in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.


(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:


(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or


(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:


a) With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or


(b) He is the initial aggressor; except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or

[Axeanda45]

Desert, by your own words you are condemned: My instructor taught us to never draw unless we are ready to shoot. This guy was not in a life or death situation or he would have shot. Therefore, he should not have pulled out his gun.


What part of your post there is wrong? Can you not figure it out? It is what I have been ragging you about... by that post, you have stated that if someone pulls a gun, they had darn well better shoot it or they are in the wrong... Then you went of on a tangent about some law that proves that (false) point.........(and it fails to do so) maybe you should start over and try again?

[chevfan3]

I'm with geezer, not enough information to judge.

Curious, do you think calling people morons is a good image for gun owners?

Yes I'll admit that name calling isn't the best approach to this situation, but it does say in the article that he pulled his gun during a "verbal argument". Even here in Idaho where just about anybody can get a CCW or purchase a gun without a waiting period, it is required that you be in imminent danger of death or serious injury before brandishing a firearm. This guy clearly wasn’t in danger, at least according to the article, so he showed extremely poor judgment by pulling a handgun.
The media loves stories like this but never seem to report on the guy who saved his family by responsibly handling a firearm. Thereby giving the anti gun lobby more ammunition to further restrict our rights. That’s why I think this guy is a moron.

[walt629]

Would you shoot someone in the back that started to run away after assaulting you and realizing you had a gun?

I'm not the one you ask the question of, but my answer is NO! Once an assailant breaks off the confrontation and is running away, the threat is gone. At least that's the way it is explained in Florida.

[walt629]

Yes I'll admit that name calling isn't the best approach to this situation, but it does say in the article that he pulled his gun during a "verbal argument". Even here in Idaho where just about anybody can get a CCW or purchase a gun without a waiting period, it is required that you be in imminent danger of death or serious injury before brandishing a firearm. This guy clearly wasn’t in danger, at least according to the article, so he showed extremely poor judgment by pulling a handgun.
The media loves stories like this but never seem to report on the guy who saved his family by responsibly handling a firearm. Thereby giving the anti gun lobby more ammunition to further restrict our rights. That’s why I think this guy is a moron.

I'm glad to see the "moron" comment has been addressed. Name calling doesn't do anything to advance ones position.

The story as presented doesn't give enough information for me to judge the actions of Mr. Flynn. We really don't know what the traffic confrontation was all about. What we do know is that Flynn was on motorcycle and the other guy was in a car. Confrontations of that formula are usually the deadly type for the motorcyclist.

Draw only if you intend on shooting. Interesting statement made by someone in here. I was taught that having your weapon at ready in some situations does in fact mean extracting said weapon from hiding.

We do not know what direction the verbal confrontation was going. What we do know is that the confrontation ended when Mr. Flynn made it well known that he had a weapon for self defense.

The police that interviewed Mr Flynn did not see fit to arrest him at that time, which tells me they did not see an egregious violation of the law, at the time. The prosecutor later decided to issue the arrest warrant. Who knows what his political agenda is?

The "pointing of the gun" is a 'he said, she said' situation unless there were independent eye witnesses to corroborate the "victims" statement.

I kind of see the incident going down something like this:

Flynn gets cut off in traffic by a car and barely misses getting smeared on the pavement by the hapless driver.

Flynn chases the driver down and dismounts from his cycle. He wants to point out the errant ways of the driver and to educate him to the fact that it is imperative to check all the mirrors before lane changes.

Flynn addresses the drive "Sir! You nearly ran me off the road back there. I think it would be beneficial to everyone if you would uses your mirrors more often and please stay off the cell phone while you are driving.".

At this point Flynn realizes he has approached someone with a less than receptive attitude at the moment and said driver has biceps bigger than Flynn's thighs and could quite possibly tear a phone book (read Flynn's butt) in half. Same said driver begins his portion of the conversation with "I'm gonna drive you into the ground like a tent peg!" and reaches for the door handle.

In that scenario, yep it's time to slap leather! Time to get a lot bigger than the other guy! And the gun is the way to get bigger in a hurry.

I'm not saying this how it went down, but because, like you said, the anti's are always out to get us, until we know what really happened, I think we need to error in favor of the gun owner.

Why is it that some of us are so quick to condemn our own kind instead of standing up for them? Reminds me of Obama apologizing for the US instead of standing up for the US.

IMHO of course.

[Deserteagle]

Desert, by your own words you are condemned: My instructor taught us to never draw unless we are ready to shoot. This guy was not in a life or death situation or he would have shot. Therefore, he should not have pulled out his gun.


What part of your post there is wrong? Can you not figure it out? It is what I have been ragging you about... by that post, you have stated that if someone pulls a gun, they had darn well better shoot it or they are in the wrong... Then you went of on a tangent about some law that proves that (false) point.........(and it fails to do so) maybe you should start over and try again?

Maybe you will understand these simple words.

Keep your gun in your holster until you plan on using it.

1. Dangerous situation arises 2. Can you escape it without using force? 3. Is is a life or death situation? 4. Decide whether or not to use your gun 5. If you decide to use it, pull it out, aim, pull trigger.

This is illegal- 1. Dangerous situation arises 2. Point gun at person and hopefully scare them off

[kelcarry]

"Sticks and stones can hurt my bones but words can never harm me" and if they cannot harm me I am not in imminent danger and I cannot present a firearm--in SC it is brandishing and it is illegal. Last xmas eve a resident of SC brandished his firearm in an altercation with a hot head tow truck operator and ended up dead--this is what can happen when you brandish your firearm--you can easily die because now you are the one who is causing a presumption of imminent danger to the other party who may be CC and quicker and better than you at this sort of macho crap.

[Deserteagle]

"Sticks and stones can hurt my bones but words can never harm me" and if they cannot harm me I am not in imminent danger and I cannot present a firearm--in SC it is brandishing and it is illegal. Last xmas eve a resident of SC brandished his firearm in an altercation with a hot head tow truck operator and ended up dead--this is what can happen when you brandish your firearm--you can easily die because now you are the one who is causing a presumption of imminent danger to the other party who may be CC and quicker and better than you at this sort of macho crap.

Thank you. I thought I was the only one in this thread who seemed to know what brandishing/ menacing is.
Well said.

[wooddoctor]

Heh...i know no one is innocent of name calling in their lives. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to better ourselves. To jump judgement and name call immediately is wrong. There is much better ways to disapprove of someones behavior than to call them silly names.

Is there a polite way to call a "Moron" a "Moron"?. I try hard to fine tune my lables, like Democrates being a cult like organization who are commited to the destuction of this Rebublic as we know it. Socialist, Communist, Marxist, members of the Democrat Regime,is that also name calling? Or does the shoe fit? Just saying. Besides there is nothing silly about calling a fool a fool, unless you buy into the PC BS.