TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:That would be a poor guess on your part, and when did anyone point and laugh at you? You were gently corrected, but instead of accepting the correction you insisted that you and only you were right, leading to further attempts to convince you of the error of your ways. If anyone has made fun of you, it has been you.

Wow. I gave three examples, I could have given one hundred, they were not all inclusive. You fail to see my point. There are a plethora of words that have taken on new meanings by the way society has used them.

jimlongley wrote: Another of your pronouncements that I disagree with. People seem to have gotten the idea that lasers are some sort of magic aiming device that guarantees pinpoint accuracy, kind of like scopes and red dot sights, and they probably got that idea from those same R rated movies that feature a motionless laser dot on target, from a gun hundreds of yards away - it just ain't going to happen that way in real life. Even at relatively short distances in very steady hands that laser dot bobs and weaves like a boxer faced with an opponent with twelve hands on the end of each arm.

You just proved my point. Your use of the word "people" is referencing the majority opinion. If "people" have gotten the idea that lasers are a magic aiming device, then most people would be intimidated by having one pointed at them. I never said I believe lasers are magical, guarantee pinpoint accuracy, or even a hit.

jimlongley wrote: You were the one that said it was an AK-47, and a serious question was asked in return. We don't know you, have no reason to suspect that you might not have one, have no reason to expect you to be using some term that you have declared generic, and maybe, just maybe, we would be interested in finding out where you got it so we could get one too.

About three hours after Tx asked me the question, I politely answered it and clarified exactly what I meant. Why it had to be drug out to be such a big deal is beyond me.

jimlongley wrote: Just shows that there is a lot MORE that you do not know. Here's a link to a pic of a WSAR-1, which you should know something about being such an expert.

Mr. Longley, as a matter of fact I do. Let me guess. You went to Google and typed "wsar1" and posted a link to the first result you got. However, anyone knowledeable of this type of firearm would readily recognize that stamped receiver lacking the characteristic dimples above the mag well, making the gun a WASR-10. The error was most likely a typo of the author, or ignorance of exactly what they owned. Furthermore, if you view the guy's album that posted the picture, he calls it an "AK" in another picture. So much for the credibility of your source, right?

Perhaps a little humility is in order?

txinvestigator wrote: I tried to be polite, you would not allow it.

And Tx, how was I not polite, or not allowing you to be polite? At the very least I will try to do better at that if you can give me an example.

txinvestigator wrote:Your comparisons are invalid. A kleenex and tissue ARE the same thing. One is a particular brand, the other describes the object. You would not say Kleenex if you meant a paper towel. Similar, but different.

It's not an invalid comparison. It doesn't matter if one is a brand and the other is not, it's incorrect terminology none-the-less. You are adamently refusing to see my point.

txinvestigator wrote: An AK47 is a fully automatic weapon. You don't have one of those.

Please quote me when I said I had a fully automatic weapon.

txinvestigator wrote: I suspect you use terms like AK47 to impress, since you are so insistent that you know the difference. To those who know, it is simply borish. Using phrases like "paint him with a laser" make you sound like an armchair commando.

I can almost see up your nose you have stuck up so high. I all honesty, I use the term AK-47 because a heck of a lot more people can relate to that than a SAR-1. I've never lead anyone to believe I have the real deal. Sorry for not cleaning up my vocabulary before presenting to the knowledge of everyone here.

txinvestigator wrote: Regarding my comprisons of the car and boat, you didn't call me on anything. Both are vehicles, just as an AK and its semi-auto clones are rifles.

No, a fair comparison would be a Lamborghini to a Lamborghini kit car. One is the real deal and the other is just a clone of it. Boats and cars? I don't think so.

txinvestigator wrote: But a car and boat are not the same, and an AK is not an WSAR1

What's a WSAR1? I didn't know they make those. SAR-1's and WASR-10's they do make.

jimlongley wrote:Actually I agree with the "clip Nazis", correct terminology is imperative in todays environment. And it's interesting how you choose to speak for "everyone here." Actually I think that the majority of the people here would want to know where you found stripper clips for your Glock.

Calling something that is patently not an AK-47, an AK-47, just drags you down to the same level as those people that call everything that shoots one bullet for each pull of the trigger without manually actuating a mechanism to load the gun again, an assault rifle or machine gun - it just ain't so.

You were the one using the term AK-47 in naming a gun you claimed to own, therefore you were indeed calling it an AK-47, how were we supposed to know that you didn't actually own an AK-47?

