maqroll Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 No idea what the laws are like in the US but if I owned a gun Id be more concerned about going to jail for using it if you shoot an intruder. If I had a family to protect its probably worth having one, if I lived on my own and someone broke in I just think its a much better idea to jump out the window! In some states, particularly in the south, they have the infamous "Stand Your Ground" type laws, which gives the shooter a great deal of leeway in court. See the George Zimmerman trial for proof. Where I live, you have to prove your and/or your families' lives life were in danger, that the perp wasn't fleeing, (if you shoot someone in the back, for example, you're basically cooked.) Of course, this all depends on if you can open your gun safe by the time the intruder has assaulted you or your family... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyM3000 Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 No idea what the laws are like in the US but if I owned a gun Id be more concerned about going to jail for using it if you shoot an intruder. If I had a family to protect its probably worth having one, if I lived on my own and someone broke in I just think its a much better idea to jump out the window! In some states, particularly in the south, they have the infamous "Stand Your Ground" type laws, which gives the shooter a great deal of leeway in court. See the George Zimmerman trial for proof. Where I live, you have to prove your and/or your families' lives life were in danger, that the perp wasn't fleeing, (if you shoot someone in the back, for example, you're basically cooked.) Of course, this all depends on if you can open your gun safe by the time the intruder has assaulted you or your family... See thats the thing, nobody will ever really know what has gone down and the court could easily see it the wrong way, I wouldn't want to be put in that position. Personally if someone has entered your house without your permission you should be able to shoot them with no risk of going to jail. Surprised stun guns/tazers aren't used more. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Bad people don't generally break into houses to attack the occupies here in the UK, 99.99% of the time they just want the TV. If any criminal makes the stupid error of breaking into a house while the owners are there, they'll scarper as soon as they hear them getting up. I don't buy the whole needing a gun to protect my family line, it doesn't stack up to real life. It's a load of old bullshit really. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Yeah, a burglar wants a clean getaway and no drama almost as much as the home owner does. Having a weapon and some sort of stand off ensuing would massively increase your chances of getting hurt I recon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) No idea what the laws are like in the US but if I owned a gun Id be more concerned about going to jail for using it if you shoot an intruder. If I had a family to protect its probably worth having one, if I lived on my own and someone broke in I just think its a much better idea to jump out the window! In some states, particularly in the south, they have the infamous "Stand Your Ground" type laws, which gives the shooter a great deal of leeway in court. See the George Zimmerman trial for proof. Where I live, you have to prove your and/or your families' lives life were in danger, that the perp wasn't fleeing, (if you shoot someone in the back, for example, you're basically cooked.) Of course, this all depends on if you can open your gun safe by the time the intruder has assaulted you or your family... See thats the thing, nobody will ever really know what has gone down and the court could easily see it the wrong way, I wouldn't want to be put in that position. Personally if someone has entered your house without your permission you should be able to shoot them with no risk of going to jail. Surprised stun guns/tazers aren't used more. Until it ends up like it did with that idiot in South Africa, shooting your missus cause you thought it was an intruder. Edited October 3, 2013 by LondonLax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 3, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 3, 2013 Getting away from the inevitable controversy a wee bit... Despite the fact that I am vehemently pro-gun control, I do like old guns. I guess it's my childhood obsession with westerns and war movies, but I think that some of them are things of beauty. It won't happen, but I'd quite like to have a collection of (deactivated) things like these: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted October 3, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 3, 2013 You can apply for a license to carry, but you have to convince the police that it's vital that you are able to, and they'd prefer not to issue those permits. Depends on the town. Out here, except for the various People's Republics, the cops will give most folks a carry permit no questions asked... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted October 3, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 3, 2013 In some states, particularly in the south, they have the infamous "Stand Your Ground" type laws, which gives the shooter a great deal of leeway in court. See the George Zimmerman trial for proof. Where I live, you have to prove your and/or your families' lives life were in danger, that the perp wasn't fleeing, (if you shoot someone in the back, for example, you're basically cooked.) Of course, this all depends on if you can open your gun safe by the time the intruder has assaulted you or your family... Massachusetts is a castle doctrine state... You don't have to prove danger; the fact of the intruder's presence creates that presumption. And stand your ground has basically nothing to do with the Zimmerman case, beyond possibly that the police not deciding to make the initial arrest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom_Wren Posted October 3, 2013 Author Share Posted October 3, 2013 Bad people don't generally break into houses to attack the occupies here in the UK, 99.99% of the time they just want the TV. If any criminal makes the stupid error of breaking into a house while the owners are there, they'll scarper as soon as they hear them getting up. I don't buy the whole needing a gun to protect my family line, it doesn't stack up to real life. It's a load of old bullshit really. That's totally your prerogative mate and I respect your opinion. IMO if that option is open to you and you would ever need it. It's good to have. As mentioned before never want to use it an honestly don't know how in would react in a situation with an intruder. But I want to have that option and also no regrets. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom_Wren Posted October 3, 2013 Author Share Posted October 3, 2013 Yeah, a burglar wants a clean getaway and no drama almost as much as the home owner does. Having a weapon and some sort of stand off ensuing would massively increase your chances of getting hurt I recon. That genuinely maybe the case in the uk. I have lived 15 years in the south of America and don't know a burglars mindset on what or why he's breaking in. If he's breaking in I am within the law to use deadly force if I feel my life or grievous bodily harm is in danger. And let's face it. He's probably not breaking in to have a pint. I honestly feel safer knowing that option to use my weapon is available. Again. Never want to use it. But I am trained too and am continuing to educate myself. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom_Wren Posted October 3, 2013 Author Share Posted October 3, 2013 No idea what the laws are like in the US but if I owned a gun Id be more concerned about going to jail for using it if you shoot an intruder. If I had a family to protect its probably worth having one, if I lived on my own and someone broke in I just think its a much better idea to jump out the window! The law in layman terms explained by my instructor who is a state trooper in sc is: If an intruder is touching your house (example hand on outside door knob, crowbar on window) and you feel in danger of your life or grievous boult harm, you at allowed to use deadly force. However. Let's say you shot at him and he ran away and you shot him in the back you'd get done and rightly so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Despite the fact that I am vehemently pro-gun control, I do like old guns. I guess it's my childhood obsession with westerns and war movies, but I think that some of them are things of beauty. Quite a lot of people have permits for weapons here ranging from the beautiful old school Jezails to pistols of various type - Glocks are popular but there are also a lot of old Russian Makarovs kicking about. If you get out of town into the desert it's not unusual to see Bedouin carrying AK's. I only know of two ex-pats with live firearms and I don't think either are licensed. One has an old Henri-Martini rifle of Zulu vintage and the other has a bolt action Lee Enfield .303. For someone more accustomed to smaller NATO calibres the round for the Henri-Martini is an absolute beast, it looks more suited to shooting elephants than people. If I ever felt the need to carry here it would be time to leave the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 In some states, particularly in the south, they have the infamous "Stand Your Ground" type laws, which gives the shooter a great deal of leeway in court. See the George Zimmerman trial for proof. Where I live, you have to prove your and/or your families' lives life were in danger, that the perp wasn't fleeing, (if you shoot someone in the back, for example, you're basically cooked.) Of course, this all depends on if you can open your gun safe by the time the intruder has assaulted you or your family... Massachusetts is a castle doctrine state... You don't have to prove danger; the fact of the intruder's presence creates that presumption. And stand your ground has basically nothing to do with the Zimmerman case, beyond possibly that the police not deciding to make the initial arrest. Massachusetts will make you prove that you exhausted all potential ways to defend yourself before using deadly force. Just because someone has walked into your home does not give you the legal right to execute them. In Texas, it's fire away, not in Mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maqroll Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 You can apply for a license to carry, but you have to convince the police that it's vital that you are able to, and they'd prefer not to issue those permits. Depends on the town. Out here, except for the various People's Republics, the cops will give most folks a carry permit