PDA

View Full Version : How would you deal with an intruder in your home?


Cheerio
7th Aug 2006, 00:38
A year or so ago, I forgot to lock my house at night. I have an alarm that makes a beeping sound whenever an external door is opened. About 3am, I heard the beep and went to investigate. I found a guy in the hall. I was stark naked, without my contact lenses in and less than ready for a scuffle. Luckily, the sight of a naked cheerio is enough to discourage the most determined intruder, and he scarpered. :)
Since then I keep a decent tactical knife in my bedside drawer (I just about remember how they work). I caught another scumbag in my garden tonight - he scarpered too, but what about those who are a bit more determined? What do you do? I have a wife and kids to think about.

G-CPTN
7th Aug 2006, 00:41
Depends where you are. In Texas you let the Peacemaker speak. In the UK a protective dog (needn't be BIG, a Jack Russell will do, intruders don't like having their ankles bitten).

Revolutionarry
7th Aug 2006, 00:58
Be more aggressive than the intruder, put the fear of god into the B*****d and make him run for his life, make him think he's taking on an absolute Head the ball and he will run like the clappers, you probably wont have to touch the B*****d, if you do make sure the first blow counts and give him absolutly no chance to get one in

planepsycho
7th Aug 2006, 01:12
if the intruder gets past this......


http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b242/ameliasnoggin/jim.jpg

then there's nothing a butt full of buckshot won't cure:E

rotated
7th Aug 2006, 01:29
"Go ahead, make my day..." :E

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b170/rotated/sword6.jpg

:ok:

Felix Saddler
7th Aug 2006, 01:49
Shoot his legs with a very powerful paintball gun!

AA SLF
7th Aug 2006, 01:57
In Texas - we try our damnest to kill 'em! ! As Planepsycho says a shotgun (which I have) is a very effective thing. Also keep my Glock-.40 in the drawer next to my bed. PLease be sure that if you have gotten a good shot in that you are slow to call the police - DO NOT - call an ambulance, cause the longer that EMS takes to get there the more the perp will bleed out. . . .

Felix Saddler
7th Aug 2006, 01:59
AA SLF, you are mad my friend.

AMF
7th Aug 2006, 02:19
A 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #1 buckshot is the optimum answer to a home intruder. #1 uses .30 caliber pellets, thus generating a denser pattern at room-range than the more commonly used 00 buckshot (which uses fewer, .33 caliber pellets) yet gives up virtually no hitting power.

No need for magnum loads with a shotgun either. 2 3/4" loads are more than sufficient at the range we are talking about. Also, you don't want overpenetration through walls or through them (meaning the intruder).

But don't run out and buy a 12 gauge if you already own a 20. He11, even a kid's .410 is more powerful at 15' than a .44 magnum.

And nothing is more intimidating than a shotgun. That's why cops call them "riot guns", and sheriffs in the Old West (contrary to Hollywood cliches) used them as their primary persuasion for peacemaking. Chances are whoever it is you're confronting will think better of the situation and leave even before the cops (who I'll assume you've already called) get there if they see, or know, you have one.

Just be willing to use it. Dogs might be okay scare away a burglar who's there to steal your new LCD TV, but won't even slow down someone who's intent is to do you or your family harm. Dogs are easy to kill.

con-pilot
7th Aug 2006, 02:22
AA SLF, you are mad my friend.

Really, I assume you are an expert on home defense then?

If someone breaks into my home and attacks my family they will wish they were dead. And I don't own a gun.

However, I do recommend double ought buck.:p It will take out the intruder but not hit anything behind them.

galaxy flyer
7th Aug 2006, 02:33
Even in the People's Republic of Mass. a man's home is his castle! The .45 Colt Auto and a shotgun should be used FIRST!, then the phone. AMF is quite right on #1, too. Much better at short ranges than 00. Do have the gun far enough away from the bed to ensure being wide awake upon grabbing it. Like the .45 best.

GF

AMF
7th Aug 2006, 02:51
Even in the People's Republic of Mass. a man's home is his castle! The .45 Colt Auto and a shotgun should be used FIRST!, then the phone. AMF is quite right on #1, too. Much better at short ranges than 00. Do have the gun far enough away from the bed to ensure being wide awake upon grabbing it. Like the .45 best.
GF

I love Colt .45 autos.

BenThere
7th Aug 2006, 03:07
My dog will alert me, then I'll decide based on the situation whether to capture the intruder or stop him with my Kimber .45 semi with two 7 round clips. I prefer the latter.

