>warning shots are useless >always treat a gun as

>>31628095
your opinions are pretty reddit, I agree

>>31628837
Did you just try to sage my thread?

>>31628095
Great thread, OP

>>31629239
Did you just try to sage my thread?

File: 1450548257605.jpg (251KB, 1589x2300px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1589x2300px

Warning shots against a human are useless

If a human being didn't comply with your commands the first time, they were never going to comply to begin with.

Only use warning shots against fauna like bears, big cats, or wild dogs.

>>31628898
sage wut? are you sexually harassing me?

>>31629284
Pretty much this.
Plus, you risk getting dicked over by the law.
If you have to shoot, shoot to stop, nothing more nothing less

>>31629284
what if said human is deaf?

>>31629396
Then a warning shot probably won't do a whole lot unless they can see it or are close enough to feel concussion.

>>31629284
So you're saying they have a use?

>>31629284
>If a human being didn't comply with your commands the first time, they were never going to comply to begin with.
>Humans never change their mind.
What a bunch of bullshit and wrongness and general incorrectiality.

>>31629889
Are you going to link us to HRCs fact checking site?

>>31629889
Warning shots put you in the realm of legal liability, and making a case for self defense much more difficult. Remember, if you fire a shot you are responsible for whatever that bullet does until it stops.

>>31628095
ND into your head next time.

File: 1453610161670.jpg (43KB, 718x492px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 718x492px

>I tell people that say something political in /k/ to go back to /pol/

>>31629940
That may be so, but it's beside the point.

>>31628095
warning shots will actually get you in serious legal shit. It can be interpreted as a negligent discharge or worse.

I still remember the woman in Florida with the abusive boyfriend who fired a warning shot. She went to jail for five years. Technicalities are a bitch.

Does shooting up in the air to shut up a crowd/get attention thing work?

>>31630008
>Does shooting up in the air to shut up a crowd/get attention thing work?
I doubt it, unless you're in a ghetto, most people won't immediately register what's going on with the sound. You'll either get people panicking, or just kinda looking around. You certainly won't magically get their attention.

>>31629982
It also makes a hard legal case in the aspect that you're usually only able to shoot someone if you're in serious mortal danger. If you had time and thought to yourself "I should probably warn this guy" were you really fearful for your life?

File: Deleted.png (77KB, 581x440px)

77KB, 581x440px

have you considered suicide by car

it's very easy, just leave off your safety belt and redline it on the freeway.

>>31630520
Yes, if you also get the impression that your potential murderer doubts your capacity to use said firearm.

>Murderer: "u ain't gonna shoot me, cracka azz jive honky"
>Victim: [bang] "Try me."

The only reason /k/ thinks warning shots are useless is because they are sociopathic and are incapable of giving human life value.
To them a there is no benefit from an effective warning shot since you could have simply killed the target.

File: feelgud.png (133KB, 354x363px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 354x363px

>>31628095
>someone is going to hurt or kill me or my family or others
>shoot him in the head
>end emergency situation

Where do warning shots come into this?

File: baitnotevenonce.jpg (1KB, 100x100px)

1KB, 100x100px

>>31632813

>>31629284
Warning shots do not succumb to the language barrier. Then again, neither does brandishing a weapon.

Do American navy ships still fire warning shots across the bow of a suspected combatant?

Isn't it illegal for citizens to fire warning shots?

Isn't it illegal for the military to use pepper spray and tear gas against a military enemy?

But its legal for police to use it against American civilians?

I DETECT A DISCREPANCY.

>>31631952

I once redlined my 95 Ford Escort.

I was severely unimpressed lol

>>31632886
Not b8, it's true.
The reasoning is literally "why not just shoot them?"

>>31631977
You need to stop watching movies

>>31629252
>>31628898
My name is Sage Mungus.

>>31632937
If you're willing to shoot someone you should be willing to kill them.

A playful bullet to the chest isn't really a thing...

>>31632955
Sage Mungus what!?

>>31632813
depends what sorta person you are shooting at

>>31632975
>warning shot
>shooting them in the chest
wut

>>31632976

How are you supposed to fire a warning shot if you don't have an airburst rifle?

>>31632937
Who's them?

>>31633035
The dirty Google

>>31632994
Is that sexual harassment!?

>>31633035
Cattle Rustlers, Niggers, Crazed Homeless Vietnam Vets, Mischievous White Teens.

>>31632948
>>Murderer: "u ain't gonna shoot me, cracka azz jive honky"
>>Victim: [bang] EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>Murderer: " EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE "

>Victim: " EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"

ftfy

>>31633089
My go to firearm for general day time property defense, i.e., not middle of the night home invasions is a integrally suppressed .22.

>>31628095
Warning shots aren't just retarded, they're actually illegal.

Firing a shot without the intent to kill and intentionally missing has two associated issues; one being that you clearly didn't need lethal force but used it anyway, and the other being collateral damage.

A gun is always loaded until you yourself have checked the chamber and mag, if applicable.

Please go away

>>31633109
>using the law to argue against the utility of something
MANPADS are illegal but they're not useless.

>>31633109
Firing a warning shot isn't lethal force, neither is brandishing the firearm.
Those are threats to use lethal force.

>>31633217
Pulling the trigger is application of lethal force. As soon as there's a tiny rock that can kill leaving the barrel, lethal force has been used.

Brandishing is not lethal force, correct.

>>31628095
>>warning shots are useless
>>31629889
>>31629982
>>31632813
>>31632937
>>31632991
>>31633151
>>31633217
Warning shots ARE useless, everything that can be accomplished with one can be accomplished by posturing with your hand on your firearm and telling somebody to keep their distance. If they approach and you have a duty to retreat, back up, if they continue, draw. A dawn weapon, brandished in your hand, is going to be counted as a threatening gesture in every jurisdiction you could possibly be in. This is the escalation of force, you have gone from verbal deterrence to a physical threat, (while retreating, which you should do anyway because it can only strengthen your case) and then if they still do not stop chasing you then you open fire.

Warning shots are dangerous to bystanders, a waste of ammo, and the message of "I'll use deadly force against you!" could just as easily be misconstrued as "I'm a terrible shot, I'm not capable of defending myself."

>>31628095
>>always treat a gun as if it's loaded
This is just simple gun safety you moron, treating a device designed to inflict harm (we call these tools "weapons") as if it can and will inflict harm if misused is smart and anyone who says otherwise is stupid.

End of line. If you don't believe in gun safety you are an idiot and an inherent threat to everyone around you.

>>31633273
>Pulling the trigger is application of lethal force
So you've applied lethal force at the range and anytime you shoot at a tree or cans?

When firing a warning shot there is no intent to use lethal force, it is to make clear that lethal force will be used.
I could accidentally hit someone when firing a warning shot but I could also accidentally fire the gun when brandishing it.

The only reason it is treated as lethal force is because in modern society we don't want people shooting their guns and such a black & white view works toward this goal.
In ye old days nobody would think a shot into the air as being intent to kill the person in front of you.

>>31633292
>Warning shots ARE useless, everything that can be accomplished with one can be accomplished by posturing with your hand on your firearm and telling somebody to keep their distance.
Objectively false.
There are men and animals that will not take the threat of the firearm seriously but will after it is fired. At the very least it demonstrates the gun is loaded.

You could argue that a blanket ban on warning shots is a net good socially but to claim they never ever serve a purpose is false.

>>31633344
and youre retarded, because there essentially is a blanket "ban" on warning shots, people have been convicted of assault because of warning shots, the argument primarily being "if you were actually in fear for your life you wouldnt have used a warning shot"

its not a ban, its just called the law, maybe you should try reading it instead of spouting bullshit on the internet

>At the very least it demonstrates the gun is loaded
i would ask if youre retarded but everybody already knows that answer

>>31633292
>Warning shots are dangerous to bystanders
Where are the bystanders when I'm on my farm?
>a waste of ammo
Completely negligible.
>and the message of "I'll use deadly force against you!" could just as easily be misconstrued as "I'm a terrible shot, I'm not capable of defending myself."
And not firing could be misconstrued as the gun not being loaded or that you're actually not willing to kill someone. Either way you have to be prepared to fire again.

>>31633317
>So you've applied lethal force when shooting-

Yes. Literally, by legal definition, yes you have.

Bottom line is, warning shots are a felony in most, if not all states.

>>31633369
>>31633399
I'm sorry that you can only view situations through the lens of 21st century American gun law. That's not the end all be all my friends.
I've seen warning shots used effectively by terroristss to cow prisoners.