Were we supposed to make some leap of faith judgement that you didn't really, that it was merely a (improper) nickname for spomething that really isn't an AK-47?

And what if you did have a real AK-47, and some people do, how would you feel if everyone assumed that when you talk about your AK-47 you are actually talking about one of the generalized term guns?

It's about as acceptable, in some circles, as calling a Chevrolet a Ford because after all they do all the same things and are made the same way, etc, etc, etc. There is a difference and that difference needs to be acknowledged. Again, if you had used the proper nomenclature instead of some offhand shortcut born of whatever reasoning, you would not have found yourself subjected to criticism.

Go ahead and use whatever terms you choose, just don't be surprised when it reduces others' estimation of you.

I'll see if I can post up those laser sight pics, very interesting.

Jim, let me ask you a question. Have you ever asked for a Band-aid when you really meant to ask for an adhesive bandage? Have you called a tissue a Kleenex when the brand you used was not made by them? Have you eaten store brand gelatin but called it Jell-O anyway? I'm going to guess you have at some point used incorrect terminology on one or all three of those examples. Oh my gosh, let's all point and laugh at Jim for calling something it technically isn't! (hint: read with extreme sarcasm)

As for the laser beam, just make it a point to shine it in their eyes. Problem solved. A laser has a greater intimidation factor thanks to R-rated movies than its usefulness in my opinion. Some guns, like the laser grips on yours, might be worthwhile.

txinvestigator wrote: A clip is NOT a magazine, anymore than a boat is a car. Although both the boat and the car have motors and steering gear and can transport people long distances does not mean they are the same and have interchangeable names.

Comparing clips and magazines to boats and cars it a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? Most people in the world couldn't tell you the difference between a clip and mag, or are even aware there is a difference. Heck many gun owners couldn't even do that. Do you really think it's fair to compare it to that? I know it wasn't a huge point, but I had to call you on that.

Lighten up folks. Sorry for misleading everyone into thinking I had a $2000 gun when in fact I have a puny semi-automatic. I don't think anyone took me seriously in the sense of a true AK-47, and I wasn't trying to fool anyone. If you can't agree to that much, than I don't think I have anything else to say here.

Now everyone please excuse me while I go xerox my CHL application before sending it in. Oops, silly me, I meant to say "photo copy"!!!

jimlongley wrote: Nope, an AK-47 is an AK-47, and there are no variants called an AK-47, except by the unknowing, which includes the media. If you had stated the proper nomenclature just about everyone here would have recognized what you were referring to instead of exposing yourself to unwanted criticism.

Same goes for "paint them with a laser" it's a term just not used by people familiar with guns and lasers, except maybe fighter jocks who usually use radar to "paint" a target.

BTW, have you ever had a firearm laser pointed at you? I ran some tests a while back and unless you shine it in someone's eyes, they are pretty unlikely to notice the little red light mounted on your gun. I have a series of digital pics from the tests, but the web site they were on has gone down and I haven't bothered to repost them online.

I wasn't saying my variant was called an AK-47, just that it is a variant of that rifle. Take AK-47.net of The Guns Network for example, a huge online community. Although technically AK-47 is a specific fully automatic rifle, it has become a blanket term for it's variants, too. Most people participating in that community have a SAR, WASR, Galil, MAADI, MAK, etc., but they all get generalized into the same term. Whether you choose to be technical or not in your usage, the term "AK-47" has broadened in the things it could reference.

Similar for "painting". You say tomato, I say ta-mah-toe. Again, I'm an educated person, but I don't feel the need to stick with such a strict vocabulary in all circumstances, especially in casual conversion online. Testifying in court, that is different.

Nope, never had a gun laser pointed at me.

This is almost like those, "it's not a clip, it's a magazine" Nazi's. Personally I try to stick with the use of "mag" and not "clip", but there's some people who just take it way too seriously. If I said, "I need another clip for my Glock" everyone here would know exactly what I meant, except for the "clip Nazi's" that would respond, "How did you modify your Glock to use stripper clips??? ".........

Yeah, I really like it. It's my first handgun. On a good day when I'm doing my part, the gun has awesome accuracy. I feel I can get a more precise sight picture with the triangle/trapezoidal sights than the normal post style. It has a manual safety that I'm debating whether or not to use. It requires two hands to engage and theoretically only your trigger finger to disengage it, but it's a really awkward motion and sometimes I don't have a good enough grip to disengage it in a quick draw. It has the same style trigger safety as Glocks, and a lockable safety with a key that I doubt anyone has ever used. Well that brings up another question. Do you guys carry with your safety on, if your gun has a manual safety?

