Florida Teen Saves Family With Gun Training and Pistol [Archive]

Crazed Rabbit

05-30-2006, 04:15

From here (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-skidshoot25may25%2C0%2C2330961.story?coll=sfla-features-headlines&track=mostemailedlink).

The important bit:

Hollywood teen shoots intruder after father says on phone, `Do what you have to do'
Hollywood · Javaris Granger wished his father was there instead of him.

His father was on the phone, urging Granger, 15, to get the gun they used for shooting practice. "Do what you have to do," his father said.

Granger did. He aimed the gun and fired at the violent intruder.

Family and friends are awed by Granger's bravery. "Anyone who takes charge like that is definitely a hero," said Maxine Chandler, his mother.

If any of what are called 'reasonable' laws by anti-gunners were in effect here, like not being able to buy pistols, requiring all guns to be locked away from children, etc., the boy and his family would all be dead. Thank goodness they were not in England.

The whole story:
Hollywood · Javaris Granger wished his father was there instead of him.

His father was on the phone, urging Granger, 15, to get the gun they used for shooting practice. "Do what you have to do," his father said.

Granger did. He aimed the gun and fired at the violent intruder.

Family and friends are awed by Granger's bravery. "Anyone who takes charge like that is definitely a hero," said Maxine Chandler, his mother.

Before the McArthur High School freshman fired the gun, he kept a cool head and remembered his father's shooting and safety lessons during the chaos early Saturday morning.

His father, Lyndon Chandler, had left the house to visit a friend at the hospital. His wife heard a knock at the door and, thinking it was her husband, opened it. A stranger grabbed at her; she pulled free and slammed the door.

It was 3:30 a.m.

Granger woke with a start, hearing his mother's frantic voice and something slamming against the front window.

He ran out to the dark living room and saw his mother screaming as a man, cursing and muttering, threw a bicycle at the window.

Granger yelled at the intruder to leave, while his mother called his father on the phone and handed it to her son. The stranger began turning the doorknob, intent on getting in the home.

Within seconds, Granger ran into his parents' bedroom, found the safety box, unlocked it and loaded two guns for him and his mother. He ran back to the living room as the intruder threw a bicycle at the door and started kicking it in.

His mother was too shaken to take a gun, so she ran to another bedroom where her daughters and visiting family members were hiding.

"I was real scared and nervous, but I knew I had to stay focused on what I had to do because my mom and the kids were there," Granger said.

The next moment the man kicked down the door and jumped into the living room, yards from Granger.

"I didn't want to hurt anybody, so I fired off a warning shot," the ninth-grader said.

The intruder didn't leave until four shots later.

Since the incident, friends and family members have called to congratulate the modest teenager who didn't tell his story until news reports made it hard to hide. His three sisters call him brave, his dad is very proud of "the man of the house" and his mom says her family would have died if the man police later identified as Keil Jumper had laid hands on them.

Jumper, 22, is in Memorial Regional Medical Center with two gunshot wounds. He has a string of arrests dating to 2001, including one for attacking a Seminole Reservation Police Officer the day before he allegedly broke into Granger's home.

Granger does not face charges. The second oldest child in the family, he often goes to the range at Markham Park to practice shoot with his father. He was never a victim of crime before, but calmly went through all the gun safety steps his father taught him, even after one gun jammed after the first shot Saturday.

He even locked up the guns after Jumper left, before he checked on his mother. "My husband tried to get everyone to learn the safety of a gun," Chandler said. "It paid off."

I will not deny that guns can be used for bad purposes. But it is important to remember what anti-gunners want you to forget; guns are tools which can be used for good or evil. To infringe on the liberty of everyone because someone missuses a tool of any type is against the spirit of freedom.

Crazed Rabbit

Reverend Joe

05-30-2006, 05:02

So... okay... great.

Joker85

05-30-2006, 05:04

From here (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-skidshoot25may25%2C0%2C2330961.story?coll=sfla-features-headlines&track=mostemailedlink).

The important bit:

If any of what are called 'reasonable' laws by anti-gunners were in effect here, like not being able to buy pistols, requiring all guns to be locked away from children, etc., the boy and his family would all be dead. Thank goodness they were not in England.

The whole story:
Hollywood · Javaris Granger wished his father was there instead of him.

His father was on the phone, urging Granger, 15, to get the gun they used for shooting practice. "Do what you have to do," his father said.

Granger did. He aimed the gun and fired at the violent intruder.

Family and friends are awed by Granger's bravery. "Anyone who takes charge like that is definitely a hero," said Maxine Chandler, his mother.

Before the McArthur High School freshman fired the gun, he kept a cool head and remembered his father's shooting and safety lessons during the chaos early Saturday morning.

His father, Lyndon Chandler, had left the house to visit a friend at the hospital. His wife heard a knock at the door and, thinking it was her husband, opened it. A stranger grabbed at her; she pulled free and slammed the door.

It was 3:30 a.m.

Granger woke with a start, hearing his mother's frantic voice and something slamming against the front window.

He ran out to the dark living room and saw his mother screaming as a man, cursing and muttering, threw a bicycle at the window.

Granger yelled at the intruder to leave, while his mother called his father on the phone and handed it to her son. The stranger began turning the doorknob, intent on getting in the home.

Within seconds, Granger ran into his parents' bedroom, found the safety box, unlocked it and loaded two guns for him and his mother. He ran back to the living room as the intruder threw a bicycle at the door and started kicking it in.

His mother was too shaken to take a gun, so she ran to another bedroom where her daughters and visiting family members were hiding.

"I was real scared and nervous, but I knew I had to stay focused on what I had to do because my mom and the kids were there," Granger said.

The next moment the man kicked down the door and jumped into the living room, yards from Granger.

"I didn't want to hurt anybody, so I fired off a warning shot," the ninth-grader said.

The intruder didn't leave until four shots later.

Since the incident, friends and family members have called to congratulate the modest teenager who didn't tell his story until news reports made it hard to hide. His three sisters call him brave, his dad is very proud of "the man of the house" and his mom says her family would have died if the man police later identified as Keil Jumper had laid hands on them.

Jumper, 22, is in Memorial Regional Medical Center with two gunshot wounds. He has a string of arrests dating to 2001, including one for attacking a Seminole Reservation Police Officer the day before he allegedly broke into Granger's home.

Granger does not face charges. The second oldest child in the family, he often goes to the range at Markham Park to practice shoot with his father. He was never a victim of crime before, but calmly went through all the gun safety steps his father taught him, even after one gun jammed after the first shot Saturday.

He even locked up the guns after Jumper left, before he checked on his mother. "My husband tried to get everyone to learn the safety of a gun," Chandler said. "It paid off."

I will not deny that guns can be used for bad purposes. But it is important to remember what anti-gunners want you to forget; guns are tools which can be used for good or evil. To infringe on the liberty of everyone because someone missuses a tool of any type is against the spirit of freedom.

Crazed Rabbit

I agree. I'm glad this happened in a country where this kid wouldn't be looking at jail time for saving his family's life. If I am determined to break into someone's house (illegal) and rape (illegal) and kill (illegal) them, whether possessing a gun is legal or not will not effect me one bit. I'd only be breaking 4 laws instead of 3.

Unfortunately that's not true for law abiding citizens who would have the right to defend themselves taken away. They most likely would not have any means of defense available which would give someone intending to do them harm (who obviously has no regard for the law in the first place, and would be armed whether it was legal or not if they wanted) a greater advantage.

Most violent gun crime occurs with guns that are illegally aquired under current laws.

Goofball

05-30-2006, 05:16

Papewaio

05-30-2006, 05:18

So why didn't she call the police first?

Redleg

05-30-2006, 05:21

So why didn't she call the police first?

Probably because when one panics they call the person they normally call when they have an issue on something.

When people react to stress and panic one can never predict exactly what they are going to do.

Byzantine Prince

05-30-2006, 05:28

Is this supposed to be convincing, Rabbit?

Alexanderofmacedon

05-30-2006, 05:42

Reverend Joe

05-30-2006, 05:48

Most violent gun crime occurs with guns that are illegally aquired under current laws.

Doesn't that just prove the point? Or would you rather these people legally acquire their firearms?

Banquo's Ghost

05-30-2006, 07:03

Ah, thanks Rabbit.

Finally, complete and irrefutable proof as to why no-one ever suffers violent crime in the USA, whereas we in Europe groan under constant rapine and aggravated burglary.

It is all so clear to me now.

~:rolleyes:

Divinus Arma

05-30-2006, 07:39

"Toddler dies after accidental shooting":

http://www.klfy.com/Global/story.asp?S=2851455

"11 year old accidentally shot by 16 year old brother":

http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=1523

I won't provide a link for this next headline, because you have all seen the story:

"Vice President of United States Accidentally Shoots Friend in Face"

These are usually products of negligence on behalf of the aprents.

The world is filled with billions of idiots, all just flesh feeding like leeches on the earth. They seek nothing but the'r own immediate gratification. This spit children out and never instill values or necessary instruction.

Humans are disgusting and vile. Lately, I've been rooting for the birds and the weather. Sometimes I just want to start with myself. But then I remember, that if we were all to act as the will of God, there would be no wars, destruction, or even crime. Utopian, yes. But even if all others remain the selfish sacks of crap that they are, at least I can do the will of God.

It is not our nature that is evil. It is our ignorance and selfishness that causes our evil. Thus if we could scientifically prove the existence of God, then people would actually be forced to realize they have a choice to serve him or not. Denial would cease to exist and peace would reign.

Ironside

05-30-2006, 08:14

Luckily for the family, the attacker didn't had (or used) a gun in response.

Major Robert Dump

05-30-2006, 09:20

Warning shots ARE irresoponsible and dangerous. If you are in a situation that rquires you use a gun in self defense, you need to shoot to kill, not fire a warning shot or try to wing the guy

Anyway, acts of guns being used in self defense are largely ignored by the media, and certain "statistics" based on studies fail to mention certain mitigating factors or explanations, like the one that says people with a gun in the home are 100 times more likely to die from a gunshot. Thanks God for the NRA

Fragony

05-30-2006, 10:44

I believe almost everyone has guns in Switzerland, lowest crimerate in europe. If that guy didn't have a gun he was probably dead by now. Better to have one and not need it then vica versa, I find it amazing that we aren't allowed to have a loaded gun in the house when most criminals are packed with them. If the police wants a monopoly on violence they should at least be worthy of it, but the police is no more then just another government agency leeching on minor mistakes. Crime? What can we say it exists, did you just drive 3 kilometers to fast? That is a serious offence mia muca, money, now.

Xiahou

05-30-2006, 11:15

Warning shots ARE irresoponsible and dangerous. If you are in a situation that rquires you use a gun in self defense, you need to shoot to kill, not fire a warning shot or try to wing the guyYeah, that's the only problem I had with the story- warning shots are a dumb idea. As someone else pointed out, what if he had a gun too? You warning shot could be your last then.

Anyway, acts of guns being used in self defense are largely ignored by the media, and certain "statistics" based on studies fail to mention certain mitigating factors or explanations, like the one that says people with a gun in the home are 100 times more likely to die from a gunshot. Thanks God for the NRAAgreed. And the kid should be praised, he saved his family- he's a hero. :bow:

Here's the probably the most important part of the article:
"My husband tried to get everyone to learn the safety of a gun," Chandler said. "It paid off."If you have guns in the home everyone in the household should know that they're dangerous and know how to handle them properly.

English assassin

05-30-2006, 11:18

When police firearms training no longer requires the police to give a warning whenever possible before opening fire, that's when I'll believe a warning is a dumb idea. What if he had a gun too is a valid question. So is, What if he didn't?

My two cents.

Major Robert Dump

05-30-2006, 11:20

Oddly enough, as a gunowner, I'm more scared of cops than of criminals. The possibility of being killed by a cop or off duty cop while holding a gun is much greater than the possibility of getting carjacked or raped or murdered.

Fragony

05-30-2006, 11:26

What if he had a gun too is a valid question. So is, What if he didn't?

My two cents.

Then he was plenty stupid to break into a house where they do have one, and should thus be nominated for the Darwin Award. I'd rather see it this way, if he hadn't broke in he would still be alive, such a tragic loss of life byebye.

English assassin

05-30-2006, 12:14

I know this seems to be a difficult concept for some shades of opinion to grasp, but a decision to commit a crime does not remove ALL rights from the criminal.

Damn, there goes my heart, bleeding again.

Tribesman

05-30-2006, 12:24

If any of what are called 'reasonable' laws by anti-gunners were in effect here, like not being able to buy pistols, requiring all guns to be locked away from children, etc.,
Thats wierd ........Within seconds, Granger ran into his parents' bedroom, found the safety box, unlocked it and loaded two guns for him and his mother.....the guns were locked away .:no:

Fragony

05-30-2006, 12:50

edit: you guys are no fun at all.

scooter_the_shooter

05-30-2006, 12:56

:laugh4:

Anyway, if anything good comes out of this, everyone can admit at least he fired warning shots. That was a very mature and sensible thing to do. Most intruders plan on only theft and if that was the case no one had to be hurt.

Never fire a warning shot or try to wound em!

1 they could come back with friends.

2 Its harder to shoot to wound then shoot com (center of mass) and if he lives he could A sue you B come back after you.

Also if doesn't respect your life, why respect his?

Massad Ayood a gun law expert says no go on the warning shots, so i tend to side with him he knows his stuff!

Fragony

05-30-2006, 13:02

*update*

This is how we do it in lalaland. Guy comes home, finds burglar, burglar grabs knife, guy grabs knive, burglar aquires unnecesary ventilation and dies. Now is this self-defence thou ask, it would certainly seem so, nope, guy has to go to jail for manslaughter.

Another fun one.

Woman has big bad doberman. Burglar breaks into house. Doberman chews on burglar. Burglar is traumatised by this experience and needs someone with a beard and sandals. Burglar sues woman. Burglar wins. Why did he win? Well, the woman only had a 'I guard this place' warning on her frontdoor, the burglar however had entered trough the balcony, where she didn't have a warning. Woman has to pay burglar compensation for the harrowing experience he had to endure.

You have the right to remain silent and pay taxes.

lars573

05-30-2006, 13:19

3 words, ash baseball bat. No need for a pistol if you got a bat. This is hardly a good example for allowing people to have pistols. In fact IMO using guns was not justified at all.

scooter_the_shooter

05-30-2006, 13:25

:2thumbsup: I'll keep my cz75 and 16+1 rounds of 9mm thank you.:2thumbsup: Besides why do you want to take away my gun, what did I ever do to you:no: . I am not going to hurt any one that isn't trying to kill me.\

You want to take the criminals' guns great! But dont even think about mine:furious3:

My god I just read all my post in this thread I kinda' look like a jerk:help:

Frag if you kill them (dead men don't sue), would you still be in trouble over there or not.

The_Mark

05-30-2006, 13:32

3 words, ash baseball bat.
I prefer a composite/carbon fibre one.

Fragony

05-30-2006, 13:39

Frag if you kill them (dead men don't sue), would you still be in trouble over there or not.

#1 rule in the Netherlands: never call the police. First of all it's of no use, and more importantly, you will probably end up screwed yourselve. So if you find a burglar you have two options, let him take everything and fight it out with your insurance compagny later, or chop him up and dump him. If you hit him you will have 'assaulted' him, which is a more dire crime then burglary. If the burglar then puts charges on you he will win, the breaking and entering would be instantly forgotten because of the more hidious crime of trying to defend your property. Yes, being a criminal rocks here.

ShadesPanther

05-30-2006, 14:14

Seamus Fermanagh

05-30-2006, 14:16

#1 rule in the Netherlands: never call the police. First of all it's of no use, and more importantly, you will probably end up screwed yourselve. So if you find a burglar you have two options, let him take everything and fight it out with your insurance compagny later, or chop him up and dump him. If you hit him you will have 'assaulted' him, which is a more dire crime then burglary. If the burglar then puts charges on you he will win, the breaking and entering would be instantly forgotten because of the more hidious crime of trying to defend your property. Yes, being a criminal rocks here.

If accurate -- and I will credit you with an accurate assessment of your own country's laws and practices -- does this not implicitly mean that you have no right to your own property? The application of justice you mention favors the criminals right of person OVER your right to your property. So you could only defend your daughter, without threat of jail for your actions, DURING and not just prior to her rape, since only then has a crime of person been committed? (Yes the example is hyperbolic). If so, I am glad that Die Nederlunds have legalized most substances -- you've got to keep the criminal element happily stoned to avoid losing everything.

Idaho

05-30-2006, 14:21

I'm definately convinced by the article. I hope everyone can walk around with all kinds of dangerous weapons. It's bound to make the world safer.

Fragony

05-30-2006, 14:26

If accurate -- and I will credit you with an accurate assessment of your own country's laws and practices -- does this not implicitly mean that you have no right to your own property? The application of justice you mention favors the criminals right of person OVER your right to your property. So you could only defend your daughter, without threat of jail for your actions, DURING and not just prior to her rape, since only then has a crime of person been committed? (Yes the example is hyperbolic). If so, I am glad that Die Nederlunds have legalized most substances -- you've got to keep the criminal element happily stoned to avoid losing everything.

So your daughter is your property, that is pretty oldschool ~;)

Not sure how it works with rape, I believe rape is also regarded as a violent crime. Violent crimes carry more weight then crimes that involve loss of property, so beat up a burglar and you have commited a more serious crime then him. It may change though, there have been some politicians talking about how it is worth it to talk about discussing the right to self-defence.

Tribesman

05-30-2006, 17:17

If accurate -- and I will credit you with an accurate assessment of your own country's laws and practices
Thats a big IF, so hold on with the credit there Seamus .
Notice this bit....This is how we do it in lalaland. Guy comes home, finds burglar, burglar grabs knife, guy grabs knive, burglar aquires unnecesary ventilation and dies. Now is this self-defence thou ask, it would certainly seem so, nope, guy has to go to jail for manslaughter.
.....interesting huh , shocking , and bullshit ......Guy comes home, finds burglar, burglar grabs knife, guy grabs knive, If the burglar has the knife first the homeowner get the self defence provision .
Also a criminal with a weapon is commiting an entirely different crime than one without a weapon , in this case that would be aggravated burglary , though in the example put forward it would stick at that as the burglar took the knife from the house , if he bought his own knife it would be aggravated burglary with intent , which is an even more serious charge .
And of course serious charges involving violence or the intent to violence , get different treatment .......Not sure how it works with rape, I believe rape is also regarded as a violent crime. Violent crimes carry more weight then crimes that involve loss of property, so beat up a burglar and you have commited a more serious crime then him.

So Frag , considering your long running "unique" interpretations of Dutch legal cases , could you provide any details of cases involving homeowners killing armed intruders then being found guilty ?

Fragony

05-30-2006, 17:33

So Frag , considering your long running "unique" interpretations of Dutch legal cases , could you provide any details of cases involving homeowners killing armed intruders then being found guilty ?

Well here is one, fast huh

http://www.nieuwnieuws.nl/archives/2006/05/eis_4_jaar_cel_voor_neersteken.html

Tribesman

05-30-2006, 17:55

Well here is one, fast huh

So you have two people who knew each other having a dispute over ownership of a games console ?
Right frag :dizzy2:

Fragony

05-30-2006, 18:01

Well here is one, fast huh

So you have two people who knew each other having a dispute over ownership of a games console ?
Right frag :dizzy2:

Nope it went more like this,

This is how we do it in lalaland. Guy comes home, finds burglar, burglar grabs knife, guy grabs knive, burglar aquires unnecesary ventilation and dies. Now is this self-defence thou ask, it would certainly seem so, nope, guy has to go to jail for manslaughter.

as I said before, different case though. I just don't make that much effort for you.

Tribesman

05-30-2006, 18:06

I just don't make that much effort for you.
No it appears that you just make it up .:juggle2:

Fragony

05-30-2006, 18:16

No it appears that you just make it up .:juggle2:

But of course, we have this every time. You ask links/evidence/anything and I kindly provide it, and when I do so you are out hunting haggis.

Tribesman

05-30-2006, 19:05

You ask links/evidence/anything and I kindly provide it, and when I do so you are out hunting haggis.
No Frag , I asked for a case that backed up your claim about dutch law , what you provided has absolutely nothing to do with what you claimed .

Now there was a case in Britain where someone killed a burglar , he was found guilty because he killed the burglar when the thief was not a threat to him so it was not self defense , there was a case just up the road recently where a farmer was found guilty of manslaughter (though it was clearly murder) after killing a burglar when it was not self defense .
Everywhere has laws defining murder , manslaughter and every other type of killing , just as they have laws stipulating what constitutes self-defense and intent .
For you to try and claim that Holland does not have these laws and that the courts do not follow the laws of the land just shows that once again you are giving your "unique" interpretation of Dutch laws .

Fragony

05-30-2006, 19:27

Ronin

05-30-2006, 19:37

Ser Clegane

05-30-2006, 19:51

Also I have a clear opinion regarding the regulation of gun ownership, i.e. favouring rather restrictive regulations (at least for countries where it currently is regulated - the situation is abit different for countries like the US, where guns are already so spread that regulations would be extremely difficult to implement), I have to admit that the pro-gunners have a bit of an unfair disadvantage when it comes to statistics that prove their position.

It is certainly much easier to statistically measure deaths caused by guns than lives saved by guns - for the latter you rather have to rely on anecdotal evidence as it will be next to impossible to show statistics with a bullet-proof methodology.

Duke of Gloucester

05-30-2006, 19:58

Fascinating story but I don't believe you, link please.

It is just as I told you, violence>burglary. If there is anything the dutch judges don't like it's taking matters into your own hands when the police is to busy warming their ass with their own; if that strikes you as insane by all means ride with me. There is having the law and applying it. I gave you what you wanted, one case, exactly what you asked for. Can give you a whole lot more.

Probably the article Tribesman was refering to (http://www.guardian.co.uk/martin/article/0,2763,214334,00.html#article)

Thing is Frag, Tribesman (and I) can't believe that Dutch law is that daft. British law is not keen on allowing people to take the law in to their own hands. In the case above, as Tribesman says, the man was not a threat. Therefore it was murder to shoot him. In the case you describe, in Britain at least, the householder could claim self defense. The same applies to the original case in the thread. The boy clearly had good reason to believe that he and his family were at risk, and took action to protect himself and them. This is why we want to see a link to stories illustrating what you describe. It is so daft we don't believe it. (Of course, if it is in dutch, I won't be able to understand it)

scooter_the_shooter

05-30-2006, 20:04

so despite all the thousands of deaths every year from fire arms one person managed to make a correct use of one?

well....woooopty freaking doo!!!

I´m converted!!!...no really!!!! I want a gun now!!! were do i sign up? :wall:

They manage to use them in defense 2.5 million time a year in good ol' USA, And the good news is you don't need to sign up in my state:laugh4: (unless it's a handgun:no: )

ZombieFriedNuts

05-30-2006, 20:30

Duke of Gloucester

05-30-2006, 20:42

If somebody comes into your house with the intension of robbing you I don’t think thy will care if they hurt you, so you should have the right to do anything you want to them short of killing them.
For example tie them up put them in the boot of your car drive them to Wales then leave them there with nothing, that will teach them.

A professional burglar will not want to confront a householder, so if you know he (or she) is in the house, then that is a mistake. They have either been too noisy or mistakenly thought you were out. They will want to get out ASAP. They won't want to hurt you and get blood or other evidence on their clothes. They will probably be more scared than you are. Of course, professional burglars are not the only people who break in to your house. The point I am making is that you can't make generalisations about burglars.

As EA says: I know this seems to be a difficult concept for some shades of opinion to grasp, but a decision to commit a crime does not remove ALL rights from the criminal.

If we allow people to "do what they like to burglars then":

lots of teenagers being silly will be killed, maimed or tortured
you'd better trust anyone you vist, or they could kill you and claim you were a burglar
you won't be able to approach a householder for help if you, say, crash your car and get injured - go up to their house and they will shoot you as a burglar. (This happens in the US, I understand)

yesdachi

05-30-2006, 20:45

I think this is a good story. I am 100% for the responsible use of guns; it is a right we should not dismiss the importance of.

I’m sure you have all heard about Kennesaw, the “gun city”, but incase you haven’t take a look (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia). Pro-gun arguments often lead to this city as an example. I think the idea is sound and some cities could benefit but I don’t think it would work everywhere.

Here’s a little exert from the Kennesaw Historical Society (http://www.mindspring.com/~robertcjones/khs/kennesaw20th/kennesaw20th.htm#_Toc76980862).

The Gun Law
Kennesaw rocked the world when on May 1, 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring all heads of households to maintain a firearm and ammunition. The law was passed partly in response to a law passed in Morton Grove, Illinois (June, 1981) banning private possession of handguns. Since passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw has gone down significantly, while the rate in Morton Grove has gone up.

Guns are not bad, idiots are bad. There should be laws against them. ~D

scooter_the_shooter

05-30-2006, 20:52

If any one wants to stop the "what if scenarios" and look at incedents that happened and statistics I will post more in this thread.

The what if thing is ok but in gun control threads there is to much misinformation.

Like this

you won't be able to approach a householder for help if you, say, crash your car and get injured - go up to their house and they will shoot you as a burglar. (This happens in the US, I understand)

They won't shoot you ( and be within their rights) if you knock on the door and ask for help. Even with the castle law you can't kill every one who comes on your property.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

05-30-2006, 21:01

On the gun control topic (sorry if someone mentioned this, I didn't read everything):

A gun is a tool, not a toy. It can be bent to do your will. If guns are outlawed, knives will simply be used more often.

The problem is not the weapon, it is the responsibility with which it is used. Take Switzerland as an example. HOWEVER, that being said, a gun can obviously be used for evil. What if that man had a firearm on his person? I would be more likely to fire at a person with a weapon pointing at me then a person who is unarmed, personally.

I am not an advocate of gun control, BUT I believe that all weapons should be stored properly, and that every legal owner of a firearm must pass a basic safety course. :bow:

Tribesman

05-30-2006, 21:19

In the case above, as Tribesman says, the man was not a threat. Therefore it was murder to shoot him.
The conviction in the Martin case was reduced on appeal from murder to manslaughter , the other case to which I refer (there is a topic on it here somewhere) is currently being appealed as the manslaughter conviction is a joke , it was definately murder .
Now while in the second case I think the farmer did the area a favour and probably should have killed the rest of the family while he was at it . It doesn't change the fact that the law is the law .
And if you break the law then you pay the consequences , as set out by law .
edit to add
http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1111/nallyp.html
Nally screwed himself with his own testimony (which is why the appeal will come out and change the manslaughter conviction )that he kept beating Frog with the stick (after first shooting him) because he was like a bad badger that wouldn't die , so to then return to the house , reload his weapon and kill the thief it makes it murder .

Seamus Fermanagh

05-30-2006, 21:35

I´m converted!!!...no really!!!! I want a gun now!!! were do i sign up? :wall:

In Lisbon, I do not know. Here in the USA, you can try a Wal-Mart.

Banquo's Ghost

05-30-2006, 21:46

"because he was like a bad badger that wouldn't die"

Slight tangent, but that'll make a great retort when next you cross swords with Divinus Arma...

:bounce:

Seamus Fermanagh

05-30-2006, 21:48

So your daughter is your property, that is pretty oldschool ~;)

Thanks for the wink. As you surmised, my statement did NOT equate the two nor do I place a lesser value on women in any way, shape, or form. Prole' would ace me if I thought that way, and she'd be correct, though I would probably have been offed by the wife before then.

Not sure how it works with rape, I believe rape is also regarded as a violent crime. Violent crimes carry more weight then crimes that involve loss of property, so beat up a burglar and you have commited a more serious crime then him. It may change though, there have been some politicians talking about how it is worth it to talk about discussing the right to self-defence.

I was trying to emphasize that, in your example, only when the crime being committed had risen to the level of a crime against another person, and not merely the threat of same, would violence be justified. I prefer a more aggressive form of self defence and consider property rights central to a functioning capitalist republic. If you cross my threshold without permission, I should have the right to blow you back across it with nearly anything short of a WMD.

Tribesman

05-30-2006, 22:02

Slight tangent Banquo , but did you hear Frogs wife giving testimony:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: classic
Off topic a bit more , she is up on nearly 2 dozen charges next month .

Major Robert Dump

05-30-2006, 23:03

The difference between first and second degree burglary is whether or not someone is likely or unlikely to be "home", therefore first carries a much larger penalty in the states. Burglarizing a business after hours or a home (where the thief has a reasonble cause to believe no one is home) will almost always be 2nd degree. Burglarizing a home at a time when people are more likely to be present will almost always net 1st degree.

The possibility for violent confrontation -- from both sides -- skyrockets when people are home, and a large part of criminals hurting people during break-ins comes from their presence being discovered and the burglar trying to gain control of the situation.

Being in someones home in and of itself isn't justifiable cause to kill them, nor is it justifiable to kill over property (running off with your tv/car)and that will be the case in any state, and may vary slightly (as always) because of juries. Certain aggravating factors may contribute to this, though, like if it is late at night and dark, if the burglrar surprises the victims, if the home has been hit repeatedly or the occupants assaulted before etc etc.

You will be hard pressed to find a jury that will convict someone for killing a home invader unless it was a clear cut example of the burglrar attempting to flee, i.e. shot in the back 4 times on the front porch holding a stereo.

What I have a real problem with are the situations where the gun owner was clearly in the wrong for se3veral reasons, and is not charged so much with manslaughter, like the man in Muskogee 6 months ago who was a landlord who kept a loaded 30/30 in the back of his pickup. He had a drunk tenant he was trying to collect from at 10pm, they had a verbal exchange, the guy followed him out on the porch, the landlord pulled out the gun and shot the man in the chest, killing him, and claimed he didnt know the gun was loaded it was an accident. He shot the guy as he reached into his pocket to get out another beer as he stood 25 feet away.

Having a loaded 30/30 in the bed of your pickup while driving around town is irresponsible and foolish, pulling it out on a guy who not a direct threat is illegal brandishing and escalating the situation, and then shooting him because he's reaching into his pocket to possibly pull out a gun to defend himself against your illegal brandishing...sheesh, i can't believe the landlord walked without so much a s a fine.

And to clarify an issue from page 1, we were talking about warning shots, not shouting a warning. Cops don't fire warning shots, no one should. Yerlling a warning is an entriely different matter and should be done if possible, although police don't always bother with that nicety if they feel time is of the essence. Thats what scares me about using a gun in self defense, the possibility that if its in a public place a cop who is nearby could just shoot me

scooter_the_shooter

05-30-2006, 23:21

What I have a real problem with are the situations where the gun owner was clearly in the wrong for se3veral reasons, and is not charged so much with manslaughter, like the man in Muskogee 6 months ago who was a landlord who kept a loaded 30/30 in the back of his pickup. He had a drunk tenant he was trying to collect from at 10pm, they had a verbal exchange, the guy followed him out on the porch, the landlord pulled out the gun and shot the man in the chest, killing him, and claimed he didnt know the gun was loaded it was an accident. He shot the guy as he reached into his pocket to get out another beer as he stood 25 feet away.

Having a loaded 30/30 in the bed of your pickup while driving around town is irresponsible and foolish, pulling it out on a guy who not a direct threat is illegal brandishing and escalating the situation, and then shooting him because he's reaching into his pocket to possibly pull out a gun to defend himself against your illegal brandishing...sheesh, i can't believe the landlord walked without so much a s a fine.

me

I agree he should not have shot the guy...but what is wrong with a gun in the truck? It's a piece of metal it can't do anything. I am sick of the wacky left making it sound like they just "go off" and have minds of their own:furious3:

Tribesman

05-30-2006, 23:52

It's a piece of metal it can't do anything. I am sick of the wacky left making it sound like they just "go off" and have minds of their own
Hmmmmmm.... read what you wrote in post #25 . You are at it again Ceasar:dizzy2:
Look......Having a loaded 30/30 in the bed of your pickup while driving around town is irresponsible and foolish....if you cannot see what is wrong with having a weapon , loaded or unloaded in the open bed of a pickup truck driving around town(or country for that matter) then perhaps you need a few lessons in responsible gun ownership .

scooter_the_shooter

05-31-2006, 00:48

Any one have a link to this incedent, I doubt it was in the bed of the pick up.

solypsist

05-31-2006, 00:49

american citizens should be allowed to keep whatever they want, gun-wise, on their property. i'm not pro-gun, i'm just anti-the-government-taking-my-sh**-away-from-me.