>>31633344
In those good old days you didn't have dozens of miles of suburban sprawl. Instead of a shot in the hair landing harmlessly in the dirt a mile or two away from town, it will invariably land somewhere in town.

>>31633411
Congratulations on taking the entire discussion out of context. Want a cookie?

>>31633317
>So you've applied lethal force at the range and anytime you shoot at a tree or cans?
Not that anon but yes, you are applying lethal force. What the fuck do you think the words "lethal" and "force" mean here? Just because somebody didn't get shot doesn't mean that bullets are made of puppydog kisses and children's laughter.

>>31633344
>Objectively false.
>There are men and animals that will not take the threat of the firearm seriously but will after it is fired.
Double dubs wasted on such a retarded post.

I explained exactly how they're useless and this stupid conjecture doesn't disprove it, and in fact firing warning shots at animals is not at all a guarantee that they'll be deterred. You're anthropomorphizing wildlife and trying to pass it off as fact, and even worse still you're arguing semantics at this point because realistically speaking the illegality of warning shots renders them entirely useless anyway.

>>31633387
>Where are the bystanders when I'm on my farm?
Bullets don't magically stop at your property line.
>Completely negligible.
Doesn't matter, it's a waste for no tangible gain.
>And not firing could be misconstrued as the gun not being loaded or that you're actually not willing to kill someone. Either way you have to be prepared to fire again.
So let's get this straight, you're willing to kill your neighbor with a stray bullet just to prove you're a tough guy who totally will kill somebody and then kill that person anyway?

Yeah, you're the poster child for gun control.

>>31633217

Bullshit.

A warning shot is, at minimum, aggravated assault (which is, in general, intentionally or knowingly using force or attempting to use force capable of causing death or serious bodily injury). If the required malice can be proven it becomes attempted murder. The fact that you didn't hit anybody with the gunshot is immaterial.

Furthermore, in some sort of fantasy land where cranking a round off in somebody's general direction wasn't a crime, how is a jury supposed to distinguish between "I was just trying to scare him off" and "He shot at him and missed, but still meant to shoot him?" Your testimony. You know, that thing that somebody like me would have a field day with in the event you were dumb enough to take the stand?

Brandishing may or may not be considered a crime where you live, and your self-defense laws may or may not provide a justification for brandishing.

>>31633106
Wew fucking lad.

Not that .22 isn't capable of killing an intruder, but I certainly wouldn't choose to use it just so the guy can hear me make Dirty Harry quips.

>>31633273
At one point while doing gate guard for the military terminal outside the Springs we were given a lethal force briefing on the the hydraulic car-block ramps because they could potentially cause a lot of damage.

>>31633412
>everywhere is america
>everywhere in america is suburban sprawl

>>31632917
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No

>>31633448
>A warning shot is, at minimum, aggravated assault
Not everywhere is 21st century America my friend.
>>31633430
>Bullets don't magically stop at your property line.
Physics determines that they actually do.
t. australian outback property owner

>>31633448
>how is a jury supposed to distinguish between "I was just trying to scare him off" and "He shot at him and missed, but still meant to shoot him?"
The same way they do with anything else?

>>31633292
>literally treating a gun as always being loaded
Sorry I'm not a hysterical retard who's afraid a metal pipe. If you've verified there is no round in the weapon the gun isn't dangerous.
Le always loaded meme is for <100 iq lowest common denominator and just makes people afraid of guns. How is a gunsmith supposed to work on a gun if it's "always loaded"?

File: shit the bed.jpg (238KB, 800x1100px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 800x1100px

>>31633488
>Physics determines that they actually do.
>t. australian outback property owner
Oh of course you're Australian.

So you fire off a warning shot, it sails past whoever or whatever you're trying to scare off, flies for a few miles, and then plows into a car on some rural road and kills the driver. Congratulations, your macho bullshit has A: killed somebody, B: served to demonstrate you cannot hit jack shit, C: made you into an instant criminal, D: hasn't at all removed the threat which may or may not even recognize you shot at it.

Let's examine what happens with stray bullets:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/818180/posts
http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/20131225/west-volusia-man-69-shot-and-killed-in-his-backyard-on-christmas-deputies-say
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/police-stray-bullet-from-target-shooter-killed-man-in-home

Warning shots are useless.

>>31633505
>The same way they do with anything else?
He explained it for you, dumbass: >>31633448
>Your testimony. You know, that thing that somebody like me would have a field day with in the event you were dumb enough to take the stand?