AA SLF
7th Aug 2006, 03:18
I prefer to "capture" the perp whilst he is bleeding out from some form of a gunshot! ! ! The gunshot does tend to sharpen their awareness of the imminent arrival of DEATH. Thus - this tends to loosen their tongue regards "WTF were you doing in my Home - ya MUTT???" **** "Em if they can't take a gunshot joke . . . . . . :suspect:

AMF
7th Aug 2006, 03:27
If someone is so stupid to intrude into another's home in a country where the populace is generally armed and has a right to defend it using deadly force, it's practically our duty to remove the aforementioned dummy from the gene pool and deposit him into the hereafter via seven .45 caliber (or one 12 gauge) installments.

con-pilot
7th Aug 2006, 03:29
Okay guys, now be ready to be lambasted by every accidental shooting the history of the US.

Then yet very day we hear about more and more home invasions in the UK and Europe. More armed robberies, more mugging, more rapes, etc.

Of course some people do not want to point out the fact that when Florida passed the concealed weapons law the sudden decrease of armed crime.

Oh well, we are use to criticism.:p

AMF
7th Aug 2006, 03:36
Okay guys, now be ready to be lambasted by every accidental shooting the history of the US.
Then yet very day we hear about more and more home invasions in the UK and Europe. More armed robberies, more mugging, more rapes, etc.
Of course some people do not want to point out the fact that when Florida passed the concealed weapons law the sudden decrease of armed crime.
Oh well, we are use to criticism.:p

Of course. They've always been critical of our keeping of guns. Let's not forget that on April 19th, 1775 their direct (or at least spiritual) ancestors were on their way to Concord, Mass to take some guns away from us when we chose to answer them in terms they could finally understand.

That was definitely a "home intrusion" as well, and see?.....our same response worked then too.

Wino
7th Aug 2006, 06:41
Shoot him till the gun is empty.

Cheers
Wino

Loose rivets
7th Aug 2006, 06:54
How would you deal with an intruder in your home?


I'd put my cards on the table.:}

Howard Hughes
7th Aug 2006, 06:58
Glock's, shot gun's, big kick ass knives, sometimes I just wish I lived in the good ole US of A...:ok:

Saintsman
7th Aug 2006, 08:10
We can't use shotguns in the UK - it would infringe the intruder's human rights if we shot them....:hmm:

HOGE
7th Aug 2006, 08:22
This to me is one of the many attractions of the States, the right to defend yourself properly in your own home.

If I ever got the chance to emmigrate, my first stop would be at the estate agents, the second stop would be the gunsmiths.

Solid Rust Twotter
7th Aug 2006, 08:31
Doesn't work in SA.

A friend was shot in the chest by intruders who broke into his home one night. While lying in the passage his wife brought him his pistol while the intruders went off and killed his brother in the garden cottage. On their return he shot at them and sent them scurrying off, wounding one fatally in the process. This scrote later died while trying to leave the premises. The police turned up more than an hour after being called (the police station is three blocks from where he lives) and immediately cornered his ten year old son and tried to intimidate him into saying his father had shot first. The kid told them the truth and stuck to his story, with which the cops were not at all pleased. Even so the victim in all this found himself charged with murder for the death of the scrote, having already lost his brother to the bastards. He also has a large scar on his chest where the bullet entered and a surgical scar on his back from the extraction of the round. Six weeks recovery and loss of business as he's self employed, coupled with police harassment and incompetence.

Justice in SA? What a sick joke....:* :(

CharlieBarlie
7th Aug 2006, 08:35
Any chance of hiring Jerricho's MIL for night-watch? ;)

Ace Rimmer
7th Aug 2006, 08:36
Since you are not allowed to have any weapon of use in your house in the UK -the huggy fluffs don't like it see.

It'll have to be a whack with an old 3 iron I retain for the purpose...but the fact I have said equipment will probably constitute malice aforethought when the said scrote's lawyers get to work...

419
7th Aug 2006, 08:49
Shoot him till the gun is empty

And then have his mate walk in from another room:{

Buster Cherry
7th Aug 2006, 08:54
The cellar scene in Pulp Fiction...
Bring out the Gimp. (accompanied with a pair of pliers & a blow torch):E

tubthumper
7th Aug 2006, 09:05
Why do I think this thread will NOT degenerate into another "slap the Yanks" tirade? If the laws over here were more akin to the laws over there, and I found some nauseating little ned in my house without an invite while my wife and daughters were sleeping, I'd take some pleasure in depriving him of a kneecap for his trouble.

In the mean time, didn't one of your Presidents once say, "Walk softly, and carry a big stick".


Amen

AMF
7th Aug 2006, 10:32
Why do I think this thread will NOT degenerate into another "slap the Yanks" tirade? If the laws over here were more akin to the laws over there, and I found some nauseating little ned in my house without an invite while my wife and daughters were sleeping, I'd take some pleasure in depriving him of a kneecap for his trouble.
In the mean time, didn't one of your Presidents once say, "Walk softly, and carry a big stick".
Amen

"Speak softly, and carry a big stick".

Teddy Roosevelt

He'd also recommend for you (with you and your family's life at stake) to forget the notion of shooting-to-wound. Legs hold the highest percentage of miss probablility, and knee-capping only works in the movies, or in real life when the knee-capee is immobile and helpless. Rather, he'd say to aim for the torso centerline with the intent to delete the intruder for good.

EndResult
7th Aug 2006, 11:35
Not sure how true this is but I heard it said that in the UK if you keep any piece of sporting equipment, such as a base ball bat, cricket bat, golf club etc. available to deal with intruders and the police investigation reveals that you don't participate it the sport that you have the equipment for then you will be 'done' as this constitutes possessing a thing for violent use etc. etc. and is not reasonable defence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I said, not sure if that is true or just a story.

Manxman11
7th Aug 2006, 11:44
According to a policeman I spoke to when he was carrying out a security survey at my house that is true. Although compared to our American friends, who I envy over their ability to defend themselves properly, this sounds pathetic, he recommended a heavy law enforecement type flashlight to knock them out with as at night you have every legitimate reason to be "armed" with a flashlight.

What hope is there for a society where the criminal has more rights than the victim?:ugh: :ugh: As for criminals threatening my family - I would love to be able to go by the saying (I forget who said it) "Kill em all and let God sort em out!:E

Ace Rimmer
7th Aug 2006, 11:56
I think the legal deal is the use 'of proportional and reasonable force' to either defend yourself or others and/or detain a wrong doer until the cops arrive.

This is where it gets murky - what is reasonable force? - ( I could be wrong ofeten am) I seem to remember that the main crux of the prosecution case when the East Anglian farmer was done for manslaughter awhile back was that he shot the scrote while he was running away.

I understand from a copper mate of mine that if you banjo a burglar while he is in your house you will be pretty much OK but chase him down the street and banjo him in the same manner and you may be on a sticky legal wicket.

rotated
7th Aug 2006, 12:09
use 'of proportional and reasonable force'

That's why I love my 400 year-old frogsticker, it is wise enough to whittle off only the bits that are causing trouble... :E :ok:

Foss
7th Aug 2006, 12:17
I've got my favourite shotgun loaded with one round of solid rifled slug, and the other with no.3, thats on full choke.
The other single barrel gun is in another bedroom, with no.3.

Also got a .22 air rifle in case an angry midget breaks in.

Fos

teeteringhead
7th Aug 2006, 12:27
a Jack Russell will do, intruders don't like having their ankles bitten... last intruder into my house WAS a Jack Russell - from a neighbours garden. Little fecker was a pain to get rid of - and it wasn't me ankles that got bitten!

Another helpful piece of advice I had from the filth once was to keep your "weapon" of choice (golf club, clicky-ba or big torch) close to hand. Not only would you always find it but "I was so scared I grabbed the nearest thing" is a better line than "so I went to the spare room for a big hammer" which betokens intent...

Kolibear
7th Aug 2006, 12:41
I'd send Mrs K to investigate.

frostbite
7th Aug 2006, 12:51
The advice in the UK appears to consist of 'attempt to establish a serious counselling engagement'.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
7th Aug 2006, 14:12
In an attempt to slow the thread down with a little reason...

...it's absolutely no use arming yourself to the teeth, no matter how stimulating the thought, unless you actually know how to use the weapons, can diferentiate a burgular from a neighbour, and especially in an densely populated environment use a projectile that won't penetrate the wall into the appartment next door.

So yes, bad guys who enter your house to rob are ...erm...bad and maybe even deserve to die, but at least approach the subject rationally. Real life is a lot different from a movie.




My arrmament is simply to bore them to death :zzz:

airship
7th Aug 2006, 14:27
Well, if I survived, I'd probably mutter something like "Oi, yer not off that aircraft carrier that tried to make that lighthouse get out of the way are you...?!" ;)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/77/A-6_Intruder.jpg

Cheerio
7th Aug 2006, 14:56
My motivation would be in order:

1) Get them to leave the house (empty handed)
2) Get them to leave the house with whatever it was they were nicking
3) Get them to leave the house without assaulting anyone

The response would be proportionate to the situation.

I'd always give someone the opportunity to leave with no further ado.

If they refuse to leave, its time to use some judgement. If you are going to get pasted, then lock yourself away and call for help. If you feel you have the ability, then go after them, but keep a hidden defensive weapon at hand, in case things go bad.

If someone came on with clear intent to GBH in a house containing my family, I would have no hesitation in doing whatever was necessary to take that person down, permanently, by surprise if need be.

Improvised weapons are mostly of limited use in the confines of a house - you would be lucky to get in anything more ambitious than a bunt with a baseball bat.

Most professional housebreakers will clear off if disturbed. Its the drug addicts after funds that are dangerous. Fair enough if they just swipe your DVD player, but if they come upstairs looking for whatever, things are going to get nasty. How does the law allow someone 'past their prime' to defend his family - the Mick McManus stuff is no longer an option.
A tazer or mace would be a reasonable response if it were legal.
But if your light is on the wane, you do need to back up your defence with 'tools', and face the subsequent legal consequences. Once you have faced up to the shock of encountering an intruder, it does alert you to the issues of personal security in your home, and even if they do actually revert to type and scarper, what if they didn't?

Flying Lawyer
7th Aug 2006, 14:59
EndResult Not sure how true this is but ..... It's not true.
Different considerations apply in a public place, but your home isn't a public place.



Manxman11 According to a policeman I spoke to .....Unless the law on the Isle of Man is different from England & Wales, then the policeman was wrong.
Police constables aren't always the most reliable source of information on the law (even when asserted with great confidence), but the limited training they're given on legal matters cover offences of this level so perhaps Manx law is different and he's correct. I don't know.




Ace Rimmer I understand from a copper mate of mine that if you banjo a burglar while he is in your house you will be pretty much OK but chase him down the street and banjo him in the same manner and you may be on a sticky legal wicket. Yes and No.
Even if the burglar is inside the house, the amount of force used has to be 'reasonable'.
Another factor might be what he was doing at the time. eg Trying to steal property or trying to escape empty-handed having been disturbed. .
If he leaves the house and you chase him and 'banjo' him, then what your policeman friend said is correct - you may be on a sticky legal wicket, depending upon what you mean by 'banjo'.

This is where it gets murky - what is reasonable force? I understand your concern.
The 'legal' answer is that, if you are prosecuted, a court will decide whether what you did was reasonable in all the circumstances. However, the legal answer doesn't alter the fact that the householder will have gone through the trauma of being arrested and, if prosecuted, weeks or months of anxiety not knowing which way the verdict will eventually go.
I sometimes read posts in legal discussions on PPRuNe in which people say 'If you haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.' It's utter nonsense.

The enormous public concern at the conviction of Tony Martin (the Norfolk farmer) led to widespread calls for the current law to be reviewed and/or changed. A proposal to allow homeowners to use any means to defend their homes topped a BBC poll on the bill people would most like to see become law. An MP tried to introduce a bill giving legal protection to householders in such circumstances but, although he had considerable support from other MPs, his attempt was blocked by the government.
Despite the extent and strength of public feeling, the government decided it wasn't necessary to review the law to consider whether it should be changed.



FL

Erwin Schroedinger
7th Aug 2006, 15:00
Gorra big knife under the bed.



Just don't tell the girlfriend. :uhoh:

Buster Cherry
7th Aug 2006, 15:07
can diferentiate a burgular from a neighbour

Who gives a toss at 2 o`clock in the morning? Anyone in my house uninvited gets the same treatment. Extreme violence.

C`mon Aaaaaaaaaaaaagh, where`s yer spirit?

Minty Fresh
7th Aug 2006, 15:40
Thats what the pick axe handle's for at the side of the bed !!

Then into the garage with the scroat, thats when he starts wishing we had the same gun laws as the US and he'd just been shot.

Would have to start with the nail punch on his teeth until they're all knocked out, then onto the bolt cutters to cut through the achillies tendon......