Tribesman

05-31-2006, 00:55

I doubt it was in the bed of the pick up.
So if it was indeed on the bed of the pick up would it be a problem ? Remember , it is just a piece of metal , right~;)

scooter_the_shooter

05-31-2006, 00:56

I googled a little bit and coulnd't find anything.

Oh darn ya got me tribes :oops:

scooter_the_shooter

05-31-2006, 01:07

They are made of metal and are inatmimate(sp)? But I do agree they do require a little bit of responsibility. Like following the 4 rules.

Keep it pointed in a safe direction (most important IMO)

Only shoot what you are willing to destroy

finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.

be aware of what is beyond your target

Duke of Gloucester

05-31-2006, 07:57

The conviction in the Martin case was reduced on appeal from murder to manslaughter , the other case to which I refer (there is a topic on it here somewhere) is currently being appealed as the manslaughter conviction is a joke , it was definately murder.

In my view Martin was lucky to have his conviction reduced - a bit of a joke too.

The what if thing is ok but in gun control threads there is to much misinformation.

Like this

Quote:
you won't be able to approach a householder for help if you, say, crash your car and get injured - go up to their house and they will shoot you as a burglar. (This happens in the US, I understand)

I prefer a more aggressive form of self defence and consider property rights central to a functioning capitalist republic. If you cross my threshold without permission, I should have the right to blow you back across it with nearly anything short of a WMD.

Do I need to justify the "misinformation" any further? As a matter of fact, British visitors to the Southern states of the US have been advised not to approach rural dwellings at night in case they are shot.

Tribesman

05-31-2006, 08:17

Duke of Gloucester

05-31-2006, 08:23

In my view Martin was lucky to have his conviction reduced - a bit of a joke too.

Well the main difference between murder and manslaughter is intent and the mental condition of the accused .
Martins' defense could argue that he didn't intend to kill , whereas Nallys own testimony shows his intent , the only chance that Nally has in beating the prosecutions appeal is if the defense can succesfully question his mental state .

You can be convicted of murder even if you did not intend to kill if you were reckless about whether death would be a result of your actions. If you shoot someone, that seems to me to be res ipso locutor reckless. However, the state of Martin's abode probably made it easy for his lawyers to argue poor mental condition. If Martin was lucky, maybe Nally will be too.

Major Robert Dump

05-31-2006, 09:16

I agree he should not have shot the guy...but what is wrong with a gun in the truck? It's a piece of metal it can't do anything. I am sick of the wacky left making it sound like they just "go off" and have minds of their own:furious3:

Did you even read my post? It was in the back of the truck, on the outside. This guy is driving around a densely populated city with a loaded large caliber rifle in the back of his truck where anyone can grab it. Having it locked inside the truck is a lot different than what this man was doing, but having a RIFLE in a truck is just retarded for self defense anyway, because there aren't any scenarios where it would actually be useful and where a handgun wouldnt serve a better purpose. If they guy was waving a revolver around the victim might actually still be alive.

You're pretty funny, you just accused me of being a gun grabber.

English assassin

05-31-2006, 09:43

Slightly OT, I'm not too sure how Martin got away w manslaughter. The future Richard III has the mens rea for murder slightly wrong, it is intent and not recklessness, but intent to cause GBH would be enough (ie it doesn't have to be intent to kill).

I struggle to see how you can discharge a shotgun at someone at close range in the back without intending to cause them GBH (I'd just about buy that you didn't intend to kill them, supposing the gun wasn't loaded with buckshot).

I can only guess there was just about enough reasonable doubt that Martin intended to fire a "warning shot", and was reckless as to where he did it. Personally if I was a Lord Justice of Appeal his arse would still be in jail, seeing as the concept of a warning shot, dubious at best, is even more unlikely when the burglars were running away, and I struggle with the idea of a warning shot fired horizontally at chest height, as opposed to, say, into the air or the ground.

Of course if the police had actually done anything about the criminal careers of the scumbag burglars none of this would have happened, but that isn't the point.

Major Robert Dump

05-31-2006, 09:59

For you ceasar, you probably coudlnt find it because i got some facts wrong: it was a 30-.06, not a 30/30, it was Stillwater, not Tulsa (still a heavily populated college town) and he wasnt standing on his porch, he was in the street

Jury acquits landlord in shooting death of tenant

The Associated Press
STILLWATER, Okla. — A Payne County jury acquitted a Stillwater landlord of first-degree murder after he shot a former tenant who owed $350 in back rent.
John Gilbert Buntin, 65, claimed self-defense at his trial in the death of Darran Keith Brannon Mooreland, 33, who shot in the chest with a rifle in his front yard on Sept. 5, 2003.

Buntin told jurors he thought the rifle was unloaded and that he was trying to bluff his former tenant. He also said he thought the slain man had a gun in his pocket. The gun turned out to be a can of beer.

Buntin, who admitted he made several trips that day trying to find Brannon and his wife to collect back rent, testified that he only carried his rifle in his pickup "when I went to my farm to kill dogs killing my cattle." He said he had been to his farm that morning.

The jury deliberated nearly eight hours over two days and also on Wednesday acquitted Buntin of pointing his rifle at the victim's wife, Janeene Sumpter.

Sobbing, she kept saying, "I just can't believe it," of the jury's verdict.

The victim's aunt, Pamela Brannon Hathron of Tulsa, filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit against Buntin on behalf of the slain man's family in Payne County District Court on Monday.

"Just because the court found this man not guilty does not mean he is not guilty," Hathron said.

Throughout the trial, defense attorney Cheryl Ramsey repeatedly pointed out that the slain man was an ex-convict and the defendant was a law-abiding citizen who counted among his friends retired Stillwater Police Chief Hilary Driggs, who testified for the defense as a character witness.

In his closing argument, District Attorney Rob Hudson told the jury, "You can't shoot somebody because they have a can of beer in their pocket." He argued that Buntin "murdered Darran Brannon in cold blood."

Regarding the acquittal, Ramsey said, "We're very excited the jury believed Mr. Buntin and the situation he was in was life-threatening."

Buntin had testified that when he saw Brannon walking toward him from across the street, he thought Brannon had "a shiny pistol in his pocket," and "I thought I might be shot."

Also,

http://www.adaeveningnews.com/Crime/cnhinscrime_story_003110716.html

http://www.cushingdaily.com/local/local_story_004132755.html

http://www.kfor.com/Global/story.asp?S=4421876&nav=menu99_2_6

So there you have it. He was trying to "defend" himself with an "unloaded" gun because the victim was reaching for a chrome plated handgun that was really a can of beer.

I hope this old man loses everything he has in the civil suit, since the federal grand jury investigation, as many of us in the states know very well, means absolutely nothing. Kenneth Trentandue, anyone?

Oh wait, they had police records, they deserved to die, right? Police never make mistakes, people never rehabilitate.

Duke of Gloucester

05-31-2006, 11:39

As I understand it, if you intend to cause harm (not necessarily grevious harm) and are reckless about whether death will result, you can be convicted of murder.

Redleg

05-31-2006, 13:03

Do I need to justify the "misinformation" any further? As a matter of fact, British visitors to the Southern states of the US have been advised not to approach rural dwellings at night in case they are shot.

It seems your government is under the same delusion.

The rural south that I grew up in doesn't shoot people because they approach the house at night.

Duke of Gloucester

05-31-2006, 13:09

It seems your government is under the same delusion.

I can't blame the government for this one - it was a travel agent.

Major Robert Dump

05-31-2006, 13:12

Redleg

05-31-2006, 13:26

These guys are taking one or two examples of some over-paranoid gun owner and using it to justify the villification of an entire people.

Out in the middle of nowhere, where no one ever passes through and your amongst the osrt that even shoots at the Census man? Oaky, okay, avoid the house with the cattle skulls on the fence posts that say NO TRESPASSING painted on the sides of old shot up cars. Fat chance tourists would be there. Fat chance any of us would.

A few crazies doesn't make us all crazies.

Absolutely correct - I know a few places in the United States just like that - the unfortunate thing is that they are not just in the South, hell they are not even primarily in the South. What the travel agents in Britian should be advisings is that the tourist check with the locals about what areas to avoid.

One sould not be surprised that the gun toting parniod people that shoot on sight are not average citizens but belong to groups that isolate themselves from the rest of society.

English assassin

05-31-2006, 13:43

As I understand it, if you intend to cause harm (not necessarily grevious harm) and are reckless about whether death will result, you can be convicted of murder.

I wouldn't hold myself out as the greatest expert on criminal law, but I am pretty sure its intent to kill or cause "really serious harm" (ie GBH) only. Intent or lack of it is the key difference between murder and manslaughter. (Ignoring defences).

You may be thinking of the rule that the law takes you to "intend" the natural consequences of your actions, even if your true intention was something else, and you merely accepted the natural consequence as an unfortunate byproduct of your actions. So, for instance, if I poison chocolate bars in Sainsburies, my real intention may be to blackmail Sainsburies out of a lot of money, but I am deemed also to intend the harm caused to people who eat the bars.

I seem to remember the "avoid the south" advice in the UK was connected with the law in Florida that said it was OK for citizens to start shooting people who annoyed them. Except that on further investigation the law didn't say that, it said something like when a jury is considering whether you were shooting in self defence, the fact that you did not retreat does not necessarily mean you cannot have been acting in self defence.

Which as a legal rule seemed perfectly reasonable to me, even if retreat would be the better option in the majority of cases.

scooter_the_shooter

05-31-2006, 14:03

Did you even read my post? It was in the back of the truck, on the outside. This guy is driving around a densely populated city with a loaded large caliber rifle in the back of his truck where anyone can grab it. Having it locked inside the truck is a lot different than what this man was doing, but having a RIFLE in a truck is just retarded for self defense anyway, because there aren't any scenarios where it would actually be useful and where a handgun wouldnt serve a better purpose. If they guy was waving a revolver around the victim might actually still be alive.

You're pretty funny, you just accused me of being a gun grabber.

I know of plenty of people who keep rifles in the truck:inquisitive: They keep it there incase their handgun just won't do. One guy I shoot with (rarely) cracks me up about this. He carries a keltec pocket gun(p3at), a glock 17L and keeps a rifle in his truck.:laugh4:

Ja'chyra

05-31-2006, 14:15

So a responsible gun owner could be one who leaves his weapons lying around in his truck for all to see, not to mention take?

Doesn't seem that responsible to me.

Ser Clegane

05-31-2006, 14:21

I know of plenty of people who keep rifles in the truck:inquisitive:
I don't think that this is a very good justification - it just shows that there are apparently quite a lot of irresponsible gun owners

They keep it there incase their handgun just won't do.
What kind of situations would that be?

Strike For The South

05-31-2006, 15:00

What kind of situations would that be?

zombies. Guns are blown waaaaay out of proportion. Teach your kids how to use them go hunting shoot cans etc. If you need to use it go ahead. There are more guns on my street than there are at Ft.Hood. (including an rpg) and yet no ones been killed shot or maimed.

Major Robert Dump

05-31-2006, 15:21

Here we go again, swerving waaaay OT in a gun thread, but okay I'll try to clear it up.

In CAs original story threat of bodily harm on the assailant and locked doors with screaming people inside did not dissuade him from the crime he was intending to commit. He deserved to be shot.

In the story I refer to, the man should have -- at the least -- been charged and convicted with manslaughter. It's people like himt hat make the rest of us look bad. As for the DA in that case, maybe the murder charge was a dummy charge...based on the law straight up murder might not stick, maybe the DA was pandering, trying to look tough, either way, this guy should be brought up again on manslaughter charges or negligent homicide as that would not be double jeopardy. Simply put, he should not be able to get away with such fool hardy negligence. The whole "i felt threatened" argument is as gay as an Elton john concert...

the florida (and now Oklahoma yaaay) law simply removed one criteria from the self defense act of using a handgun to defend yourself: you have to retreat. that's right, you have to retreat. Before these self defense laws were enacted you were required by law to retreat if a person meant you grievous bodily harm and there was an escape route rather than to "stand your ground." If a man with a gun kicked in your front door you could not shoot him if you had a back door to flee from, or if he carjacked you you could not shoot him if you could flee out the other door, or if 5 guys jumped you in a dark alley you could not shoot at them if there was the option to run. that is ridiculous. People are maimed and killed all the time by people who don't mean to seriously hurt them, or by people who are just using fists and feet but are superior in strenght and numbers. I'm not very willing to get my ass kicked by some drunks jerks who don't like my shirt and possibly end up with missing teeth and a bum shoulder the rest of my life. People who make decisions to asault people in such manner are void of rights, and deserve what they get if their intent is clear.

yesdachi

05-31-2006, 16:17

Growing up in the country, many of the people I knew that had a truck also had a gunrack in it and always had a gun of some kind there. I am not even sure if they are legal anymore but at the time, legal or not, many people had them. And just to clarify the guns were typically used for shooting coyotes, wolves, traveling salesmen or other dangerous pests. ~D

Of all the hundreds of people I know who have a gun/guns I don’t know anyone who has ever been accidentally (shoulder burses don’t count) injured by one. Fireworks are another story :pirate:.

I was thinking about this last night and some people mentioned a baseball bat, I don’t think a 15 year old and a hysterical mother could have protected themselves from a serious intruder with just a bat.

Ser Clegane

05-31-2006, 16:25

zombies.

Good point - quite a nuisance ... and they seem to get peskier each year :sweatdrop:

Scurvy

05-31-2006, 16:39

I was thinking about this last night and some people mentioned a baseball bat, I don’t think a 15 year old and a hysterical mother could have protected themselves from a serious intruder with just a bat.

those baseball bats are dangerous, i broke my arm with a cricket bat :2thumbsup: -->

i think it depends what your priorities are, if its self defence then anything solid will do in a panic (people tend to flail wildy etc. and that would fend off a mugger etc. if the attacker has a gun your no better with a gun yourself (equal chance of getting shot) and are probably best to run and hide.

scooter_the_shooter

05-31-2006, 16:39

I don't think that this is a very good justification - it just shows that there are apparently quite a lot of irresponsible gun owners

What kind of situations would that be?

It's their right. They don't need to justify it.

Why do you want a sports car you don't need one.

Why do you play video games you don't need too.

I can go on...

It's not irresponsible to keep a gun in the cab of a truck.

BHCWarman88

05-31-2006, 16:56

3 words, ash baseball bat. No need for a pistol if you got a bat. This is hardly a good example for allowing people to have pistols. In fact IMO using guns was not justified at all.

a Bat does Shit if he has a Gun man.. using a Gun is and was Justified in this Case,he Didn't have a Gun,but so what. He could have gave the Bat as you swang,or avoid the Knfie Stab and tackle you from behind.. Using a Gun is Better then a Bat or w/e.. I see nothing wrong with Guns for Self Defense..

here a Story I made up

Say,Guns are Ban for Sale,period..

Someone Breaks into your house one Night,4:00 AM, and he has a 9mm pistol.. Now, if you had your .44 Magnum,you could fight back,and hopefully subdue Him,but Since Guns are Banned, and he got one Illegaly, you got nothing to fight back with,and he kills you and your Family..

what you guys Prefer?? #1 or the Story #2

Ser Clegane

05-31-2006, 16:57

It's not irresponsible to keep a gun in the cab of a truck.

Sorry - I just noticed that your last reply was to MRD's general statement that having a rifle in a truck is "retarded".
If you keep it properly locked in the truck it would indeed not be very different from keeping it safely at home.

However, my second question stands - what kind of situation would it be where a "handgun just won't do", so that you keep a rifle in your truck "just in case"?

Ser Clegane

05-31-2006, 17:00

Someone Breaks into your house one Night,4:00 AM, and he has a 9mm pistol.. Now, if you had your .44 Magnum,you could fight back,and hopefully subdue Him,but Since Guns are Banned, and he got one Illegaly, you got nothing to fight back with,and he kills you and your Family..

what you guys Prefer?? #1 or the Story #2

How about that the guy actually only intended to hold you up and rob you - however, with your Magnum you turn the whole situation into a life or death situation where you potentially risk your and your families' life for your possessions.
See - it's easy to make up situations.

English assassin

05-31-2006, 17:13

You DO NOT need a rifle to shoot zombies. A rifle round goes through putrifying flesh far too easily, meaning you might shoot a normal human behind the zombie.

A shotgun is the obvious weapon of choice against a zombie.

scooter_the_shooter

05-31-2006, 17:15

How about that the guy actually only intended to hold you up and rob you - however, with your Magnum you turn the whole situation into a life or death situation where you potentially risk your and your families' life for your possessions.
See - it's easy to make up situations.

You shoot him or get shot...pretty black and white to me.

and to answer your other question. You never know when you may need that rifle. It doesn't hurt anything to keep it there so why not.

I don't keep one in a truck cause I am not old enough. I have plenty of guns ranging from old police revolvers to an ak47, but all my purchases are borderline legal.

English assassin

05-31-2006, 17:17

and to answer your other question. You never know when you may need that rifle. It doesn't hurt anything to keep it there so why not.

This is exactly why I keep my circular saw plugged in and on the living room table, instead of put away in its case in the workshop. You just never know when you are going to need a circular saw.

Redleg

05-31-2006, 17:24

This is exactly why I keep my circular saw plugged in and on the living room table, instead of put away in its case in the workshop. You just never know when you are going to need a circular saw.

That is why I have a rechargable DeWalt drill/driver in my bedroom. I never know if I will need a phillips or standard screwdriver - or if I need to drill a hole in something......

Actually its back in the garage - my remodel project is completed. Advice: is make sure the wife knows that when she wants the master bath and bedroom remodeled - that she has an idea where she wants everything. But remodeling yourself is fun if you have the basic skills necessary. Now I need a electrian to finish up some wiring projects....

BHCWarman88

05-31-2006, 17:31

BHCWarman88

05-31-2006, 17:37

A professional burglar will not want to confront a householder, so if you know he (or she) is in the house, then that is a mistake. They have either been too noisy or mistakenly thought you were out. They will want to get out ASAP. They won't want to hurt you and get blood or other evidence on their clothes. They will probably be more scared than you are. Of course, professional burglars are not the only people who break in to your house. The point I am making is that you can't make generalisations about burglars.

As EA says: I know this seems to be a difficult concept for some shades of opinion to grasp, but a decision to commit a crime does not remove ALL rights from the criminal.

If we allow people to "do what they like to burglars then":

lots of teenagers being silly will be killed, maimed or tortured
you'd better trust anyone you vist, or they could kill you and claim you were a burglar
you won't be able to approach a householder for help if you, say, crash your car and get injured - go up to their house and they will shoot you as a burglar. (This happens in the US, I understand)

Aslo, if a Teenager broke in my House, and he gets shoot, OH WELL!he should know better,stupid Kids..
Second, I don't they ppl will kill you if you visit them,lol,that's a stupid comment.
Third,I never heard of that Happeing..

yesdachi

05-31-2006, 18:53

How about that the guy actually only intended to hold you up and rob you - however, with your Magnum you turn the whole situation into a life or death situation where you potentially risk your and your families' life for your possessions.
See - it's easy to make up situations.
By that logic you could blame everything on the victim.

Robber: “It’s the homeowner’s fault, if he didn’t have all that cool stuff I never would have robbed him.”

Robber: “It’s the homeowner’s fault, if he didn’t have a gun I never would have shot him.”

Robber: “It’s the homeowner’s fault, if he didn’t have a gorgeous wife I never would have shot him and raped her.”

You make it seem like trying to protect yourself is a bad thing.

BHCWarman88

05-31-2006, 21:23

Yeah,How is Protecting yourself becoming a bad thing??

Seamus Fermanagh

05-31-2006, 22:36

Major Robert Dump

05-31-2006, 23:35

Sorry - I just noticed that your last reply was to MRD's general statement that having a rifle in a truck is "retarded".
If you keep it properly locked in the truck it would indeed not be very different from keeping it safely at home.

However, my second question stands - what kind of situation would it be where a "handgun just won't do", so that you keep a rifle in your truck "just in case"?

With the exception of traveling from point A to point B, I personally believe that keeping a long-gun in the car (especially in plain view mounted on a rack) is irresponsible unless that truck is parked safely in a garage. A long gun isn't a very logical defense to a car jacker, and you can't exactly tuck it into your shorts and take it with you when you get to the mall, movies, grocery store etc. Long guns are made for game and home defense, not to carry out in public, ESPECIALLY shotguns loaded with buckshot. If you need self defense, carry a handgun.

scooter_the_shooter

06-01-2006, 02:14

With the exception of traveling from point A to point B, I personally believe that keeping a long-gun in the car (especially in plain view mounted on a rack) is irresponsible unless that truck is parked safely in a garage. A long gun isn't a very logical defense to a car jacker, and you can't exactly tuck it into your shorts and take it with you when you get to the mall, movies, grocery store etc. Long guns are made for game and home defense, not to carry out in public, ESPECIALLY shotguns loaded with buckshot. If you need self defense, carry a handgun.

Some say the same about using pepper spray instead of a pistol! To each his own imo.

BHCWarman88

06-01-2006, 03:02

Ser Clegane

06-01-2006, 08:01

So,it be a life or Death Situation anyhow if he breaks in your House,whatever reson it may be..

Perhaps it's different in the US - but here most burglars break into houses to steall stuff and not to kill everybody who lives there. I wouldn't call that a life or death situation.

By that logic you could blame everything on the victim.

Robber: “It’s the homeowner’s fault, if he didn’t have all that cool stuff I never would have robbed him.”

Robber: “It’s the homeowner’s fault, if he didn’t have a gun I never would have shot him.”

Robber: “It’s the homeowner’s fault, if he didn’t have a gorgeous wife I never would have shot him and raped her.”

You make it seem like trying to protect yourself is a bad thing

I cannot quite follow the connection you are making between my statement and the examples you are giving.

My statement did not even imply that a burglar has the right to break into your house and steal things.
I said that by confronting an armed burglar with a gun you might actually create a life and death situation (i.e. putting your life and the life of your family at risk) when originally you "only" had a burglary.

You shoot him or get shot...pretty black and white to me
Indeed - as soon as you confront an armed burglar it probably boils down to that. I tend to value my life and that of my family higher than any possessions a burglar might take.

Ser Clegane

06-01-2006, 08:17

I may choose to escape, valuing the minimization of risk to myself and others over my property. I may issue a warning, preferring the villain's retreat to her or his death at my hands. But these should be my choice.

My point was less that the choice should be taken away from you - however, I definitely question the somewhat action-movie-driven idea that some people seem to have that a shoot-out is the best way to handle an armed burglary.

Duke of Gloucester

06-01-2006, 08:38

I'm not joking about the importance of property.

By limiting the ability of a homeowner to defend her/his property, you are implicitly taking away control of that property.

If an intruder invades my home, and I cannot defend myself or my property if any means of escape exists, then protection of the person of criminal intruder has been placed above my rights to my own property. No person has any right to enter my home for any reason without a) my permission or that of my wife, or b) a duly signed warrant promulgated by a court with authority in my jurisdiction.

I may choose to escape, valuing the minimization of risk to myself and others over my property. I may issue a warning, preferring the villain's retreat to her or his death at my hands. But these should be my choice. By entering without permission, that person's rights have been suspended BY THEIR OWN CHOICE until such time as they leave my property. If I choose to attempt two rapid shots at center of mass followed by a carefully aimed single shot at the head, then my actions in that instance should be a matter for my conscience and the God in whom I believe.

Rights: Life, Liberty, and Property -- until your own actions make them forfeit by attenuating the enjoment of same by another.

It is an interesting argument, but I have two questions. Firstly, how far does it go? Could you shoot someone in the back if he is fleeing with your TV? Could a shopkeeper shoot someone for shoplifting a chocolate bar? Can you shoot people for infringing your other rights or is there something special about property rights?

Secondly, if you limit what a householder can do to protect his or her property, are you really taking away control of that property? Surely there has to be some notion of proportionality here. Killing someone is extreme. You remove from them the right to enjoy their property and everything else. Do they really give up the right to life simply by the act of crossing your threshold? Can you not argue that by funding a judicial system and law enforcement agencies the state is upholding your right to property? Surely you don't need the right to shoot any intruder.

scooter_the_shooter

06-01-2006, 19:50

Can you not argue that by funding a judicial system and law enforcement agencies the state is upholding your right to property? Surely you don't need the right to shoot any intruder.

Actually yes we do! this is what I can't stand about euros or just about any left leaning person for that matter....why is it so hard to give a little responsibility to average joe? Should you have the right to shoot yes, should you all the time no. How about less of this nanny state BS and put some power back where it belongs, and I believe it belongs in the hands of the people.

Is it it so hard just to let people use their common sense in a trespassing situation, it would save some lives and lose some.

Blodrast

06-01-2006, 20:32

Crazed Rabbit

06-02-2006, 00:30

Could it be because there seem to be enough cases where people don't show common sense?
What about the old geezer who shot the kid who kept "trespassing" his lawn a short while ago, was that common sense too ?
No.

How do you intend to enforce people to exercise common sense ?
By laws. The man mentioned above is facing charges for murder, I believe.

Who defines common sense ?
The people, though laws.

Give more responsibility to the people ? But people show all the time that they are NOT responsible (and I am not talking about guns, but in general)...
Such is the burdern of living in a free nation. To be free, we must also be free to make mistakes, though not necessarily free from consequences.

Crazed Rabbit

BHCWarman88

06-02-2006, 03:24

Common Sense,Start using it

Some Stupid Cocky Teenager steals a Candy Bar
Shoot?No.
Someone is armed robber and break into your House
Shoot? Yes
Someone Tries to Flee with your TV?
Shoot? Mabye,Mabye not,up to you. Me,Yeah, but I doubt it,I just hit him with a Metal Baseball Bat
Some People Ruin my GrandFather's Garden (they did few years ago)
Shoot? No,Mabye a Warining shot though just for fun

Duke of Gloucester

06-02-2006, 07:20

scooter_the_shooter

06-02-2006, 16:17

To me it is ok to shoot to protect property...as long as they are still on the property.

Redleg

06-02-2006, 18:12

Trouble is, BHC, peoples' view of common sense differs. Seamus made a good argument for the right to protect one's own property rights, but I am asking how far does it go? I think it is common sense not to kill people for stealing a choclate bar, but to considering using deadly force is someone threatens your life. So far we agree about common sense. However, I think it does not make sense to kill someone for trying to run off with your TV. You think it may be ok. Whose common sense is better?

The solution is remedied by the courts with the reasonable man approach when judging the events. The Right to protect one's property and life should have no contraints other then your action will be reviewed by the legal authorties to ensure that the application of deadly force meet the standards established by law (that a reasonable man would of acted in such a matter.)

What we believe as individuals to be common sense - should have no bearing on the right for someone to protect their property and life. If our actions are not reasonable when reviewed - then the individual should deal with the legal and civil consequences of their unreasonable use of force.

Just because there are unreasonable and irresponsible people does not mean our right to defend our property and life should be restricted to prevent the unreasonable and irresponsible from the consequences of thier actions. Nor should your definition apply - its the application dicitated by the society in which will judge your actions through the judicial process.

It is not responsibility; its power - the power of life and death over someone

Incorrect - it is a responsiblity. It is also a right to protect one's property and one's self. Reasonable application of force is the standard that must be judged, not the blanket removal of certain abilities to apply a reasonable measure of force to the situtation to protect one's self, family and property. To advocate that a home-owner under no circumstances should ever use deadly force to protect themselves and their property is as irresponsible as the individual who leaves a loaded gun laying on the table for kids to play with.

We agree on this. Everyone does, I think. The question is when is it ok to shoot and when not? My common sense tells me it is acceptable to shoot to protect one's own physical safety, but not acceptable to protect one's property.

The previeced fear of danger when someone breaks into your dewelling can and will often result in just that situation, especially if the break in is happening during the hours of darkness. That is why the reasonable man judical application upon review of the events is really the only solution to the dilimia in my opinion.

Redleg

06-02-2006, 18:15

To me it is ok to shoot to protect property...as long as they are still on the property.

THe courts have and will most likely continue to disagree with that stance. Upon the indications of the individual fleeing the property (without the use of violence) - the application of deadly forces is no longer reasonable.

BHCWarman88

06-02-2006, 18:56

but if they break into your house,you just going to call 911 and sit there untill he Leaves?? No,it be stupid to do that..

Redleg

06-02-2006, 19:04

but if they break into your house,you just going to call 911 and sit there untill he Leaves?? No,it be stupid to do that..

If your addressing my comments - then you did not follow the arguement. The application of deadly force will be judged by the legal community after the fact using the reasonable man arguement to determine if it was justified in the circumstance.

To quote myself

The previeced fear of danger when someone breaks into your dewelling can and will often result in just that situation, especially if the break in is happening during the hours of darkness. That is why the reasonable man judical application upon review of the events is really the only solution to the dilimia in my opinion.

But I will even give you a futher clue - I feel no need to use a firearm to protect my home. There are other just as reasonable precautions one can take.

For instance I have the best alarm possible for one's home. A couple of dogs.....

GodsPetMonkey

06-04-2006, 02:31

Slightly OT, I'm not too sure how Martin got away w manslaughter. The future Richard III has the mens rea for murder slightly wrong, it is intent and not recklessness, but intent to cause GBH would be enough (ie it doesn't have to be intent to kill).

What about reckless indifference to human life? This is something that the Australian High Court made good law in R v Crabbe (and has since been codified), but they took a big leaf out of R v Hyam (1975) AC 55 - "a person who does an act knowing it's probable consequences may be regarded as having intended those consequences to occur" (per Viscount Dilhorne).

Of course, this may have been removed by statute (in which case I apologise, sadly I don't have the time to keep abreast of English statutes these days).

Kaiser of Arabia

06-04-2006, 06:22

Duke of Gloucester

06-04-2006, 08:11

The Right to protect one's property and life should have no contraints other then your action will be reviewed by the legal authorties to ensure that the application of deadly force meet the standards established by law (that a reasonable man would of acted in such a matter.)

Agreed.

What we believe as individuals to be common sense - should have no bearing on the right for someone to protect their property and life. If our actions are not reasonable when reviewed - then the individual should deal with the legal and civil consequences of their unreasonable use of force.

This is true for any society governed by the rule of law, but little consolation to someone killed by an "unreasonable" person.

Just because there are unreasonable and irresponsible people does not mean our right to defend our property and life should be restricted to prevent the unreasonable and irresponsible from the consequences of thier actions. Nor should your definition apply - its the application dicitated by the society in which will judge your actions through the judicial process.

Which definition?

Incorrect - it is a responsiblity.

Are you saying you have a responisibility to use deadly force in certain circumstances? In any case my statement was not incorrect. What some people are asking for is the power of life and death over anyone who enters their property to steal.

Reasonable application of force is the standard that must be judged, not the blanket removal of certain abilities to apply a reasonable measure of force to the situtation to protect one's self, family and property. To advocate that a home-owner under no circumstances should ever use deadly force to protect themselves and their property is as irresponsible as the individual who leaves a loaded gun laying on the table for kids to play with.

Saying that reasonable application of force should be the standard is simply saying "what is acceptable to most people should be acceptable". I agree with that. This is how laws should be made. I don't advocate that a homeowner should under no circumstances ever use deadly force to protect themselves, but I do say that a homeowner should never use deadly force simply to protect their property. This is not irresponsible at all, though it may be a view that differs from yours.

The previeced fear of danger when someone breaks into your dewelling can and will often result in just that situation, especially if the break in is happening during the hours of darkness.

I agree. However their is a big difference between saying "I killed this man because I was afraid he might hurt me" and "I killed this man because I thought he might steal my stuff." The former may be acceptable, the latter certainly isn't.

Redleg

06-04-2006, 16:08

This is true for any society governed by the rule of law, but little consolation to someone killed by an "unreasonable" person.

Then your position is based solely upon emotional appeal not the law.

Which definition?

primarily the use of only the individual's definition.

Are you saying you have a responisibility to use deadly force in certain circumstances? In any case my statement was not incorrect. What some people are asking for is the power of life and death over anyone who enters their property to steal.

Read the following sentences - it explains the responsiblity.

Saying that reasonable application of force should be the standard is simply saying "what is acceptable to most people should be acceptable". I agree with that. This is how laws should be made.

Then you understood the previous comment correctly, which negates your previous question.

I don't advocate that a homeowner should under no circumstances ever use deadly force to protect themselves, but I do say that a homeowner should never use deadly force simply to protect their property. This is not irresponsible at all, though it may be a view that differs from yours.

Read what you wrote previosily and what you wrote here. You are only applying one standard - yours. The standard about wether the home owner used reasonable force to protect himself and his property comes from the legal argument of the reasonable man. What I would do as an individual when someone breaks into my home - is most likely different then what you would do. What is reasonable is solely based upon the individual circumstances of each event. Blanket positions become irresponsible when dealing with individual circumstances, especially when discussing home invasion by unknown people for unknown reasons.

I agree. However their is a big difference between saying "I killed this man because I was afraid he might hurt me" and "I killed this man because I thought he might steal my stuff." The former may be acceptable, the latter certainly isn't.

When one breakes into someone's home - the fear exists regardless if someone dies or not. The application of force by the homeowner in this regards has been often judged as reasonable. It is in certain circumstances after the initial breakin that the law has judged that unreasonable force has been applied.

For instance most legal systems have ruled that unreasonable force was used when the home invader was shot in the back in the front yard of the dwelling. Then there is the case that was alreadly mentioned that happened in the United Kingdom. That also could only be seen as unreasonable force being applied. Hince the criminal charge of the property owner was applied by the legal authority.

BHCWarman88

06-04-2006, 16:41

"I don't advocate that a homeowner should under no circumstances ever use deadly force to protect themselves, but I do say that a homeowner should never use deadly force simply to protect their property. This is not irresponsible at all, though it may be a view that differs from yours."

Under NO Circumtances,should we use a Gun? What happens if they break into your House with a Gun or a Knife or Both, just call 911 and coward in your room? NO. They break into my House, I let my Huskey go after it and let her tear him apart while I stand that laughing my butt off..

Duke of Gloucester

06-04-2006, 19:20

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
This is true for any society governed by the rule of law, but little consolation to someone killed by an "unreasonable" person.

Then your position is based solely upon emotional appeal not the law.

Well that comment is based on a cheap emotional appeal. Forget I said it. However it does not mean that my whole argument is based on an emotional appeal.

Quote:

Are you saying you have a responisibility to use deadly force in certain circumstances? In any case my statement was not incorrect. What some people are asking for is the power of life and death over anyone who enters their property to steal.

Read the following sentences - it explains the responsiblity.

Quote:
Saying that reasonable application of force should be the standard is simply saying "what is acceptable to most people should be acceptable". I agree with that. This is how laws should be made.

Then you understood the previous comment correctly, which negates your previous question.

Quote:
I don't advocate that a homeowner should under no circumstances ever use deadly force to protect themselves, but I do say that a homeowner should never use deadly force simply to protect their property. This is not irresponsible at all, though it may be a view that differs from yours.

Read what you wrote previosily and what you wrote here. You are only applying one standard - yours. The standard about wether the home owner used reasonable force to protect himself and his property comes from the legal argument of the reasonable man. What I would do as an individual when someone breaks into my home - is most likely different then what you would do. What is reasonable is solely based upon the individual circumstances of each event. Blanket positions become irresponsible when dealing with individual circumstances, especially when discussing home invasion by unknown people for unknown reasons.

Seriously, Redleg I don't understand what you are saying. On one hand you seem to say that it is up to the individual to decide what to do in a given situation. In fact you seem to say that the individual has a responsiblity to decide for themselves. You then say society must judge his actions after the event. Then you criticise me for expressing my own opinions. I am not sure why I am not allowed to express opinions, and I am interested to know why you direct the the criticism "you are only applying one standard - yours" to me alone, when it could be applied to most other contributors to the thread. (It may be because I repeated some ill-judged Travel Agent advice - if so I apologise) I also think that householders are entitled to some guidance as to what is likely to be found reasonable before they act. You see I think I am perfectly reasonable and I am never going to agree with the use of lethal force simply to protect property. Seamus probably considers himself reasonable too, but he is likely to say this is o.k. The concept of the "reasonable man" is a legal fiction designed to clarify thinking when making legal decisions. It basically reminds them that they should apply society's standards when making judgement. We should not fall in to the trap of thinking that there are positions which are objectively reasonable.

Blanket positions become irresponsible when dealing with individual circumstances, especially when discussing home invasion by unknown people for unknown reasons.

The blanket postion I am arguing against is that you can do what you want to an intruder. Let me make it clear - if you are afraid of physical harm then the use of lethal force may be justified. For example I have no problem with the actions of the young man in the example that started the thread. Some blanket postitions must be o.k. - for example you may not shoot intruders to your home simply because you don't like their clothes. I also think it is reasonable to say "you may not kill an intruder simply because they may make off with your property".

Redleg

06-04-2006, 19:44

Well that comment is based on a cheap emotional appeal. Forget I said it. However it does not mean that my whole argument is based on an emotional appeal.

OK

Seriously, Redleg I don't understand what you are saying. On one hand you seem to say that it is up to the individual to decide what to do in a given situation.

Correct that is what I am saying.

In fact you seem to say that the individual has a responsiblity to decide for themselves.

That is correct

You then say society must judge his actions after the event.

That is the function of law, which is also exactly what I have stated.

Then you criticise me for expressing my own opinions. I am not sure why I am not allowed to express opinions,

Did I state that you are not allowed to have an opinion? (are you attempting an emotional appeal once again?)

In expressing your opinion you must also accept the peaceful consequences that come with that open expression - and that consequence is criticism and disagreement with your opinion being vocalized.

and I am interested to know why you direct the the criticism "you are only applying one standard - yours" to me alone, when it could be applied to most other contributors to the thread.

Because this discussion is primarily between you and me.

I believe that householders are entitled to some guidance as to what is likely to be found reasonable before they act.

Guidance concerning the issue is acceptable to me also. However how much guidance the legal established authority has in telling people how to react to what they precieve to be a danger to themselves. There is an inherient right to self-defense.

You see I think I am perfectly reasonable and I am never going to agree with the use of lethal force simply to protect property.

If you read carefully - you will notice that I have never stated that it is acceptable to use lethal force to simply protect property.

Seamus probably considers himself reasonable too, but he is likely to say this is o.k.

Then I think you misread his statements.

The concept of the "reasonable man" is a legal fiction designed to clarify thinking when making legal decisions.

It is an established legal arguement. You can believe its a legal fiction - however it is the arguement used to measure an individuals actions.

It basically reminds them that they should apply society's standards when making judgement. We should not fall in to the trap of thinking that there are positions which are objectively reasonable.

exactly - but it seems with the unequiventol statement you made earlier that you have falling into that same trap.

The blanket postion I am arguing against is that you can do what you want to an intruder. Let me make it clear - if you are afraid of physical harm then the use of lethal force may be justified. For example I have no problem with the actions of the young man in the example that started the thread. Some blanket postitions must be o.k. - for example you may not shoot intruders to your home simply because you don't like their clothes. I also think it is reasonable to say "you may not kill an intruder simply because they may make off with your property".

And if you look into the laws of the land - regardless of which nation - you will find that most legal codes do not allow for the un-justified shooting of an intruder. The justification of lethal force is normally associated with the "reasonable man" arguement about what would a resonable man do in the situation.

The violation of property rights does not always justify the use of deadly force, but in most instances it applies.

If an individual pulls a gun in order to just rob you of your property - how do you know that he is just after your property?

If an individual invades your home in the middle of the night - how do you know that he is just after your property?

If someone pulls a knife on you - how do you know that they are only after your property?

The problem is that you don' know - and there is no way that you can know.

However I do agree that you can not shoot the individual after he committs the crime and has demonstrated that your life was not in danger when he flees the scene without doing any form of physical violence.

I believe that this is the difference in our postions. Until the indication is demonstrated by the individual committing the violation of property rights (the criminal), that no physcial harm is intended by the criminal to the property owner - the property owner is often justified in protecting his property and himself from the violent acts of the criminal.

Duke of Gloucester

06-04-2006, 22:38

Did I state that you are not allowed to have an opinion? (are you attempting an emotional appeal once again?)

In expressing your opinion you must also accept the peaceful consequences that come with that open expression - and that consequence is criticism and disagreement with your opinion being vocalized.

Don't mind criticism or disagreement (not keen on being patronised though). To be fair you did not say that I was allowed to have an opinion, just that my opinion was not valid because it was a personal opinion. Still don't understand the reasoning behind this.

Guidance concerning the issue is acceptable to me also. However how much guidance the legal established authority has in telling people how to react to what they precieve to be a danger to themselves. There is an inherient right to self-defense.

Have I said anywhere there is no right to self-defence?

If you read carefully - you will notice that I have never stated that it is acceptable to use lethal force to simply protect property.

Good we agree on that.

Then I think you misread his statements.

Seamus can speak for himself, but I think when he says "By entering without permission, that person's rights have been suspended BY THEIR OWN CHOICE until such time as they leave my property." he is claiming the right to use lethal force is he chooses whatever the circumstances once someone has entered his house without permission.

It is an established legal arguement. You can believe its a legal fiction - however it is the arguement used to measure an individuals actions.

Legal fiction is a term laywers use. I probably haven't used it exactly as meant in this context because I am not a lawyer. Legal fictions are extablished as acceptable in law, so I did not mean it wasn't recognised legally, just that the "reasonable man" concept was a shorthand way of refering to society's standards.

exactly - but it seems with the unequiventol statement you made earlier that you have falling into that same trap.

It should go without saying that any expressions of opinion that I have made are subjective and personal (but still valid as expressions of my opinion.)

I believe that this is the difference in our postions. Until the indication is demonstrated by the individual committing the violation of property rights (the criminal), that no physcial harm is intended by the criminal to the property owner - the property owner is often justified in protecting his property and himself from the violent acts of the criminal.

I don't think we have different positions at all. It is the people who say that once a criminal is in your house without permision you should have the right to do whatever you want to them that I disagree with.

Redleg

06-04-2006, 22:48

Don't mind criticism or disagreement (not keen on being patronised though). To be fair you did not say that I was allowed to have an opinion, just that my opinion was not valid because it was a personal opinion. Still don't understand the reasoning behind this.

The reasoning is based upon the legal code.

Have I said anywhere there is no right to self-defence?

You keep implying it with the statement about property.

Good we agree on that.

:book:

Seamus can speak for himself, but I think when he says "By entering without permission, that person's rights have been suspended BY THEIR OWN CHOICE until such time as they leave my property." he is claiming the right to use lethal force is he chooses whatever the circumstances once someone has entered his house without permission.

That is not the interpation that I get. He is implying that his rights come first.

Legal fiction is a term laywers use. I probably haven't used it exactly as meant in this context because I am not a lawyer. Legal fictions are extablished as acceptable in law, so I did not mean it wasn't recognised legally, just that the "reasonable man" concept was a shorthand way of refering to society's standards.

Agreed.

It should go without saying that any expressions of opinion that I have made are subjective and personal (but still valid as expressions of my opinion.)

Didn't say that - however I did say your falling into the same trap that you mentioned.

I don't think we have different positions at all. It is the people who say that once a criminal is in your house without permision you should have the right to do whatever you want to them that I disagree with.

Then I have misunderstood your postion based upon some of the terms used.
A simple thing to do on the internet discussion forums where the intent behind the words is not always clear.

BHCWarman88

06-04-2006, 23:56

"Seamus can speak for himself, but I think when he says "By entering without permission, that person's rights have been suspended BY THEIR OWN CHOICE until such time as they leave my property." he is claiming the right to use lethal force is he chooses whatever the circumstances once someone has entered his house without permission."

That is not the interpation that I get. He is implying that his rights come first.

Our Rights Do Come First,Not the Robber. If you Think the Person Still has Rights when he is Invading your house, I Disagree..

"I don't think we have different positions at all. It is the people who say that once a criminal is in your house without permision you should have the right to do whatever you want to them that I disagree with."

Duke, I disagree with you there. Tell me,someone breaks into your House,for Any Reson,I don't mean for oen thing or another, I Mean Any Reson,Robbery,Murder,etc.. Tell me what you Main Idea of your Course of Action Be? Get the Gun? Call the Cops and hide? Let your Dog/Dogs take Care of Him? Fight/Confront Him?? or just sit there and Do Nothing??

Redleg

06-05-2006, 03:14

Our Rights Do Come First,Not the Robber. If you Think the Person Still has Rights when he is Invading your house, I Disagree..

There are rights inherient in the United States Constitution regardless if the individual is breaking the law or not.

BHCWarman88

06-05-2006, 03:23

Yes,He's Still breaking the Law Although, Rights or No Rights..

Redleg

06-05-2006, 03:28

Yes,He's Still breaking the Law Although, Rights or No Rights..

And the point stands that the individual still has his constitutional rights wether he is breaking the law or not.

The difference is the property owner has the inherient right to self-defense, but he must be able to justify his actions upon legal review. The reasonable man arguement applies to all cases of the use of deadly force to protect one's home and life.

One can not for instance argue self defense when the criminal is shot in the back outside of the dwelling.

One can not for instance argue self defense if the criminal with his hands full carrying off your stero, and was shot in the back, that you felt endanger of your life because you had just been buglerized.

BHCWarman88

06-05-2006, 03:33

but will you just stand that and watch him run away??

For Instance, Can't my 2 Dogs go tear him apart when he breaks into my house?

Redleg

06-05-2006, 03:40

but will you just stand that and watch him run away??

Not at all - I will call the police and provide them with a detailed description of the burgler (as best I can) and the property that he had stolen. After the act is been done - I am no longer jusified in using deadly force for a simple robbery when the robber is fleeing the sceen.

For Instance, Can't my 2 Dogs go tear him apart when he breaks into my house?

Sure they can - they are defending the home from attack. The actions of the dogs in question can not be seen as anything other then the automatic defense mechinism of the animals and their normal behavior.

BHCWarman88

06-05-2006, 04:09

Second One I agree with you with. Your First Comment I must Disagree.. Yes, I would Call the Cops,only if he gets away before I get my hands on him.. I see nothing wrong with giving him a Few Whacks to the Head and kicking him out the door if he wants to steal my stuff and if I'm not going to shoot him..

GodsPetMonkey

06-05-2006, 13:29

Legal fiction is a term laywers use. I probably haven't used it exactly as meant in this context because I am not a lawyer. Legal fictions are extablished as acceptable in law, so I did not mean it wasn't recognised legally, just that the "reasonable man" concept was a shorthand way of refering to society's standards.

You are essentially correct (though there is plenty of debate about legal fictions, they are largely academic).

The Reasonable Man is probably the most common legal fiction (though it has a few close relatives that we normally just count as the one). But it is a necessary one, first, the number of combination and permutations that exist in self defence is staggering, it is unreasonable for the Law to lay out every possible circumstance and what should be found in such circumstances (even with a high level of abstraction), and using some simple test like "the defence self-defence will not be available where the defendant's actions resulted in a criminal act greater then the one the defendant purported to be defending against" would result in far to large a number of injustices (and while the cold nature of the Law makes it seem like sometimes injustice is the norm, normally it's just another ill informed media beat-up).

Legal fictions, are as Duke of Gloucester correctly pointed out, is a term lawyers tend to use, but it has a more then one meaning - sure the idea of a reasonable man is fictional, but it's also a fiction as it is a term that lawyers will spend hours debating on, and any meaning they come to will be entirely different, and pointless to something a layperson would attribute to it. The end result is Joe Average Juror effectively uses reasonable man to use society’s standards, or rather, what is reasonable in their own part of society (in large nations standards can vary considerably). This is not really the point of the legal term, but it is the de facto result.
So in the end, despite a test of crime x is worse then crime y not being acceptable for the purposes of self-defence, it is often explained in such terms, because on some level it makes sense - at least in the most clear cut of cases (eg. and this is deliberately extreme, shooting the girl scout for walking onto your property). For some reason, tabloids (and talkback shock jocks) love to take such oversimplifications of legal principles and give them a life of their own, making them out to be rock solid Law, and this results in a lot of anger, misunderstandings and sales (for those tabloids). Don't believe everything you read folks, especially when the person writing it has as much understanding of the material as you do (something a lot of people on the internet need to learn).

The difference is the property owner has the inherient right to self-defense, but he must be able to justify his actions upon legal review. The reasonable man arguement applies to all cases of the use of deadly force to protect one's home and life.

I commend you for your rational understanding of the law on the matter :bow:. It seems to simple when you put it that way.

A quote I like on the matter of killing, though it was made in relation to succession law, and not really applicable self-defence, but you can get an idea of the Laws approach to the matter.

All felonious killings are contrary to public policy and hence, one would assume, unconscionable. Indeed, there is something of a trifle comic in the spectacle of Equity judges sorting felonious killings into conscionable and unconscionable piles.

Of course, it's also to remember that killing someone isn't the only means of self defence, self defence can be used for pretty much any crime (though in some cases it may be hard to explain how), and that's why there is an element of reasonableness. If self defence was only applicable to situations where killing would be justified under the current law, there would be no need for such a legal requirement.

BHCWarman88

06-05-2006, 16:38

but I don't understand why people would call 911 and Just sit there while thr Robber is robbing their house and/or about to get away. why would you not atleast go after him/her withotu a gun then..

Redleg

06-05-2006, 17:34

but I don't understand why people would call 911 and Just sit there while thr Robber is robbing their house and/or about to get away. why would you not atleast go after him/her withotu a gun then..

When the crime is being committed the home owner is completely within his rights and the concept of self defense to defend himself and his property. If the homeowner/property owner has a concern about their safety while a criminal act is ongoing - then they should defend themselves from harm. They have a greater right then the criminal in that situation.

The arguement is if you do not have an immediate fear of harm, why should you use deadly force to halt a property crime? By confronting the criminal while they are in the act of committing the crime creates the situation where deadly force might become necessary and esclates it to the point that physical harm could/can happen. If a confrontation can be avoided, is that not the better course of action to pursue? Why would I risk harm to my family to stop a property crime from happening, especially when I can evacuate my family from the situation rather easily?

If one is interested in protecting their family - why would one esculate the situation when it can be avoided by removing yourself from it? Basically it comes down to the question is your property worth more then your life or that of a family member?

Why would I chase a crook to get back property that I can replace very easily? Is the risk of harm to myself worth the value of the property that has been stolen?

Is this such a hard concept to understand?

Duke of Gloucester

06-05-2006, 18:44

Then I have misunderstood your postion based upon some of the terms used.
A simple thing to do on the internet discussion forums where the intent behind the words is not always clear.

I can see how that would happen. If I keep saying you shouldn't use deadly force to protect property it could could be interpreted as meaning you have to be sure that only property was under threat. That isn't what I meant.

Duke, I disagree with you there. Tell me,someone breaks into your House,for Any Reson,I don't mean for oen thing or another, I Mean Any Reson,Robbery,Murder,etc.. Tell me what you Main Idea of your Course of Action Be? Get the Gun? Call the Cops and hide? Let your Dog/Dogs take Care of Him? Fight/Confront Him?? or just sit there and Do Nothing??

I don't own a dog or a gun, so those options are out. To be honest I am not sure what I would do. Calling the cops would certainly be my first action. I am not particularly brave so I would not look forward to a confrontation, but I would find it hard to let someone take my stuff without challenge and I am certainly not going to stand by while my family are harmed.

BHCWarman88

06-05-2006, 18:56

I would Confront him,rather I'm Brave or Not.. No one is going to take the Stuff I actually Brought and have me sit their,call the cops,and that it..

scooter_the_shooter

06-05-2006, 19:23

If you don't have a dog buy one. The police are useless for preventing crime, they come after the wacko slits your throat, rapes your wife and cuts your children into little pieces:help:

Isn't it still legal to buy shot guns in the uk.....

Tribesman

06-06-2006, 00:02

Crazed Rabbit

06-06-2006, 00:10

Yep , and rifles , and handguns if they meet the legal requirements and you meet the legal requirements . It is called gun control , where there are laws that regulate the possesion of firearms .
Have you heard of gun control before ?

I doubt you can buy handguns. The controls are so strict that their Olympic pistol team must train outside the country.

And isn't anything beyond a single shot shotgun or rifle really hard to legally aquire?

Now ask yourself - is violent crime falling in the US (with its increasing amount of guns) or Britain (with banned guns)? And then ask yourself why it is that way if guns 'cause' crime.

I am not particularly brave so I would not look forward to a confrontation, but I would find it hard to let someone take my stuff without challenge and I am certainly not going to stand by while my family are harmed.

Baseball bats are always good in a pinch, or any other thing of the same characteristics.

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman

06-06-2006, 00:30

I doubt you can buy handguns. The controls are so strict that their Olympic pistol team must train outside the country.

And isn't anything beyond a single shot shotgun or rifle really hard to legally aquire?

Nope , longarms are resticted to a five shot capacity , handguns must be single shot pistols if they are using pre made ammunition , but there is no restriction if you load a revolver with black powder (as long as you have a licence), plus the legislation varies in each province of the UK , for example , if properly licenced you can carry a pretty little shiney 9mm for your own protection in the six counties .

Hmmmm....european firarms regulations , it does go a little bit further that gun nut weeklys "they is banned"!!!!!~;)

scooter_the_shooter

06-06-2006, 01:46

they come after the wacko slits your throat, rapes your wife and cuts your children into little pieces
Ceasar , are you a leftist ? according to another thread it is only leftists that come out with emotional crap to try and make a point .

Isn't it still legal to buy shot guns in the uk.....
Yep , and rifles , and handguns if they meet the legal requirements and you meet the legal requirements . It is called gun control , where there are laws that regulate the possesion of firearms .
Have you heard of gun control before ?

I don't believe the "only leftist get emotional thingy" I've been around enough people while holding their ar15 with a mean look on their face say "i'll kill those bastards who come for my guns, I'll kill em all!" (they are actually pretty nice people though)

Gun control is bad period.

Crazed Rabbit

06-06-2006, 02:12

Nope , longarms are resticted to a five shot capacity , handguns must be single shot pistols if they are using pre made ammunition , but there is no restriction if you load a revolver with black powder (as long as you have a licence), plus the legislation varies in each province of the UK , for example , if properly licenced you can carry a pretty little shiney 9mm for your own protection in the six counties .

Do provide some proof of this 'carry permit', and how practical it is for the average person to get one, let alone a pistol license (since self defense isn't a good enough reason). And don't be a lazy bum and tell me to search for it. :book:

Hmmmm....european firarms regulations , it does go a little bit further that gun nut weeklys "they is banned"!!!!!~;)

Not really.

Crazed Rabbit

scooter_the_shooter

06-06-2006, 02:16

They are pretty much banned for average joe:furious3: unless a bolt action single shot 22 is your idea of fun:juggle2:

Papewaio

06-06-2006, 04:16

I would Confront him,rather I'm Brave or Not.. No one is going to take the Stuff I actually Brought and have me sit their,call the cops,and that it..

If it was a choice of:

A) Confronting the robber and getting the emotional high of beating the crap out of him with a high chance that I come off second best and then the robber(s) lay into my family

or

B) Helping the robbers load up all my belongings into their van and protecting my family from harm.

I would choose the B) option that protects my family the most.

I can use insurance to cover my trinkets and the law system to apprehend and deal with the criminals. But no amount of chest beating or sorrys would ever bring my family back if I escalated a property theft into a situation resulting in their deaths.

As a responsible adult I have to realise that all my choices have consequences and my job as the man of the house is to do whatever it takes to remove my family from harms way. If that means controlling my adrenal urges so be it.

scooter_the_shooter

06-06-2006, 05:01

But what if it's a robber who wants to kill you and your family(no witnesses). Better be on the safe side and let god sort em' out.

scooter_the_shooter

06-06-2006, 05:10

But what if it's a robber who wants to kill you and your family(no witnesses). Better be on the safe side and let god sort em' out.

I know this'll be taken out of context. so I will clear it up now.

I don't mean shoot the neighbor kid jumping the fence to get his baseball!

A invader during the dead of night go ahead as long as he ain't runnin' away.

Papewaio

06-06-2006, 05:34

The context was as given, the robber is taking your property and leaving.

Some feel that they would like to beat them up and hence have the right to do so.

Myself, I would rather lose trinkets then family.

If someone was coming for my family that would also be covered by this:

As a responsible adult I have to realise that all my choices have consequences and my job as the man of the house is to do whatever it takes to remove my family from harms way. If that means controlling my adrenal urges so be it.

English assassin

06-06-2006, 12:48

They are pretty much banned for average joe:furious3: unless a bolt action single shot 22 is your idea of fun:juggle2:

No-they-aren't.

The only thing banned in the (mainland) UK that you might reasonably want is a multishot pistol firing modern ammunition, (I am never going to be persuaded that a civilian needs an automatic or semi automatic rifle, but for the record they are also banned). Any other rifled firearm you can have if you show good reason, shotguns you don't even need to show a reason (although they do still vet you). Good reason includes "I want to shoot it on a range".

You can have any firearm that your club range is certified for, or that can be safely shot on your land. And why would you want anything else? What are you going to do, look at it?

Incidentally I don't see why a bolt action single shot .22 (presumably you mean rimfire) would not be fun. The discipline of putting a good group together is exactly the same. Never mind .22, I think I probably enjoy shooting air rifle more than firearms, the challenge is as great or greater and you don't get macho idiots. Same goes for muzzle loading, though that is a bit too beard and sandles for me.

scooter_the_shooter

06-06-2006, 16:48

With 22s you don't get the same fun as shooting a cz75 or glock or ar15, or even a single shot bolt action 308. I only have one 22 and the only reason I bought it is because it holds 50 rounds and they make many tactical accessories for it. (Ruger 10/22s are great:2thumbsup: )

Some people like to shoot bolt actions, very slow at long range, I enjoy using the evil looking rifles and hand guns at no farther then 50 yards. To each his own.

How is the challenge greater for air rifles? there in no recoil! Same with a 22.

Tribesman

06-06-2006, 17:41

scooter_the_shooter

06-06-2006, 18:07

But lets here about this permit you speak of. I go to a site with a number of UK shooters and none of them has mentioned a carry permit:dizzy2:

English assassin

06-06-2006, 18:07

How is the challenge greater for air rifles? there in no recoil! Same with a 22.

Well, its all about consistency, same as any other rifle. The pellet spends longer in the barrel, so if anything you are more rather than less at the mercy of barrel harmonics, and the need to follow through on target. The lighter pellet and slower travel hugely magnify the effects of different ranges and wind conditions, which you have to allow for. Hunter field target will set out different sized targets anywhere between 20-45 yards, so you have to rangefind as well. And then there is the expectation, more than an inch group, standing unsupported at 25yds, would not be very good, and you need to be sub 1/2" before anyone would say well done.

BTW ruger 10/22's are very common over here, so you could still have your fun even in the land of the unfree.

Kanamori

06-06-2006, 18:11

Plus, with real guns, you cannot run around and shoot your friends. Well you could but you'd also end up in jail.

scooter_the_shooter

06-06-2006, 18:12

Yes you may have 10/22s but at least our AK47s are not bolt action:2thumbsup: . So how common is a UK shooter? is it wide spread?

English assassin

06-06-2006, 18:27

Its a minority but a fairly significant one. Proportionately we probably have a lot more shotgunners than you, and a lot less full bore rifle shooters (The MOD are much more restrictive about allowing civilian clubs to use their ranges than they used to be, so there aren't that many ranges with full bore certificates, which is a shame). Notwithstanding my views on eg air rifles, I think every shooter should have a go at competing in something like Service Rifle at least once, if only to find out how hard it is:

Service Rifle is a discipline similar to the old SR(a) which was the norm, using a bolt actioned rifle with fixed sights, until the Armed Forces adopted the self loading rifle in the late '60s. Courses of fire are based on those fired by the Armed Forces, and usually involve a physical element (e.g. a 500 to 100 yard run down firing two shots every 100 yards). Matches may involve deliberate, rapid fire and snap shooting, and will usually involve firing from a variety of positions including prone, sitting, kneeling, standing and from a fire trench. Competitions are usually fired on representative figure targets such as the Figure 11 and Figure 12 figure targets. For civilian competitors firing in matches alongside the military competitions a rifle with a telescopic sight and a magazine capacity of at least 10 shots is advisable

You see, we have our jollies too.

Tribesman

06-06-2006, 18:31

But lets here about this permit you speak of. I go to a site with a number of UK shooters and none of them has mentioned a carry permit
Well the funniest case recently would be the granting of handgun permits to several Sinn Fein members for self-defense , at a time when they want to take guns out of politics in the six counties :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So how common is a UK shooter? is it wide spread?
Well there are gun clubs everywhere over there , just like there are over here . Just as there are huge tracts of the countryside where shooting is a major leisure industry . All of which is really strange for a country that bans guns innit .~;)
You might of heard of Bisley in the UK , it is quite famous , people from all over the world go there to shoot , they are called gun enthusiasts :yes:

scooter_the_shooter

06-06-2006, 18:43

People from all over the world come to knob creek also

http://www.machinegunshoot.com/

Biggest machine gun shoot around:laugh4:

I think you exaggerate the UK "gun culture" if you could call it that. Because I read post by Uk members on other boards who say things like "when I went to America and saw a cop with a gun I got scared:laugh4: "

And the permit.

The reason I asked is because Ireland is the only place I know of where you can get a permit in the UK. And it seems like your government doesn't think average Joe is *good enough* for them....god forbid the serfs defend them selves:wall:

Tribesman

06-06-2006, 21:42

I think you exaggerate the UK "gun culture" if you could call it that.
What gun culture ?
That term either relates to criminal activity involving guns , or legal activity by people who treat firearms like a penis extension .

scooter_the_shooter

06-07-2006, 03:24

No...it means people who enjoy firearms as their main hobby.

BHCWarman88

06-07-2006, 03:39

I think it be wise for Someone to Have a Gun Permit,a Carry Permit. There was a few examples where my Dad and Brother Almost would have,or may have used their Guns.. I tell you one.. one day,we going to the Store,and this Wackjob pulls in front of us,and starts giving my dad the Finger,so we both stop the car,and the Black guy gets out. my Dad kept Eye contact while he tried to get his Seat Belt unblocked so he can get out and fight,but he could not,and after a few swear Words of the N Word and others,the guy got back in his car and drove off,and I spotted that the guy had a guy on his Side..

Papewaio

06-07-2006, 04:28

and I spotted that the guy had a guy on his Side..

He had a sideman?

Was he a sideman comedian because those things can rattle off insults... and the Crystal version are smaller and hence easier concealable, it also is inherently more accurate and doesn't jam as often while cutting through most defensive layers with ease.

Or was he more of a straight man... they can really make the user look good with all the insult ricochet...

Crazed Rabbit

06-07-2006, 05:52

Do provide some proof of this 'carry permit', and how practical it is for the average person to get one, let alone a pistol license (since self defense isn't a good enough reason). And don't be a lazy bum and tell me to search for it.
Hey Rabbit , what do you mean "provide some proof" ????????
You have made dozens of posts about the UKs gun laws , do you mean to say that despite all the talk you are so fond of concerning Britains firearm regulations , you do not even know the first thing about the laws you complain about ???????

Hmmm. What am I seeing? Not proof.

As is obvious, the fact that I know something about UK laws is why I am asking for proof of your claims. Really quite simple.

What gun culture ?
That term either relates to criminal activity involving guns , or legal activity by people who treat firearms like a penis extension .

What a great example for that thread Pindar started recently. Namely, lefties resulting to crude insults (emotionalism) when their beliefs are challenged.

I am never going to be persuaded that a civilian needs an automatic or semi automatic rifle, but for the record they are also banned

What do you plan on doing should the government become unacceptably more repressive? And since when do citizens in a supposedly free country have to prove a need for something?

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman

06-07-2006, 07:15

scooter_the_shooter

06-07-2006, 09:30

Sorry rabbit you were wrong. Read some post by the UK members at The high road.

They can have
semi auto rim fires,

303 enfields,

even ak47s....I believe they are modified to be bolt action though:no:

Hand guns with very long barrels(not sure about this one)

Any shot gun with a barrel lenth over 22 inches and can hold no more then 3 shells.

I *think* that is all title 1 permit. (or class one, or what ever they call it)

I could be wrong, I am just going off what I can remember them saying,

English assassin

06-07-2006, 09:42

@ceasar that is basically it. you can have any full bore bolt action rifle, of course, not just a lee enfield, but they are popular. I think you are right about the handguns (judging from a notice in my rifle club referring to barrels over 12" in length ) but I have never seen anyone with one. Not surprisingly really.

What do you plan on doing should the government become unacceptably more repressive?

I know we have been over this ground before, but this is the bit I don't understand. If the government becomes repressive, first, we grumble, then we write letters to the papers, then we go on marches, finally we vote for the other lot. None of this involves a firearm.

You seem to think it is a credible scenario that the government would seek to impose repression on us by armed force. But, using what? No way would the British armed forces take up arms against UK citizens. Nor would the police, and they aren't armed anyway. People still remember the Peterloo massacre and that was in 1819, that's how ingrained the impossbility of using the army against the people is.

Obviously you have less faith in the US armed forces.

scooter_the_shooter

06-07-2006, 09:51

@ceasar that is basically it. you can have any full bore bolt action rifle, of course, not just a lee enfield, but they are popular. I think you are right about the handguns (judging from a notice in my rifle club referring to barrels over 12" in length ) but I have never seen anyone with one. Not surprisingly really.

I know not just enfield, I was just giving examples.

I know we have been over this ground before, but this is the bit I don't understand. If the government becomes repressive, first, we grumble, then we write letters to the papers, then we go on marches, finally we vote for the other lot. None of this involves a firearm.

And if they give themselves the power to stay longer you kill them.

You seem to think it is a credible scenario that the government would seek to impose repression on us by armed force. But, using what? No way would the British armed forces take up arms against UK citizens. Nor would the police, and they aren't armed anyway. People still remember the Peterloo massacre and that was in 1819, that's how ingrained the impossbility of using the army against the people is.

Obviously you have less faith in the US armed forces.

Your right I have very little faith I think they'll do what they're told.

And police I have NO faith in them.

My main fear is the government agencies. Hell the batfe is allowed to make regulations up as they go along.:wall:

AntiochusIII

06-07-2006, 12:57

Ah...the fear; the hysteria; the enemy; the dangers; the masked villains; the Big Brother...

If I am one of those fear-feeding monsters I'd be full for eternity with this thread.

BHCWarman88

06-07-2006, 16:46

I got No Faith in the Cops. Why Trust the Cops when you can Protect you own home??

scooter_the_shooter

06-07-2006, 16:49

Ah...the fear; the hysteria; the enemy; the dangers; the masked villains; the Big Brother...

If I am one of those fear-feeding monsters I'd be full for eternity with this thread.

Not fear, common sense and caution.

Tribesman

06-07-2006, 17:28

scooter_the_shooter

06-07-2006, 17:38

Your right I have very little faith I think they'll do what they're told.

And police I have NO faith in them.

My main fear is the government agencies. Hell the batfe is allowed to make regulations up as they go along.
So you don't like your military , you don't like your police , you don't like the government , its agencies , its laws and legislative process .....
So Ceasar ...why do you hate America ?:inquisitive:

I like the military but, new orleans is proof they will do what they are told when it is against the constitution (the national guard confiscated guns)

The agencies, look what they've done, Wire taps and waco:furious3:

You have the right to not let the police search you unless they think there is probable cause, refusing the search is considered probable cause by many:wall:

BHCWarman88

06-07-2006, 19:52

Ser Clegane

06-07-2006, 20:29

I type fast,ploblem is,when I type fast, I usally make spelling/grammer mistakes,and I usally only pick up on a few minor ones because I don't usally sit here for half a hour looking at 3 or 4 posts I made to check for grammer/spelling mistakes....

It might be a good idea though to invest some time to make your posts somewhat more readable (unless you care only about the number of your posts and don't care if other people care to read them)

Banquo's Ghost

06-07-2006, 22:10

EDIT: Removed crass and useless contribution.

BHCWarman88

06-07-2006, 23:14

I like the military but, new orleans is proof they will do what they are told when it is against the constitution (the national guard confiscated guns)

The agencies, look what they've done, Wire taps and waco:furious3:

You have the right to not let the police search you unless they think there is probable cause, refusing the search is considered probable cause by many:wall:

Ok,you like the Military,but oh well dude, that what they supposed to do,follow orders to protect this nation..

and if you don't let the cops search your house,they will bust in anyhow in a Fit trying to find stuff..

*Sorry Ser, I copy and pasted the wrong messaged eariler*

scooter_the_shooter

06-07-2006, 23:34

So when the government says jump you say how high?~;)

Taking innocent people's guns has nothing to do with protecting this nation.

I know they will search any way that's why I don't like cops in general. They should serve us and do as the people tell them, not the other way around:idea2:

Tribesman

06-07-2006, 23:35

The agencies, look what they've done, Wire taps and waco
Now that is something I cannot understand , some peoples stance on Waco .
The stance seems to be based entirely on the fact that the religeous nuts had guns and the evil government was going to take their guns because of allegations that the guns were illegal , and you cannot take peoples guns because that is un-American .
So OK leave aside the allegations of illegal weapons and illegal explosives on the warrant , because it is clearly perfectly acceptable to shoot any law enforcement officer acting on a legal warrant who wants to take away weapons .
What about the child sex abuse allegations on the warrant , is it acceptable for anyone with a gun to shoot a law enforcement officer acting on a legal warrant if that officer might take the suspected paedophiles guns aswell ?

Honestly , it appears that some people think that the second amendment is the only law that matters in America .

scooter_the_shooter

06-07-2006, 23:39

I think they made up the pedophile charges so people would be ok with it. I also think they started the fire.

Tribesman

06-08-2006, 00:00

A simple question for you ceasar .
Is it acceptable to shoot a law enforcement officer in the execution of his duty . Yes or No ?

scooter_the_shooter

06-08-2006, 00:24

I've thought about this a few times and I can't make up my mind. (I've even flip flopped a few times, I can't decide.)

Say a cop is confiscating guns because they were all banned. One part of me would really really really like to shoot him. But the common sense part of me comes in and says "would it be worth destroying your life over an maybe dying" and the old "but he is just doing his job" "I bet he has a family." "it would be a mortal sin"

In a normal situation like him giving a ticket....of course not shooting him then would be crazy!

I am undecided on this:no:

Crazed Rabbit

06-08-2006, 00:41

Hmmm. What am I seeing? Not proof.

As is obvious, the fact that I know something about UK laws is why I am asking for proof of your claims. Really quite simple.

Interesting , since this post.......
Still no proof.

I doubt you can buy handguns. The controls are so strict that their Olympic pistol team must train outside the country.

And isn't anything beyond a single shot shotgun or rifle really hard to legally aquire?

.......and a multitude of others you have made show that you know bugger all about Britains firearm laws .:2thumbsup:

Oh really? It seems parliment disagrees:

EDM 1930
EXEMPTIONS FOR THE SPORT OF OLYMPIC PISTOL SHOOTING 28.03.2006
Hoey, Kate
That this House recognises the importance of the success of Michael Gault in the pistol shooting events in the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne; and, conscious of the fact that most of his training and that of other world-class pistol shooters has had to take place outside Great Britain due to the gun laws, calls on the Home Secretary to exempt the sport of Olympic pistol shooting from the handgun ban to allow athletes for the London Olympics to train at home.

(http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=30407&SESSION=875)

What about the child sex abuse allegations on the warrant , is it acceptable for anyone with a gun to shoot a law enforcement officer acting on a legal warrant if that officer might take the suspected paedophiles guns aswell ?

If the feds were so concerned about the children, why didn't they just arrest the leader while he picked up groceries instead of pouring heavy machine gun fire into the house and then burning it down? You are aware that the feds only brought out the child abuse charges after the siege had begun? And that the whole thing started over a $200 tax?

You seem to think it is a credible scenario that the government would seek to impose repression on us by armed force. But, using what? No way would the British armed forces take up arms against UK citizens. Nor would the police, and they aren't armed anyway. People still remember the Peterloo massacre and that was in 1819, that's how ingrained the impossbility of using the army against the people is.

Obviously you have less faith in the US armed forces.

Yes. I would be more concerned about federal agencies like the ATF and FBI than the army though. I guess a better question, giving your faith in the law enforcement and military, is what would you do if the change was gradual (like ID cards and worse) instead of the government just up and saying "This is a dictatorship!"? Slow accustomation to oppression, every new law passed for public safety, etc.

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman

06-08-2006, 08:13

scooter_the_shooter

06-08-2006, 13:39

Now if you take away the "human" side of it, I would say go ahead in a heart beat, It's kinda' hard getting over that it would a be a person you are killing.(see I'm not crazy~;) )

The only way I feel ok supporting the death penalty, is I never think of the human side of the person to be executed, I block it out completely then it's just like killing a fox who attacks the chickens. But it's hard to think like that about some one who is, probably not a bad guy.

BTW I should have put a comma in my last post:help: (it looks like I said shoot when i said not shoot)

I use to think, Kill em all if they come for my guns! Thomas Jeffeson said we could!

Then I met a cop and shot at the range a few times with him. And I thought dear god thats !@#$%ing crazy!

Right now I don't know, hopefully they leave my guns alone and I never need to make up my mind.

And no I don't think it's disturbing that can't make my mind up. Many people think the @nd amendment is the most important law because It preserves the rest, but there has to be people willing to use it and that is my dilemma. (would I use it)

Rabbit go read the disaster scenario in the UK, thread at the high road. It is in general gun discussion. I learned more there about the laws then i have any where else. (it's not even two pages long)

Tribesman

06-08-2006, 17:41

Rabbit go read the disaster scenario in the UK, thread at the high road. It is in general gun discussion. I learned more there about the laws then i have any where else. (it's not even two pages long)
An interesting source , but since he has clearly already found his way to a british government website then he should have no touble accessing all the information he needs concerning Britain gun laws .
Though of course he only bothered posting an early day motion that was doomed to failure , doomed to fail btw because it has already been extensively debated previously on several occasions and been found to be impractical and unworkable .

Nice reply BTW ceasar ,:2thumbsup:
It shows you gave some thought to a very simple question .

Crazed Rabbit

06-09-2006, 03:10

You are aware that the feds only brought out the child abuse charges after the siege had begun? And that the whole thing started over a $200 tax?

Hmmmmmmm..... are you talking rubbish , the affidavit is issued , signed and dated Feb 25th , the ATF went in on Feb 28th .

No, you are simply ignorant of the incident.

Still no proof.

So you still havn't read Britains gun laws .
:laugh4:

You state something, you come up with the supporting evidence. Elementary, really.

Oh really? It seems parliment disagrees:

Disagrees with what ? That if a sportsman wants to use a pistol that is not allowed under the exemptions then they cannot use it ???????

Disagrees with you. You said that my claim that their Olympic shooters needed to train out of country meant I knew 'bugger all' about UK firearms laws. The supreme irony is that you agree with this assesment of mine below.

Let's review:
1) I claim Olympic shooters must train out of country.
2) You say I know 'bugger all' about firearms laws
3) I point out a parliment bill that would allow Olympic shooters to practice in Britain.
4) You dodge the evidence, as is your custom, and bring up a non-sequitor.

I doubt you can buy handguns.
Wrong , you can buy handguns , if they meet the legal requirement .

The legal requirements are such that allowed 'handguns' do not represent the vast majority of production handguns. You also need a license - so you cannot even simply buy even allowed 'handguns'.

The controls are so strict that their Olympic pistol team must train outside the country.

If they want to shoot handguns that are not allowed then they cannot .
So you agree with my original assesment, and thus disagree with your response? What tangled webs you weave, you crazy Irishman.

What is allowed , both for handguns , shotguns , firearms(including shotguns that do not fall into the shotgun category) ,mortars , grenades , rocket launchers.......is all clearly set out in section 5 of the firearms act .
You do know the firearms legislation don't you ????Or have you still not read it:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

You act as if I claimed that I did. Pack up your strawman and be own your way.

Crazed Rabbit

EDIT: ceasar010, done and done. But how am I supposed to tell the difference between the average pale faced Englishman and a zombie? ~;p

Tribesman

06-09-2006, 08:27

No, you are simply ignorant of the incident.

So not only do you know nothing about other countries firearms laws which you repeatedly write about , you also know nothing about Waco (or Ruby Ridge) which you repaetedly write about .
Its all in black and white reputing your claims about Waco , in fact the child sex abuse investigation predates the illegal firearms investigation .

You state something, you come up with the supporting evidence. Elementary, really.

Exactly Rabbit , you repeatedly state things about other countries firearms laws , yet there is no supporting evidence to back up your claims .

Let's review:
1) I claim Olympic shooters must train out of country.
2) You say I know 'bugger all' about firearms laws
3) I point out a parliment bill that would allow Olympic shooters to practice in Britain.
4) You dodge the evidence, as is your custom, and bring up a non-sequitor.

1 Olympic shooters must train out of the country , if they want to use a weapon that is not allowed , if they use a weapon that is allowed , then they can train wherever they want , as long as the location fits within the parameteers of the legislation , you have read the legislation ?oh sorry , you havn't have you :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
2 It is clearly evident that you know bugger allabout other countries firearms laws , which is why it is so strange that you choose to write about them so often .
3 It wasn't a bill , it was already debated when the bill was being drawn up and rejected , it has been put forward as a motion several times and been rejected , it is rejected as unworkable .
4 You have presented no evidence , in fact with your claims about the laws and the Waco incident it appears that not only do you present no evidence you present complete fabrications .

The legal requirements are such that allowed 'handguns' do not represent the vast majority of production handguns. You also need a license - so you cannot even simply buy even allowed 'handguns'.
??????????Hnmmmmm....crazy Rabbit indeed

So you agree with my original assesment, and thus disagree with your response?
I see , you not only have difficulty with the truth , you have difficulty with the English language .:no:

You act as if I claimed that I did. Pack up your strawman and be own your way.
Ah finally , so you do repeatedly write about legislation that you have not read and have no knowledge of , what a surprise.......whoda thunk it eh :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

English assassin

06-09-2006, 09:58

I had a think about this and a look on the subject on a shooting forum I use, and Tribesman is right, but I don't understand why the olympic team have such a problem.

CR, you will remember that you need "good reason" to be licenced for a (rifled) firearm in the UK. There is no law that says self defence is not a good reason (indeed, until the 1950s the police accepted it was). Also, a prohibited weapon (listed in s.5 of the firearms act) can be authorised directly by the Home office. A number of posters on the other forum agreed that there were at least a few thousand legally held handguns in NI, licensed under s.5 by the home office and held for self defence.

What I don't understand, therefore, is whilst it is true that the olympic pistol team train out of the country, WHY do they have to? The Home office has the power under exisiting legislation to grant them the right to shoot a prohibited weapon, and I would have thought being in the olympic team was good reason for the basic FAC.

In short, the problem doesn't seem to be the law, it seems to be some paper shuffling bureaucrat who has, presumably, decided that bona fide international competition does not justify an exception to s.5.

In the longer term there will be a problem with new people coming into the sport of course. I'm not too sure how I feel about this, although I like shooting myself I can probably live with Britain not having an Olympic pistol team. And if handguns were brought back on FACs, and there was another Dunblane, the result would probably be banning all firearms, so on the whole I think its better if we all keep our heads down on this one.

Tribesman

06-09-2006, 19:42

I had a think about this and a look on the subject on a shooting forum I use, and Tribesman is right,

Shhhhhh don't tell rabbit , this is fun .

but I don't understand why the olympic team have such a problem.

The problem is that the exemption would be unworkable , though of course there will be an exemption for the actual olympics .
There are many different categories of shooting in the Olympics , the vast majority of those categories are not effected by the firearms legislation (apart from simple things like licensing and location) . The exemption put forward at the time the bill was passed , and on several occasions afterwards is simply impractible and unworkable .
What is an Olympic shooter , is it a member of the team , a past member of the team , a possible future member of the team ????? What about Provincial teams , should they be entitled to the same exemptions ? Regional teams , local shooting club teams , some bloke down the pub that wants to start a team???????
Should they all get exemptions?
What about the fellow that wants to go to a machine gun competition , should he be exempt from the ban on machine guns ?
Completely unworkable .

So Rabbit the moral of the story is don't try and argue about legislation if you are not familiar with the legislation , don't talk about Olympic shooting if you do not know about Olympic shooting (marriage does give me an unfair advantage there:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: ) , don't invent rubbish about events that are easily available as a matter of public record , oh , and don't let your emotions get in the way as that is alledgedly a leftist trait .

EA , if you (just out of enthusiasm) want to shoot weapons that are normally beyond the permit of ordinary citizens in Britain , you can as long as you follow the correct proceedures
Have you an idea where those legal locations might be ?

It really riled me that in the States I could not fire certain weapons because of their draconian firearms legislation and circumstances unexpected meant that the trip to a location where I could fire those weapons was put off . Damn those American gun laws :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
What was even worse was that I neded a permit to drive a vehicle over there , what sort of country is it that has legislation about vehicles ??????Outrageous , they are just inannimate pieces of metal ~;)

Edit to addAlso, a prohibited weapon (listed in s.5 of the firearms act) can be authorised directly by the Home office. A number of posters on the other forum agreed that there were at least a few thousand legally held handguns in NI, licensed under s.5 by the home office and held for self defence.

Any opinion on the granting of handgun licences to Sinn Fein members for self defence? I don't know if it got much news coverage over there .Though maybe it did when Paisley ranted about it to Gen. Chastelain

scooter_the_shooter

06-09-2006, 21:15

i
t to addAlso, a prohibited weapon (listed in s.5 of the firearms act) can be authorised directly by the Home office. A number of posters on the other forum agreed that there were at least a few thousand legally held handguns in NI, licensed under s.5 by the home office and held for self defence.

I know there are still some hand guns in the uk with a normal barrel lenth (12 inches is redicoulous for a normal hand gun!) but I thought thats because they were made before 1919? Ive read they had (some.... not that much but a little) common sense and let people keep grandpa's old sidearm.

Isn't there something there that will let you have rare hand guns also?

How do you get the self defence permit thing?

Any opinion on the granting of handgun licences to Sinn Fein members for self defence? I don't know if it got much news coverage over there

Fine by me. I am ok with even convicted felons owning guns and carrying them. (if we can't trust them with a gun why are they out in society?)

Tribesman

06-09-2006, 21:28

How do you get the self defence permit thing?

When in Britain there are two reliable sources of information , the taxi- driver and the policeman , the taxi diriver would not be the ideal source to ask for a legal pistol permit , which leaves.......
If you go to the Met.police website you can download all the applications for permits that you could possibly need , even those permits for foriegn visitors who wish to go to Britain to shoot , amazing innit for a country that bans guns.:laugh4: (not a dig at you Ceasar) .
Self defence handgun permits are very hard to get though , it generally has to be issued because your life is known to be in mortal danger from a nutter with a gun .

Crazed Rabbit

06-10-2006, 02:35

No, you are simply ignorant of the incident.

Its all in black and white reputing your claims about Waco , in fact the child sex abuse investigation predates the illegal firearms investigation .

Your ignorance persists. (http://www.davekopel.com/Waco/Arts/wachroni.htm) The public charges and demonization of Koresh happened after the siege had begun.

As does your silence on:

If the feds were so concerned about the children, why didn't they just arrest the leader while he picked up groceries instead of pouring heavy machine gun fire into the house and then burning it down?

You state something, you come up with the supporting evidence. Elementary, really.

Exactly Rabbit , you repeatedly state things about other countries firearms laws , yet there is no supporting evidence to back up your claims .

Yes, there is. The Olympic shooters cannot practice in Britain. You prattle on about using allowed weapons and other nonsense as though that disqualified my claims. It does not. They, obviously, do not use allowed weapons. Though an exemption could be granted, it has not, so they must train out of country.

And where, pray tell, is all the evidence for all the things you state?

4 You have presented no evidence , in fact with your claims about the laws and the Waco incident it appears that not only do you present no evidence you present complete fabrications .

So what are you claiming, then? That my claims that the Olympic shooters train outside the country are false? That your ignorance of Waco means I have no evidence? Gone off the deep end, have we?

So you agree with my original assesment, and thus disagree with your response?
I see , you not only have difficulty with the truth , you have difficulty with the English language .:no:
I have problems with English? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Are you sure you want to go down that path again, tribesy?

You act as if I claimed that I did. Pack up your strawman and be own your way.
Ah finally , so you do repeatedly write about legislation that you have not read and have no knowledge of , what a surprise.......whoda thunk it eh :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Oh, tribesy, you're so cute when you try to be clever. :2thumbsup:

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman

06-10-2006, 07:47

Oh dear , you are still posting made up rubbish Rabbit .
The public charges and demonization of Koresh happened after the siege had begun.

Nope , the allegations are in the affidavit that secured the warrant which was issued on the 25th Feb , the ATF went in on that warrant on the 28th Feb . Are you using an alternative type of calendar or are you having difficulty counting ?

Your original claim .
You are aware that the feds only brought out the child abuse charges after the siege had begun? And that the whole thing started over a $200 tax?

Also false .

Yes, there is. The Olympic shooters cannot practice in Britain.
Rabbit , why do you persist in showing your ignorance over legislation that you know nothing about , is it an emotional thing ?

So what are you claiming, then? That my claims that the Olympic shooters train outside the country are false?
The claims that you made are false , simple as that , probably due to the fact that you know bugger all about Britains frearms legislation .
That your ignorance of Waco means I have no evidence? Gone off the deep end, have we?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: evidence :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: tell you what Rabbit , produce a warrant that doesn't contain the child abuse allegations , it don't matter about the date as I know you have difficulty with calendars , choose any date you wish .
You do know where to look don't you ?You must do since you are an expert on Waco , or would you like some help with narrowing down which district and which magistrate issued warrants for Waco .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

I have problems with English?
Rabbit you have big problems with many things , mainly due to your fixation with firearms .:no:

scooter_the_shooter

06-10-2006, 15:30

Ok I'll take a swing at it.

[B]You are aware that the feds only brought out the child abuse charges after the siege had begun? And that the whole thing started over a $200 tax?

Rabbit is right.

Well I don't know enough about the incident to prove this, but I do know the class 3 laws. The whole thing was started cause they had full autos at the compound (I fail to see the problem but ok) if they were made before 1986 they were legal as long as you got a title 2 tax stamp. (many people think there is a class 3 license but there is no such thing) or if you have a dealers license you can make and buy new full autos. I am not sure about this part but I think if you have a dealers license you can't sell any of the class 3 stuff you made. (this includes full autos, short barrel rifles and shotguns, explosives, and something else I can't remember it might be pen guns an such?) So they may have been legal but didn't have their silly tax stamp (just a way to harass law abiding gun owners:furious3: )

And our constitution says we can have em' so I don't care what the ATF says! Rabbit was right because the higher law guarantees them the right to bare arms.

Rabbit you have big problems with many things , mainly due to your fixation with firearms .:no

That's real classy:no:

I fail to see anything wrong with guns! I am just as or maybe more interested in firearms and gun rights as rabbit. I'm not crazy either! Firearms is a very healthy hobby. I don't care if you own 300 guns it does not make you crazy or have problems! The people who have problems are the ones who see a gun and without being threatened or provoked get scared! (i've seen it once:laugh4: )

Sigmund freud said a fear of weapons is a sign od sexual and emotional immaturity.

Yeah I know my grammr is bad:wall:

Tribesman

06-10-2006, 16:35

Rabbit is right.

No Rabbit is wrong , have a clue.......Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of February 1993 Dennis G. Green United States Magistrate Judge Western District of Texas - Waco

Or would you like me to make it really easy and post the entire legal document ~;)

Crazed Rabbit

06-10-2006, 16:55

Nope , the allegations are in the affidavit that secured the warrant which was issued on the 25th Feb , the ATF went in on that warrant on the 28th Feb . Are you using an alternative type of calendar or are you having difficulty counting ?

Guess what? The BATF lied. They knew their was no child abuse (the investigation having closed 10 months before the siege for lack of evidence) and were just using it as an excuse to raid the compound for guns that hadn't had a $200 tax paid on them.

Remember, allegations do not a guilty man make. Presumption of innocence and all that.

Then, when they seriously f'ed things up by trying to make it a big media event and realized that perhaps the public did not like this, they raised the child abuse charges.

Perhaps you should try reading my link, if you are able.

Here's something for you tribesy:

What I don't understand, therefore, is whilst it is true that the olympic pistol team train out of the country

Rabbit you have big problems with many things , mainly due to your fixation with firearms .

Resorting to the old ad homenim, are we? Color me unsurprised.

Crazed Rabbit

English assassin

06-10-2006, 18:45

EA , if you (just out of enthusiasm) want to shoot weapons that are normally beyond the permit of ordinary citizens in Britain , you can as long as you follow the correct proceedures
Have you an idea where those legal locations might be ?

Locations? I don't think that is a big problem. AFAIK (which is not that far) ranges are basically licensed for types of ammunition (and also for fully/semi auto fire, thiough that is only relevant to MOD ranges). This makes sense since its the ammo, not the gun, that is relevant to whether the range is safe for the weapon you want to shoot.

So if you are talking about a handgun you just need a range whose certificate covers 9mm or .38 or whatever it is you are shooting. A lot still do, since those calibers can still be shot from FAC weapons (a lot of the pistol boys went onto lever action winchesters, the classic cowboy rifle, which shoot piston ammunition). The range I go to is licenced for those rounds still, even though its mostly used for rimfire.

Not that many civilian places are licenced for fullbore, but again if you fine one the actual gun ought not to be the issue.

If you want to go fully auto though you would need to join HM forces. AFAIK no civilain range would ever have been cleared for an automatic weapon.

As for SF having concealed carry permits, it doesn't worry me. Hopefully the DUP have them to and they will all meet in one big room and...ahem. Joking aside, if an SF member wants to shoot someone I suspect he (a) wouldn't do it himself and (b) wouldn't use his registered gun. If the NI police agree he needs it for self defence, I'm not going to bitch about that. Martin McGuinness may be annoying (and actually I'm not even sure about that any more), but the man has a right not to be shot at. (Don't tell the paras)

Personally even if the lovely UVF boys were after me I would think it would be a moot point whether I would be any safer carrying a handgun, I hardly ever managed to hit anything with one the few times I shot them before the ban, and that was on a range with ten minutes to shoot one card. Kevlar underpants and running shoes would be a better bet. But I suppose the UVF might not know that.

Tribesman

06-10-2006, 20:12

Well done EA , you got it , though you could add the police and government firing ranges to those of the MOD . BTW you don't have to join the forces to use their facilities , you just have to go though the corect proceedures , get the correct clearance and permission from the relevant authorities , Something that Olypmic athletes whose chosen weapon falls outside of the remit of civilian ranges should have no difficulty obtaining .
And of course those competitors whose chosen weapon does not fall outside of the restrictions can shoot anywhere that meets the requirements for those weapons .

So no olympic athlete has to leave the country to practice , they just have to follow the laws if the tools of their sport carry the requirement , like all civilians .
Now they could choose to go abroad to train , many athletes in many sports do so , but , and this is the big but ,if they want to shoot in the country that they travel to , thayey have to follow the firearms laws of that country and get the neccasary permits and licenses , an dof course either purchase the weapons there or get a firearms importation license .
But don't tell rabbit , he doesn't understand .

Guess what? The BATF lied. They knew their was no child abuse (the investigation having closed 10 months before the siege for lack of evidence) and were just using it as an excuse to raid the compound for guns that hadn't had a $200 tax paid on them.

Oh I see , so you bothered reading the warrant then and discovered that your claims were baseless and false , so now you want to try some new rubbish:no:
I think there is a word to describe that attempt Rabbit , pathetic is the word , do you know what it means ?

Crazed Rabbit

06-10-2006, 21:03

Guess what? The BATF lied. They knew their was no child abuse (the investigation having closed 10 months before the siege for lack of evidence) and were just using it as an excuse to raid the compound for guns that hadn't had a $200 tax paid on them.

Oh I see , so you bothered reading the warrant then and discovered that your claims were baseless and false , so now you want to try some new rubbish:no:
I think there is a word to describe that attempt Rabbit , pathetic is the word , do you know what it means ?

How could I not know what it means? I read what you write very often.

And no, my claims stand.

The BATF regulates alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. they are not a child welfare agency. They were interested in Koresh becuase they thought they could capture a weapon(s) that did not have a $200 tax paid on it. They did not care about the welfare of the children (I am not aware of any medical condition that can be solved by high velocity applications of lead).

So, this thing started because they thought Koresh hadn't paid a $200 tax on some objects. In trying to get a warrant, they also included the stale child abuse charges as added reason to be given a warrant. But those child abuse charges were not the reason the whole thing started.

Just because they included such allegations on the warrant does not mean that it was the prime reason for going after Koresh, or the reason the siege started.

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman

06-10-2006, 21:25

Just because they included such allegations on the warrant does not mean that it was the prime reason for going after Koresh, or the reason the siege started.

Oh I see , but ,and this is an even bigger brighterBUT , you claimed ......You are aware that the feds only brought out the child abuse charges after the siege had begun? And that the whole thing started over a $200 tax?

You do remember what you write don't you ????? If in doubt you can always read it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Crazed Rabbit

06-11-2006, 01:00

Oh I see

I'm glad you have finally banished your ignorance. I hope your numerous allegations of me 'talking rubbish' and assorted comments go down nice with crow.

You do remember what you write don't you ????? If in doubt you can always read it

Yes, and I stand by it. The Feds only brought out the child abuse charges, aka accused Koresh publicly to garner public support, after the siege had begun. This is true. While the child abuse charges were used for the warrant, they were not touted publicy, as they were later in the siege.

Need to bone up a little on your english again, hmm? :idea2:

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman

06-11-2006, 08:58

Oh I see
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Oh dear rabbit , you really cannot understand English can you .:dizzy2:
......You are aware that the feds only brought out the child abuse charges AFTERthe siege had begun?
Or perhaps you live in an alternative reality where law enforcement agencies give a full press conference and read out all the allegations and their plans to serve their warrants before they try and make any arrests .

But don't worry , you can do it all again soon , once the Feds go in after the Fundanmentalist mormons and it ends in a shootout you can claim that it was only about unpaid tax and taking away their guns .:2thumbsup:

Crazed Rabbit

06-11-2006, 17:43

The last flailings of the desperate evoke a bemused pity.

Anyways, I just thought I'd ask you, Tribesy, do you support shooting at, gassing, and driving tanks at children?

Just wondering. After all, you seem to think the whole thing was 'for the children'.

Crazed Rabbit

Tribesman

06-11-2006, 17:54

Crazed Rabbit

06-11-2006, 19:33

So you still do not understand the English language then .
Lets have a quick refresher shall we .
You claim that the british team cannot train in Britain , that is not true
You claim that you cannot buy handguns in Britain, that is not true.
You claim that you casnnot have handguns for self defense , that is not true.
You claim that allegations child abuse were only bought after the siege had begun , that is not true .
Face it Rabbit , you have displayed a real talent for making things up havn't you .

Tribesy, tribesy, tribesy. You seem to have a fine talent for reading what you want to read, and making up things about what other people are saying, not to mention distortion of facts.

One example:

You are aware that the feds only brought out the child abuse charges after the siege had begun?

You claim that allegations child abuse were only bought after the siege had begun

I'll let you see if you can figure that one and the others out.

And am I to take it you do support machine gunning houses with children in them to protect the children? You'd make Big Brother proud.

Crazed Rabbit