>>31633529
>Sorry I'm not a hysterical retard who's afraid a metal pipe
Since I'm quoting news stories I got one just to show how much of a fucking retard you are: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/05/ohio-man-cleaning-gun-charged-with-homicide-in-girls-death/1#.V_xuO_SOPRQ

It isn't about being a "hysterical retard afraid of a metal pipe" it's about recognizing that yes this tool I have in my hand can kill somebody so I had better be careful with it.

>Le always loaded meme is for <100 iq lowest common denominator
>How is a gunsmith supposed to work on a gun if it's "always loaded"?
If you ask this you have absolutely no right to insult the intelligence of other people. Being this pedantic is a symptom of actual autism by the way.

>>31633505

Not in this particular case, because even if you've got half a dozen bystanders who all testify that the shooter was screaming "don't come any closer," that does nothing to counter a theory of aggravated assault. The State would simply have to prove intent (the bystanders' statements would likely be sufficient) and that the required force was used or attempted (i.e. the gunshot).

Also remember: if you're being prosecuted for aggravated assault due to a warning shot, odds are that you weren't justified in using lethal force. Most states would, at a minimum, provide for self-defense as an absolute justification if it were a good shoot (assuming you didn't hit a bystander or something similar).

Also also remember: a warning shot is a tacit admission that lethal force was not yet justified (you're missing the imminence element).

>>31633488

>Not everywhere is 21st century America my friend.

Nobody gives a fuck about Australia in this context because armed self-defense by a private citizen is about as likely to be legal (nevermind prevalent) as I am to win the Powerball tomorrow morning.

>>31633619
>It isn't about being a "hysterical retard afraid of a metal pipe" it's about recognizing that yes this tool I have in my hand can kill somebody so I had better be careful with it.
Which means correctly verifying there are no rounds in the gun. It doesn't mean I have to think it's a magic death pipe always ready to kill.
nice job quoting a news article involving someone who clearly didn't take the proper steps in verifying the gun was empty.

File: 1475899868718.png (24KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 657x527px

>any use of guns has to be within framework of dystopian American gun law
classic /k/

>>31633505
By having a misunderstanding of what being a juror is?
You know most jurors are almost comically ignorant of what they're actually there for, right?

It isn't like 12 angry men where they all act like junior investigators. They literally have to treat both side's testimonies as fact, and based off of that, determine NOT if the defendant is guilty, but if the prosecution has proven they are. That's why during the selection process, they eliminate anyone who shows a sign of being eager to interpret evidence in a way other than how the lawyer presented it.

>>31633665
Wow are you lawyer? Keep pouring your knowledge of the courts on me.

>>31633665

>Obviously has never selected a jury before, and likely hasn't been called for jury duty either.

All righty then.

>>31633689
B-But he totally saw on reddit how shitty the jury system is!

>>31633642
>Which means correctly verifying there are no rounds in the gun. It doesn't mean I have to think it's a magic death pipe always ready to kill.
Again, once more, being this pedantic is a symptom of actual, honest-to-God autism.

"Treat every gun as if it's loaded" is simple: finger off the trigger, don't point it at people, don't play with it like it's a squirt gun. What's so hard about that? I have to ask because you seem like one of those onerous jackasses who pretended to shoot somebody with an unloaded gun and they (correctly) called you a fucking asshole and that hurt your feelings. I'm not even sure why you're arguing this, even without the "four rules" it should be common fucking sense to just keep the shooty tooty end away from people or things you don't want holes in. Are you saying common sense is stupid? Because it sure seems like it.

>>31633658
>>any use of guns has to be within framework of dystopian American gun law
>classic /k/
I gave several examples of why warning shots are dangerous here: >>31633619 and I outlined why they're stupid here: >>31633292

I think I've done an adequate job stating my argument so I'll wait for your well-written response.

>>31633665

Oh, also:

A jury is never charged to "treat both side's testimonies as fact." Quite the contrary, it's the exclusive province of the jury to determine the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. See also: if they think what I'm selling them is bullshit -- whether they think my evidence isn't sufficient, my witnesses aren't credible, or hell, whether I've suborned perjury -- they have every right (and, arguably, a duty) to discard it.

>>31633619
>o you fire off a warning shot, it sails past whoever or whatever you're trying to scare off, flies for a few miles, and then plows into a car on some rural road and kills the driver.
There are no public roads within range lol. Your tortured hypothetical is silly, might as well never shoot a gun because it might go through your target and kill the baby that just happened to be crawling there.
How are warning shots macho bullshit?
How are warning shots useless?
They've literally been used to intimidate people in history and common day.
The idea that a warning shot is always useless and the same thing could be accomplished with simply brandishing the weapon is factually wrong.

I like how you quote random news articles about people getting hit by strays shots etc. You sound like a gun control faggot listing off school shootings.

>>31633717
>"Treat every gun as if it's loaded" is simple: finger off the trigger, don't point it at people, don't play with it like it's a squirt gun.
No it's not. There's loads of pedantic gun fags who take it as word of god. They'll be right there to condemn and berate you when you look down the barrel even though you completely checked the gun for rounds.

>>31633717
>warning shots aren't very useful and are dangerous in suburban america ergo they are always useless

>>31633669
No, I'm not a lawyer. Are you? If not, this jab was entirely meaningless.

>>31633642
This. If a gun is verifiably proven to be unloaded, its nothing more than a collection of metal (and polymer, if you're a classless pleb). Hammer nails with it, point it at your doggo, throw it in the microwave. At no point will a bullet materialize in it and make it anything more than a collection of metal( and polymer if you're a classless pleb). Now, pointIng it at a PERSON other than yourself is a different thing entirely. Giving anyone even a shred of a thought that they're having a loaded gun pointed at them is criminal.

>>31633719
What I mean by "treat both sides testimonies as fact" is, that they can't "fill in the gaps" in your testimony with their own assumptions. I misspoke. Their decision is to be based entirely on the evidence presented to them, and nothing else. Not their time spent playing Phoenix Wright or their own biases and prior opinions.

>>31628095
>>always treat a gun as if it's loaded
>reddit
t. sootch00

>>31633784
>Now, pointIng it at a PERSON other than yourself is a different thing entirely
I mean this is an issue because they don't know and can't trust you and you're basically threatening them.
If you worked a gun factory and it was practically impossible for a round to be in any of the guns, then having the empty guns aim at your coworkers as you wheel them on a cart isn't an issue.

>>31633745
>There are no public roads within range lol.
So? I'll use your words against you:
>Your tortured hypothetical is silly,
Just because it isn't likely that somebody will be in the miles-long column of air doesn't mean they aren't and since you're supposedly in a high-stakes self-defense situation already I doubt you'll double check to make sure.

>How are warning shots macho bullshit?
How are they not? Your entire argument hinges on their use being to prove that you have the chops to pull a trigger. Oh and speaking of having the guts to shoot at empty space near some scary thing doesn't mean you have the guts to shoot the scary thing.

>How are warning shots useless?
I know the sun has baked your brain but I've explained this several times. I'm using your own points against you now, so you really haven't reciprocated this.

>The idea that a warning shot is always useless and the same thing could be accomplished with simply brandishing the weapon is factually wrong.
Says... you, and going back to what I said to another anon being this pedantic is an actual symptom of autism. Even if a warning shot and ONLY a warning shot has worked once or twice doesn't make them universally useful, which is what we're discussing here. Fuck off if you can't figure that out and take this shit with you:

>You sound like a gun control faggot listing off school shootings.
Every example served a purpose, if you don't like the fact that you're an irresponsible jackass then unfuck yourself; I didn't make you this way.

>>31633764
Every example I posted was from a rural area, ergo you're an idiot. Also see above.

>>31633757
>No it's not. There's loads of pedantic gun fags who take it as word of god. They'll be right there to condemn and berate you
How is this different than what you've been doing to me for several posts?

I haven't once said that treating a cleared weapon as a cleared weapon is bad, but I do recognize that accidents can happen and I'm not immature with my firearms.

>>31633784


>What I mean by "treat both sides testimonies as fact" is, that they can't "fill in the gaps" in your testimony with their own assumptions.

In the event that you are ever called for jury duty, please give this as part of your answer if and when you're asked whether or not you're capable of making your decision based only upon the evidence presented you. Defense counsel would love the shit out of you.