no questions asked... It is the Pioneer Valley after all, gotta watch out for those pesky Nipmucs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 I have been on shooting ranges on various Stag Do's in Eastern Europe. Shot various guns from tiny handheld cowboy style to handguns to pump-action to much bigger rifles. Loved it every time, and would definitely do it again. Its the power of the gun when you press the gun and the bullet goes flying. Also, hurt my shoulder with one of the guns that you have to rest against your shoulder, where the kick was so powerful it bruised my whole shoulder. But i would hate for people to have guns in the UK, it think it makes for a much safety society with no guns around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 But i would hate for people to have guns in the UK, it think it makes for a much safety society with no guns around. There are stacks of guns in the UK, mostly owned by criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
privateer Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 But i would hate for people to have guns in the UK, it think it makes for a much safety society with no guns around. There are stacks of guns in the UK, mostly owned by criminals. This is what makes my piss boil about the whole charade of UK firearms legislation, especially relating to the proscription of handgun ownership. Overnight all legal owners suddenly had to give up the guns. The people who had been vetted, licenced, had to store their arms securely and use them in a controlled environment. Because they were apparently a danger to society - must be, right? Otherwise the government would have left it alone. The people who didn't have to give up their guns were the criminals because they are, er, criminals and disregard laws they don't like. The only thing the ban achieved was the removal of legally-held guns. It didn't reduce gun-related crime at all. Anyway, back on topic a little more, I'm a big shooting fan but because of that cocksucker Blair and his worthless cronies I have to travel thousands of miles to enjoy the pastime. I've got folks in NJ where I've been blasting the clays and I've been to ranges in Vegas, Georgia and Tennessee to do pistol shooting - my weapon of choice is the Sig Sauer P226. In Tennessee I also fired an AR15, which was more than good fun and I'd love to own one, as well as some pistols. Pisses me off that something I'm good at and enjoy I'm legally prevented from doing due to a law that achieved nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 (edited) But i would hate for people to have guns in the UK, it think it makes for a much safety society with no guns around. There are stacks of guns in the UK, mostly owned by criminals. This is what makes my piss boil about the whole charade of UK firearms legislation, especially relating to the proscription of handgun ownership. Overnight all legal owners suddenly had to give up the guns. The people who had been vetted, licenced, had to store their arms securely and use them in a controlled environment. Because they were apparently a danger to society - must be, right? Otherwise the government would have left it alone. The people who didn't have to give up their guns were the criminals because they are, er, criminals and disregard laws they don't like. The only thing the ban achieved was the removal of legally-held guns. It didn't reduce gun-related crime at all. Anyway, back on topic a little more, I'm a big shooting fan but because of that cocksucker Blair and his worthless cronies I have to travel thousands of miles to enjoy the pastime. I've got folks in NJ where I've been blasting the clays and I've been to ranges in Vegas, Georgia and Tennessee to do pistol shooting - my weapon of choice is the Sig Sauer P226. In Tennessee I also fired an AR15, which was more than good fun and I'd love to own one, as well as some pistols. Pisses me off that something I'm good at and enjoy I'm legally prevented from doing due to a law that achieved nothing. Sorry to piss on your chips and make this political - but you did start it http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/16/newsid_3110000/3110949.stm Notice the date? - Also (and this is according to Wiki) the UK has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world Edited October 4, 2013 by drat01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 This is what makes my piss boil about the whole charade of UK firearms legislation, especially relating to the proscription of handgun ownership. Overnight all legal owners suddenly had to give up the guns. The people who had been vetted, licenced, had to store their arms securely and use them in a controlled environment. Because they were apparently a danger to society - must be, right? Otherwise the government would have left it alone. The people who didn't have to give up their guns were the criminals because they are, er, criminals and disregard laws they don't like. The only thing the ban achieved was the removal of legally-held guns. It didn't reduce gun-related crime at all. ....... Exactly so, but I don't think there is any requirement or justification for civilians to own assault rifles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted October 4, 2013 Share Posted October 4, 2013 Good job I can't get a gun, I'd have slaughtered half of Chelmsley Wood by now 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts