http://www.news9.com/story/35282499/point-dont-shoot-law-close-to-being-on-the-books-in-ok

This is about the stupidest thing I have seen in a long time.
This better not get signed into law.

So what did you see that was dumb about it?

It seems to me like they are trying to fix the law, in favor or citizens who exercise good judgement and diffuse a situation with their firearm when allowed to do so. The way I read it, they are trying to make it to where if you pull your gun on some fool, and he backs down, there isn't room for the law to come at you with a brandishing charge just because you didn't fire your gun.

Whatcha think?

Anyone who pulls a gun in public that isn't wearing a badge would be perceived as a threat by others. Get it wrong and you could get shot.
You don't pull a gun to get someone to "back down". That can create all kinds of problems no matter what the law says.
Currently, if you draw and get charged with brandishing you didn't have justification to do it in the first place and I can't see how that would change.
This is the fine line between an argument and a shooting. Don't bring the weapon into it unless your justified in shooting.

But if you could stop a crime without having to kill someone it would be a good thing. Example.... someone pulls a knife on you. You pull a gun. Someone is threatening an individual with a weapon and you could stop it with out shooting. Someone is robbing a store and you could stop it without shooting. It's not a bad idea really. It'll be to the benefit of the gun owner in my opinion.

It's probably a great idea in my opinion.  Yes, there will likely be some cases where someone who didn't take the time to read the law and swish it around in his/her brain before acting and ends up on the wrong side of the situation but it's every gun owners responsibility to understand the law.

Excellent examples.
You can do all those things now without shooting if not forced to and without being charged with brandishing. In all those examples you are justified in drawing a weapon.
The problem with this new law is that it will allow people to point a weapon when its not justified, injecting a weapon into circumstances when its not truly necessary.

It blurs the line.

Example: I have an accident with some guy. He is pissed off. We get into an argument. No physical contact is made. No weapons involved.
His girlfriend gets his gun out of the car and thinks she is justified in pointing it at me to stop the argument. I perceive that as a threat and I draw and shoot her.

Then she's at fault for not understanding the law and responsibility falls on her.  You would be good to go legally in this situation and any deaths resulting would be filed on her.  It's just a matter of knowing the law.

I don't disagree with you but why create the potential for confusion when its not necessary. As it stands now you can draw your weapon and shoot if you are in fear of your life but you don't have to. The law does not require you to shoot...

Someone give me an example, as the law is now, where drawing and pointing a gun is a good idea and necessary based on the circumstances but where you could be charged with brandishing.
I don't think anyone can.

How about you're surrounded, or nearly so, by a 10-15 people intent on doing you harm but they do not have any visible weapons?  Would that be justified or considered brandishing?  10-15 people could kill you quite easily.  Actually, 2-3 could do it just as well.

According to the lawyer that gives the "what's legal and what isn't" one whatever TV show that they talk about that kind of stuff (I think it has Rob Pincus on it)...he says if you are in a situation where you have multiple people intending to do you harm then you have the right to use deadly force so it would be legal in that case.  However, the actions of the "crowd" dictate whether deadly force is allowed or not.  Two or three guys in your face calling you names doesn't qualify.  The same number of guys telling you they are going to kill you would qualify.  Now that's just my version of what I saw on the show so don't take any of it to heart I've got a bad case of CRS.  They also discussed using deadly force when trapped in your car during riots or demonstrations.  Wish I could remember the show, they usually create simulations of shoot/don't shoot situations to teach what to do or not do in similar situations.

This +1. This is how my instructor explained it during our concealed class, (he was an attorney), and typically how "most" individuals who discuss the subject address it.

It all stems from what they call "imminent" danger. IS your life; (or your wife, child, parent, etc.), in danger?

You can argue perceived deadly threat to no end. But a firearm in hand can either escalate or deescalate a situation into or out of the use of deadly force.
Having been gut shot once, I see a gun one of two things will happen. I will run to cover or I will shoot. No in between regardless of any law.

Gonna have to call CLEET and see of this includes security guard's.

This could be a way for me to gain compliance with a firearm.

Disparity in numbers qualifies. You can shoot so nothing would change with this proposed law.

ETA: Here is some good info on this subject..

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/disparity-of-force/

Or get shot. Remember, your not a cop..

If I'm pointing a gun at someone, shit has already gone downhill.

Just another tool for the toolbox.