Juries fill in the gaps all the time. They're not going to leave their life experience (or their common sense) at the door. For example, if I have testimony stating that the victim and the defendant were seen arguing and later going hands-on in the parking lot of an apartment complex, police were called by a bystander, police observed the defendant fleeing from the scene, and upon searching the defendant incident to his arrest, police recovered property belonging to the victim, it's very easy (and also rational) for a jury to conclude that the defendant took the victim's stuff by force. As a matter of fact, back in March, a jury in my county concluded that very thing (robbery, as well as some other charges) based on those basic facts, all without a victim testifying (for various reasons, placing them on the stand was a bad idea of the sort likely to involve perjury), and because that jury did so, the defendant is now serving eight years in a state prison.

>>31633855
>Just because it isn't likely that somebody will be in the miles-long column of air doesn't mean they aren't
Yes which is why we should literally never fire a gun ever because maybe against all odds there's a random person there.
Shoot on your property? Too bad there could be a homeless man in ghillie suit taking a nap.

>>31633820
>working at the gun factory
That's kind of a rare scenario, don't you think?

Let me give an example of my own:
One time me and my buddy were texting one another, insulting each other's moms and stupid shit like that. He told me to go kill myself, and I sent him a picture of me holding my 1911 to my head. In the picture, the slide was locked back, and you could see that there wasn't a magazine in the gun.

>"dude that's super dangerous!"
>"how? It's literally incapable of firing."
>"STILL!!!"

I was in infinitely more danger of the slide lock pinching my fingers when I dropped it than I was of seriously shooting myself in the head.


The "always loaded ALWAYS" meme only applies in public where it's not realistic to prove to each and every person that the gun is incapable of firing.

>>31633898
>The "always loaded ALWAYS" meme only applies in public where it's not realistic to prove to each and every person that the gun is incapable of firing.
Yes but plenty of people apply it to everything, e.g., your friend.

>>31633472
Tear gas actually IS illegal according to the Geneva Convention.

For some reason.

>>31633877
>Yes which is why we should literally never fire a gun ever because maybe against all odds there's a random person there.
>Shoot on your property? Too bad there could be a homeless man in ghillie suit taking a nap.
Remember that thing about autism? Yep.

See this type of post is why you people deserved to have your guns taken away. Instead of dismissing my argument as being overly cautious and assuring me that yes, you will check, you immediately make light of it and try to absolve yourself of any wrongdoing. This is a typical Australian reaction, you people simply cannot admit that you could possibly be wrong about anything. I'm willing to be proven wrong, if you gave me some sort of proof that warning shots are absolutely effective at scaring off wildlife and recommended by professionals then I would concede the point. You? Nope. I've given you examples of what happens when stray bullets find people even in sparsely-populated areas and you still insist that it's impossible.

You're an entire continent of people who deserve all the misfortune you experience, if niggers are the malfunctioning examples of the black race then surely Australians are our niggers. Why else would you shirk all personal responsibility like this? If I didn't believe in the right to bear arms as an inalienable right given to all I'd probably be in favor of your country's gun control because you people seriously cannot be trusted.

>>31633945
And if he feels that he's that unreliable when it comes to making his guns safe to handle, that's his problem. But I don't have that issue. He can handle his guns like it's the ark of the covenant from Indiana Jones at all times, meanwhile I'll handle mine with confidence because I took the two fucking seconds it takes to clear the chamber of a firearm and remove the magazine.

>>31633953
I believe the rational is that it's too difficult to tell if a gas is non-lethal or some truly nasty chemical weapon.
So a blanket ban prevents escalation.

Maybe they could make some rule that non-lethal gas has to be colored bright pink or something. And using pink lethal gas would be super heinous.

>>31633994
I guess that makes sense. Well, if you accept that banning chemical weapons to begin with makes sense anyways.

>>31633990
So you're agreeing with OP?

>>31634015
No, because the op states two absolutes, and the world doesn't work that way. I'd agree if they said:
> always treat a gun as if it were loaded (if it has left your sight since you last cleared it)
> warning shots are useless (or outright harmful if you don't know what's behind your target, and may be illegal depending on jurisdiction).

>>31634055
I thought OP was mocking the absolute form "always treat gun as if it's loaded".

>>31632813
sounds pretty accurate but you also sound like a liberal pussy for endangering your life and family's life because it's "wrong" to kill a man who threatens your family's safety.

Anyone who breaks in your house and poses a threat shouldn't be thought of as a valued human being.

here's another (You) for making me bite

>>31634320
There's other circumstances beyond home invasion m8.
Americans are just too cucked to think of using gun in defense of property.