It was $300 at CDNN last summer (they may still have the deal), including two 10 and two 14 round magazines. Lowest price I've seen them at. Not bad for something comparable to a Glock.

txinvestigator wrote: Have you decided what and how to carry?

Steyr M9 (about the size of a Glock 19) and I'll probably be ordering a Smart Carry in the next few days so I can try and get used to wearing it around the apartment before I venture outside when my license arrives. Maybe an IWB holster also to compare with the Smart Carry. I may end up preferring one or the other for certain kinds of clothing or activities. Only one way to find out.

txinvestigator wrote: That is a huge difference. You do not have an AK47. The general public (non-knowledgeable about firearms) think AK47 = full auto. Let not those of us who should know better perpetuate that myth. ;)

Didn't mean to perpetuate a myth, but I think everyone here would agree the "general public" does not view this forum. Many things said in general firearms discussion would have to be claried to someone ignorant of the field.

txinvestigator wrote: Words have meaning, and in this type of situation, legal meanings are the only ones that matter. And 2/1 drills are only applicable in a narrow set of circumstances. 85% of people shot with handguns survive, so in all likelyhood your criminal will survive a handgun shot.

Well, that's why I'm here, to better understand things legally. That's an interesting statistic though, about the percentage of people shot by a handgun survive.

txinvestigator wrote: You have been watching too much TV I think. There is no evidence of that, and I certainly would not count on it.

Most likely. However, I do not feel the need to stick with such a strict vocabulary under every circumstance and may sometimes throw in a word like "paint" in reference to the red dot of a laser. For the same reasons shining a gazillion power spotlight on someone would cause them to stop or flee, don't you think the laser would have the same effect? I should have added "flee" when I talked about shining a laser on someone, not just freeze.

txinvestigator wrote:Under the law, the justifications are the same. Your "territority" is not defensable under chapter 9.

But under the law, isn't armed breaking and entering of a home much worse than attempted burglary of a vehicle (not talking PC9 here)? Again, scratch out my use of territory and insert "property".

txinvestigator wrote: I don't think your question is ignorant at all, and I certainly am not chastising you. I tend to post rather matter-of-factly, but seldom is there any emotion attached.

I do think that your instructor short-changed you in that answer. If you presented this scenario, he had an excellent opportunity to show your class how the specific wording of the law can apply to different situations.

I do wish the instructor would have gone into greater detail. To his credit, he says he normally teaches a 2 day, 15 hour course, so he had to speed it up a little. I did have some misconceptions coming out of that class that I had clarified on here in my other thread. Just goes to show taking the class doesn't make you an expert. The way I figure is I have at least a full 60 days to educate myself on the consequences, good and bad, of carrying concealed.

flintknapper wrote:Flat,

I'm going to guess you were tired when you wrote this.

I hope this doesn't come across as sounding "harsh", but I can think of a dozen other ways of handling that scenario that would be better.

Please do not fire a "warning" shot. There are many reasons why, (some of which you answered yourself).

Welcome to the forum.

Wow. Lot's of responses in such short time. Yes, I was tired when I wrote that and considered putting it off for another day to think about. Given all the responses I have certainly been scared off from thinking of such an idea. I'll try to respond to most things said.

txinvestigator wrote:How did you obtain an AK47?

Where else but the gun show? Sorry, what I meant to say was my Romanian Semi-Automatic Rifle model 1, which to most people in the gun world, would readily be accepted under the term AK-47 as all it's other variants. The major difference being not having a selectable rate of fire as on the original.

txinvestigator wrote:Lets stop there for a minute. There is no "right" in Texas to use deadly force. The justifications for using deadly force are a "defense to prosecution" and you are subject to prosecution for ANY use of deadly force.

Right, I understand everything is just a defense to prosecution. My wording was not the best and far from correct under legal definitions.

txinvestigator wrote:Oh boy....... Shooting to kill displays a mental state that you intended to kill the other. That is murder. Texas laws do not allow that. It allows you to use deadly force to STOP certain events, and the culpability is different. Deadly force is used to stop an act that is listed under Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code when the justification is present.

This just sounds like word games to me. Yes, PC9 gives you justification to use deadly force to stop someone in certain circumstances. I used the word "kill" when legally I meant "stop". But, what do you think you're doing when you "stop" someone by firing two shots to the chest and one to the head (I'm sure everyone here practices drills like that, correct?). You most likely killed them. In this instance, the difference between stop and kill is a mute point to me. The only difference being the legal definitions of the two words.

txinvestigator wrote:Paint them with a laser?

I'm sure you're familiar with gun related colloquialisms to know what I mean. "Shine" a laser on someone in the middle of the night and they will most likely freeze.

txinvestigator wrote:As a Use of Force instructor I am cringing reading your continued use of he "shoot to kill" phrase. See my comments above. The Penal Code does not allow deadly force because something is "personal"

Sorry again for making you cringe. I will shoot to stop. Whether or not that kills will be determined at bullet impact. I never said I would shoot for personal reasons, but an armed home invasion is a much greater offense than say attempted burglary of a vehicle. The law allows you more "justification" in protecting your personal territory. This is the manner in which I meant my statement.

txinvestigator wrote: Again, use of force is a defense to prosecution. In your scenario, with no evidence or even with just some evidence, you would likely have your firearm taken and you would be charged. A defense to prosecution means you have to prove beyone a reasonable doubt that you met the justification. The police do not take well to people firing guns in public areas. And remember, as you set up the scenario the guy ran off, so the police have no way of verifying your story.

Thank you. This was the response that I was looking for. How could I prove that the event even happened except for maybe a broken window, or pried open door, which could have been like that to begin with? Without anything significant the cops would have no reason to believe me, so it sounds like from what you're saying they wouldn't cut me any slack. Understood.

txinvestigator wrote: No, warning shots are not acceptable, and it would certainly be more than frowned upon by the cops.

Again, this was the information I was looking for. Thanks for posting it.

txinvestigator wrote: May I suggest that you take a concealed handgun course? Even if you are under 21 or have no desire to carry concealed, these issues are covered thoroughly in the class. The information and training will serve you well.

I'm sure it'll come as a surprise to you then to hear that I have recently just completed a CHL class. I asked the "warning shot" question in class and the only response I got from the instructor was "if you have the justification to use deadly force, you have the justification threaten deadly force." He didn't chastise me for asking an ignorant question or elaborate any further. I thought it would have been ok to have this better explained on this forum.

Thanks for the encouragement stevie.

Sorry to ruffle anyone's feathers over this. I didn't mean to cause any trouble. I figured it'd be best to have things explained rather than still be confused. In conclusion, I will not fire any warning shots and will shoot to "stop" in life-threatening situations or not shoot at all.

I know this is a CHL forum and this question is not explicitly CHL related, but with all the great legal advice I'm hoping it's ok I post this here.

If your life was not being threatened, but you were still justified in using deadly force, would you consider firing a warning shot? I will use the example that seems like the most likely for me to use my guns. I drive a moderately modified car that I'm very protective of. I live in an apartment and always try to park my car as close to my bedroom window as possible. If the weather is nice I'll leave the window open at night to better hear my car alarm going off in case someone messes with it (I live on the second floor). Say I wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of my car alarm. I take my handgun and AK-47 over to the window and shine my 1,000,000 candela spotlight out the window and see someone trying to break into or already inside of my car. At this point I would have the right to use deadly force, but what would you guys think about firing a warning shot into the ground to scare them off? Since I'd already have my gun on target, I could fire another shot to kill if I see them grab for a weapon way before they could pull the trigger. Or, would you just paint them with a red laser and tell them to stop, or something to that effect? I most likely would decide not to kill in this circumstance since my life was not in danger. How would you guys handle a situation like this? Home invasion I may be a little more likely to shoot to kill no matter what, although it sounds like most of those guys are armed anyway. That's much more personal than breaking into my car and the potential for damage they could cause is much higher. Am I correct in assuming you are much more likely to be "no billed" for using deadly force in a home invasion vs. protecting my car or some other property?

Just a little hypothetical situation here. Say I fired a warning shot into the ground and the guy ran off. Since I live in an apartment there would be a good number of people calling the police hearing a shot fired. I know this sounds stupid, but even though it's illegal to discharge a firearm in city limits, I wouldn't be issued a fine for doing so (even though I was not even aiming at the criminal)? Since I had the right to use deadly force, I also had the right to threaten deadly force, which would trump not being allowed to shoot inside city limits, right? It's sort of like you're allowed to have your gun unconcealed if you are justified in using deadly force at the time you pull it out? I guess I'm wondering if a warning shot is an accectable and understood method of threatening deadly force, or would that be frowned upon by the cops? Sorry for the silly question, but shooting my gun would cause a big situation at my complex.