myrmaad Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 People always say that kind of crap, but I don't see any evidence for it being so. (At least, not over here.) If someone breaks into your house and tries to rob you or inflict bodily harm on you, you can legally protect yourself. The problem is that most of the time there is far more going on in these cases, once the evidence starts being examined. That "poor lamb" business is not only untrue, it insults your intelligence as well as mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Short but true story:When we first moved back to Pa in the late 70's we bought a house in a 'rough' neighborhood. Four days in with the house mainly filled with unopened packing boxes, there was an individual attempting a break in in the middle of the night. At the time I had two handguns, three rifles and two shotguns....but the ammunition was deeply packed away and no where in quick access mode. The only weapon that was available was my officer's saber hanging on the wall in my study, so I grabbed that figuring that finally my years of being on fencing teams would have some useful function, proceeded downstairs and waited on the other side of the front door for his final jimmy to work. He opened the door , I thrust quickly and put about 4" of steel into his thigh and slammed the door shut while my wife was still trying to get 911 to answer. When the police finally arrived and I related the events they were reduced to near hysterical laughter, I was less amused being that it could have easily backfired on me. I think that the saving grace was that it was such an unconventional method of defense that my intruder was too shocked to do much more than howl loudly and limp away away somewhat worse for wear, Point being, I was armed to the teeth but not prepared for the event, so just having a weapon is not the same as having it ready for instant use, I mistake that I have never made again. Edited January 23, 2012 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grannywils Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Aurielius, I love that story so much I just don't know what to say.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I once read somewhere that in some country the murder rates are nearly the same as other countries despite strict gun control. People murder with knifes instead. Not sure what country that is, would be nice if anyone knows what I am talking about. I don't really even understand the point of extremely strict gun control. In the UK it is insane. People end up getting guns anyways. Same thing with drugs really. You make drugs illegal and it doesn't matter, people will get them anyways, especially if they are already criminals. If you are a criminal you are already breaking the law. Not sure if I have said this before but I think that gun ownership is more important due to a civilian military, not self defense. It is extremely important for a country to be able to have a violent revolution if necessary, and it is also extremely important to have extra homeland defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) misclick..sorry folks. Edited January 23, 2012 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginnyfizz Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 People always say that kind of crap, but I don't see any evidence for it being so. (At least, not over here.) If someone breaks into your house and tries to rob you or inflict bodily harm on you, you can legally protect yourself. The problem is that most of the time there is far more going on in these cases, once the evidence starts being examined. That "poor lamb" business is not only untrue, it insults your intelligence as well as mine. Well it isn't crap, I was comparing the situation in my own homeland, and it certainly isn't the case that an Englishman's home is his castle. We do not have any such thing as a castle law that many US States have. That poor lamb defence is one that is consistently brought up by counsel in British courts, of which I have a little more experience than you do. Over here, if a householder defends themselves, whether with a gun, a knife or a baseball bat or other form of shillelagh, and Mr Burglar gets hurt, then the householder will get prosecuted. End of story. The law may say that you have a right to self defence that must be proportionate and reasonable. The way it is practiced over here is that it means effectively, you had best let them get on with robbing/raping/ assaulting you so as not to face charges yourself. Kindly do not call me a liar, that accusation is what is untrue and is totally unworthy of you. I do actually follows the news over here and have sat in a number of criminal courts (no, not in the dock)and seen crimes being excused because of someone's background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beriallord Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Gun rights in the US have actually expanded in the last 20 years or so. I'd like to see the ban lifted on automatic weapons. Officially there are a few fully automatic weapons floating around that were registered in the 80s, and the law wasn't retroactive, so they are still legal to own, but are very expensive. I shot a Glock 18 one time, its basically Glocks version of an Uzis. You can rent one to shoot at a local shooting range for $15 + ammunition. I'd love to own one. The magazines from a Glock 18 also fit in a Glock 19, they hold about 33 rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Much as I would love to have a fully automatic weapon.... (they are indeed great fun.....) I just don't see any real purpose in making them legal. Would make access FAR to easy, and everyone and their cousin would then have one, or more... including criminals. (I know the crims have them already, but, they are still pretty rare.) Cops could easily be outgunned in even minor encounters. Arming the cops with full-auto weapons as a standard carry weapon? I don't see that as a good plan either..... There is no such thing as "carefully placed shots" with an automatic weapon..... after the first round fires, you are now at the mercy of recoil. I think we would see a lot more 'collateral damage' with cops doing the spray 'n pray thing.... just a bad scene all the way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginnyfizz Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 Very true. Is it the case in the USA (I suspect probably yes) that police (and for that matter, Armed Services) sharpshooters are trained to carefully place their shots squarely in the middle of the torso, in other words to effectively shoot to kill, rather than shoot to wing the miscreant? They are over here. I think the reasoning is that shooting in the widest part of the body is certainly going to stop the criminal if not always kill them, also you are less likely to miss and hit someone else than if you were aiming at a narrower target like a leg? Leastways that's how a Special Branch officer put it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazzerfong Posted January 24, 2012 Share Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Wow, defending a break-in with a sword, talk about excessive force............ Ginnyfizz, police sharpshooters don't aim for chests unless they have to: they aim for heads. Or more specifically, the brain stem. Hit anywhere else, and if the person holding the weapon had his finger on the trigger, well, you know what happens next. Oh, and I forgot something: HeyBlue, M16's have a semi-auto safety. No cop in their right minds would use anything more than that. And cops (at least in the USA) are armed with AR-15/M16's after the Hollywood Shootout in 1997 after officers failed to reliably hit two perps who had body armor. It's not 'shoot to kill' (contrary to public belief), it's 'shoot to stop'. Too many movies, eh, Ginny? Edited January 24, 2012 by dazzerfong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts