The firearm thread

[The Pastor]

My Nagant design is from 1891.

Still a good design

-Indy

apart from the weight, accuracy, stock design.........

[jrandom]

apart from the... accuracy

Tell that to Vasily Zaytsev.

[pritch]

Protecting one's life (and even worse, property) with deadly force is a matter for the Courts to deal with, .

Sorry wrong! Everybody has the right to protect their life, or that of their wife or child. Despite the best efforts of the politicians to date.

The Police, the Courts - and the politicians, will not be present at the time. They only become involved after the event. Better that you are the one attending the court hearing than the would-be rapist murderer or whatever.

[ManDownUnder]

Sorry wrong! Everybody has the right to protect their life, or that of their wife or child. Despite the best efforts of the politicians to date.

The Police, the Courts - and the politicians, will not be present at the time. They only become involved after the event. Better that you are the one attending the court hearing than the would-be rapist murderer or whatever.

I think you might both be on the same page here. I agree with Hitcher and don't expect the Courts or Police to be present. I will act according to the situation at the time but then expect to find myself accountable before the Court for what I did.

To whatever extent possible I might want to keep that in mind but given the urgency of the situation I'd likely find myself in I don't expect the courts, police, law or a whole hell of a lot to be going through my head except protecting me and mine.

[Hitcher]

Sorry wrong! Everybody has the right to protect their life, or that of their wife or child. Despite the best efforts of the politicians to date.

That "right" is a matter for the Courts to determine, as it should be in a "free" society. If a jury of one's peers determines that one was in the right, one will walk free. One does not have the "right" to wander around topping people who one believes to be a threat to one's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

[The Pastor]

That "right" is a matter for the Courts to determine, as it should be in a "free" society. If a jury of one's peers determines that one was in the right, one will walk free. One does not have the "right" to wander around topping people who one believes to be a threat to one's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

but i want his shoes!

[Mr Merde]

but i want his shoes!

Why?

From memory you prefer to not wear them.

or is it just


"because"

[Wolf]

Protection the life of me and mine with deadly mean I can justify. Protecting property (a tv, a bike or.. something else?) is something I struggle with and disagree.

...

The right to own and use a gun must be accompanied by the skill to use it and the accountability of using it. No matter who it is (Police, Civvy or anyone in between) they betten have a bloody good reason to take the life of another.

"He was taking my TV" ain't even CLOSE. "I was under the strong impression I/person xyz was about to die" is ok

Sorry wrong! Everybody has the right to protect their life, or that of their wife or child. Despite the best efforts of the politicians to date.

I think you might both be on the same page here. I agree with Hitcher and don't expect the Courts or Police to be present. I will act according to the situation at the time but then expect to find myself accountable before the Court for what I did.

That "right" is a matter for the Courts to determine, as it should be in a "free" society. If a jury of one's peers determines that one was in the right, one will walk free. One does not have the "right" to wander around topping people who one believes to be a threat to one's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Even in America, most state laws reflect that the shooter will be liable for at least a preliminary hearing to determine whether or not ther might be a case for unwarranted use of deadly force or murder - as pointed out by no lesser personage than Massad Ayoob (weapons trainer for police and civilians alike and founder of the Lethal Force Institute.)

I've read one of his books on using a firearm in self defence and he makes it quite clear that if you just pull out a weapon and blaze away at someone, you are likely to wind up in jail on a murder charge. His Institute spends a considerable chunk of its course instructing trainees in the law and so far none of his graduates have ever been convicted of inappropriate use of deadly force because they are aware of the ramifications and ensure that when they do resort to lethal means of self-defence, they are in a position to successfully defend that action - and have done so.

There's the old NRA bumper sticker (and t-shirt, wall sign etc etc) "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six" which testifies to the outcome of resorting to the use of firearms in self-defense.

Sadly, not everyone stops to consider if the situation really does warrant the use of lethal means. Usually, the juries have no difficulty in coming to that conclusion and the trigger-happy person faces the consequences.

Here, "shoot to kill" is not permitted - if you say you intended to kill your attacker, you are facing a murder charge, even if you quite justifiably had reason to believe your life (or that of someone else) was in danger and the use of a firearm was actually warranted.

Here, it's "shoot to stop" - even for the police. Shooting to stop entails a bullet or two to the centre of mass (torso) - which may actually kill the person but there's also a chance of survival. The idea is that the intent is not to kill but to make the person break off their attack.

[ManDownUnder]

Sadly, not everyone stops to consider if the situation really does warrant the use of lethal means.

...

Here, it's "shoot to stop" - even for the police. Shooting to stop entails a bullet or two to the centre of mass (torso) - which may actually kill the person but there's also a chance of survival. The idea is that the intent is not to kill but to make the person break off their attack.

Noted and thanks - that clarified a few things for me. I always had that concept but my choice of words was poor.

[pritch]

That "right" is a matter for the Courts to determine, as it should be in a "free" society. .

Times have changed.

There have been instances in this country where a homeowner has shot an intruder (non-fatal) and no prosecution followed. Which was entirely appropriate in the circumstances.

The circumstances where self defence can be justified though are limited:
You can't go anywhere with a gun, you'd need to be inside the house.
You can't shoot the intruder in the back and realistically claim you were in fear of your life.
You can't tell people in advance that you are going to shoot the next intruder, (as happened in recent years in Britain).

As a farmer once said to me, "I'm fifty minutes from town, if anything happens it'll be over before the Police get here. I'm going to be the one standing here to tell them about it."

[Wolf]

Times have changed.

There have been instances in this country where a homeowner has shot an intruder (non-fatal) and no prosecution followed. Which was entirely appropriate in the circumstances.

No prosecution may have resulted but it generally takes a trial by jury to determine that the actions were appropriate in the circumstances.

The circumstances where self defence can be justified though are limited:
You can't go anywhere with a gun, you'd need to be inside the house.

And then there's the whole "firearm, bolt and ammunition are to be stored separately under lock and key" thing to be gotten around. You might successfully demonstrate to a jury that the circumstances dictated "shooting to stop" but still wind up in a power of shit for having a loaded firearm in such a location as to be easily accessed. A prosecution lawyer would be sure to make a meal of that one and probably try to claim "premeditation" (therefore murder) on your part. Even if you get off "premeditated murder", failure to store the firearm as per the law is still an offence.

You can't shoot the intruder in the back and realistically claim you were in fear of your life.

Natch. Pretty hard to claim he's a threat to life and limb when he's not even looking at you.

You can't tell people in advance that you are going to shoot the next intruder, (as happened in recent years in Britain).

Sufficient grounds for a charge of premeditated murder. Likewise in the States it's not wise to mouth off about "drop guns" (ones you plant on a person you just killed in error so you can claim you were right in your fear that he was reaching for a pistol) as that's exactly the sort of thing that gets brought up at your trial...

[Hitcher]

There have been instances in this country where a homeowner has shot an intruder (non-fatal) and no prosecution followed. Which was entirely appropriate in the circumstances.

Really? When?

[sAsLEX]

Here, "shoot to kill" is not permitted

CoM is so they don't miss. An armed suspect is a threat until he stops breathing,twitching or anything until that weapon is out of his hand.

And then there's the whole "firearm, bolt and ammunition are to be stored separately under lock and key" thing to be gotten around.

A lot of us have firearms as a hobby. It would not be unusual to have a weapon out for cleaning, maintenance, loading rounds etc

[sAsLEX]

That "right" is a matter for the Courts to determine, as it should be in a "free" society. If a jury of one's peers determines that one was in the right, one will walk free. One does not have the "right" to wander around topping people who one believes to be a threat to one's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Shouldn't law determine what is our "right"? Rather than a group of 12 possibly inept emotional beings passing on their interpretations of your "right"?

The jury then decides if what you did was within the law.

[Hitcher]

Shouldn't law determine what is our "right"? Rather than a group of 12 possibly inept emotional beings passing on their interpretations of your "right"?

The jury then decides if what you did was within the law.

The "law" is just tablets of stone. Somebody has to interpret and apply it to certain circumstances. In this case the Courts fill that role. If you were successful in getting our justice system changed then perhaps a High Priest or Shaman could do it instead.