When the funs over It'd be a drive out to the Moors somewhere to off load the remains :E

And I haven't got much worth stealing either :}

G-CPTN
7th Aug 2006, 15:43
And I haven't got much worth stealing either :}
The problem is that THEY don't know that. The less you (obviously) have, the more they look for what you've hidden.

FakePilot
7th Aug 2006, 15:55
All that time playing video games has trained me for my intruder. Just like Microsoft Flightsim has trained me to be a pilot :}

Seriously, I keep my vast arsenal under lock and key; I think a ready gun is more of a threat than an intruder. However, this is a judgement call and I respect the decisions of others.

airborne_artist
7th Aug 2006, 16:01
I'd call 999 and ask for an ambulance. Once the Doberman has got him he's going to need plasma, bandages, pain relief and lots more :E

The last guy that came at me had a 3' stick in his hand. He regretted it when I used it on the back of his head - 12 stitches later, and then his mum had the temerity to complain to the Police (who had him under arrest). The Inspector pointed out that three 17 y/o lads starting a fight, each with a weapon (conduit x 1, 4 by 2 x 2) and losing against two initially un-armed 30 year olds really didn't bode too well in court. Just their bad luck that one was a copper and the other was AA.

Cheerio
7th Aug 2006, 16:02
I agree with that Fake, guns are just too easy. They tend to get used on those, by those they are supposed to protect. Squeeze the trigger in anger and then repent at leisure. No problem with them being used properly though.

G-CPTN
7th Aug 2006, 16:04
the other was AA.
Those guys in the yellow vans?


I'd call 999 and ask for an ambulance. Which would probably arrive before the Police unless you said you'd shot them.
There's the story about the householder who called the Police and requested help to deal with intruders. "Nobody available." Two minutes later he called back and said "Not to bother, they're both dead now. No urgency." Immediate response! "But I thought you said there was no-one available?"

airborne_artist
7th Aug 2006, 16:18
Originally Posted by airborne_artist
the other was AA.
Those guys in the yellow vans?:D

I had a BMW 320 at the time, as I recall.

My MiL was told by her local beat officer to call 999 and ask for the fire brigade. The fire station is about 500m away, and although retained, normally on their way in 2 or 3 minutes. The sight of 5 burly blokes with axes would frighten off most burglars :ok:, and I'm sure they'd be happy to intervene on behalf of an 82 year old :E

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
7th Aug 2006, 17:02
Who gives a toss at 2 o`clock in the morning? Anyone in my house uninvited gets the same treatment. Extreme violence.I'm making a mistake by treating this thread seriously aren't I?

However, it was only a month ago when somebody here recounted a situation where he'd almost fired on two people who turned out to be window cleaners.

It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye :(

G-CPTN
7th Aug 2006, 17:07
However, it was only a month ago when somebody here recounted a situation where he'd almost fired on two people who turned out to be window cleaners.
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye :(
You can still clean windows with only one eye. Now one LEG would be problematical . . .

Lance Murdoch
7th Aug 2006, 17:19
I have confronted an intruder before, not one of the timid ones but a drug addict who was with two of his friends.
About 630am they broke in through the front door and one came into my ground floor room (I was a student then) with a machete. At the time I thought he was going to kill me anyway so I punched him several times and nearly got his machete off him at which point two of his friends arrived. After that I decided to do what I was told. After ransacking the house and 'assaulting' my best friends girlfriend over about forty minutes I recieved a good hiding for my troubles. Fortunately I was not seriously hurt (neither was the girl).
From my experience which is not a typical burglary in the UK, I would say the following, if you can scare off the burglar that is the best thing to do. If you have to confront the burglar then the best weapon would be a sawn off shot gun. Pistols arent that good in close up situations where you are likely to be not in the coolest state of mind.
Although, unlike most Britons, I have some sympathy for the American argument against gun control, on balance I would rather have the UK's gun laws for two reasons, 1- How many people are killed by accident or in domestic arguments because of easy availability of firearms and 2- how many householders have been killed by their own gun because they hadnt got what it takes to shoot someone?
As regards my own little incident the 'ringleader' was caught in large part because I cut him when I tried to get his machete and the police got DNA evidence. He got ten years and will be due out soon (after doing his ten years).

scruggs
7th Aug 2006, 17:21
If the fists don't work, my trusty cricket bat is my weapon of choice.

VFE
7th Aug 2006, 17:23
If you run at someone screaming, shouting and waving your fists they'll either crap themselves or spin on their heel.

Either way you have the desired effect. Useful knowledge if you get mugged too.

VFE.

Loose rivets
7th Aug 2006, 17:33
This will blow your mind. Garbage bag dispute?!!!



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us/07shoot.html?th&emc=th

Standard Noise
7th Aug 2006, 17:48
I've always thought the staircase is a handy weapon, as long as you hoik the scumbag head first over the bannister. Followed by a 240lb SN jumping off the top stair. Failing that, I've got a large Maglite by the bed with extra heavy batteries in it.

Who says you need a 3 iron?!

G-CPTN
7th Aug 2006, 17:51
I always carry a large weapon down the front of my trousers . . .


















. . . I wish :{

Mac the Knife
7th Aug 2006, 18:15
38 Special Std Silver 80gr. 1500 Fps/ 400 Ftlbs Glaser Safety Slug Silver 6 Round Pack

G-ZUZZ
7th Aug 2006, 18:19
Why do Americans love guns so much? Serious question.

Lots of people enjoy shooting but have no need to sleep with a loaded pistol under the pillow.

Is this in the hope that someone will break in and they can do a Bruce Willis on him? It's a really weird mentality... I sometimes think the average American lives life in the belief he's in a movie. It would explain a lot of the mannerisms.

Often seems to me that the people who brag about having weapons hidden here and there are the ones who shouldn't be licenced to have one at all.

con-pilot
7th Aug 2006, 18:20
Often seems to me that the people who brag about having weapons hidden here and there are the ones who shouldn't be licenced to have one at all.

Er right, maybe we should leave leave them out in plain sight where small children and the bad guys can find them.

By the way, as I have stated before, I don't own any guns. Now my oldest son has a 12 gage shotgun, but he lives on a 25 acre plot of land out in the countryside. (Varmits you know.)

AcroChik
7th Aug 2006, 18:22
Looking around on the web on this topic I found this from Bashing Burglars: Why the English common law right of self-defence should be restored, posted in 2004:

"While American law on defence of the home differs somewhat from state to state, the millions of residents of the large, "liberal" states of California and New York, for example, can presume anyone who breaks into their homes means to do them harm and can act accordingly. A more explicit Oklahoma statute, passed in response to a spate of violent burglaries, allows householders to use force no matter how slight the perceived threat. Has this "vigilante" legislation resulted in "excess violence"? Just the opposite, the American burglary rate is less than half the English rate. And while 53% of English burglaries occur when someone is at home, only 13% do in America, where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. Violent crime in the US is at a thirty-year low."

Link to entire post: http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000219.php

I do not know if the statistics cited in the post are correct.

slim_slag
7th Aug 2006, 18:24
Just goes to show how wide the Atlantic really is; Brits don't understand why Yanks love to have a gun under a pillow, and Yanks don't understand why Brits don't want cops to carry guns.

Looking at some decisions of juries in both countries is quite illuminating. A jury in the UK convicted a homeowner for shooting a burglar in the back when actually inside his own house. In roughly the same year, a jury in the USA aquitted a homeowner of shooting dead a trick-or-treater through the locked front door.

Both decisions make total sense to me if you consider the society where the deaths took place.

These things demonstrate to me that all crimes should be tried by jury, as they are the only people with the finger on the pulse of their own society. Appointed representatives who decide they are fit to judge us too often just don't have a clue. If justice was seen to be done in the UK, there wouldn't be all this call for us to have guns in our houses, which would probably only increase the death rate because little kids would start shooting their schoolmates.

AcroChik
7th Aug 2006, 18:30
In roughly the same year, a jury in the USA aquitted a homeowner of shooting dead a trick-or-treater through the locked front door.

He was a young Japanese exchange student, not fully fluent in English.

G-CPTN
7th Aug 2006, 18:35
Well he won't try tlick or tleet again . . .



Yea, I know, probably bad taste . . . :ugh:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
7th Aug 2006, 18:37
...and if I remember correctly, he had stopped to ask for directions, though I may be wrong there.

G-ZUZZ
7th Aug 2006, 18:37
Are you saying average Americans don't know the Japanese are our allies now?

G-CPTN
7th Aug 2006, 18:40
Thanks, G-ZUZZ!
That's defused my comments :ok:

AcroChik
7th Aug 2006, 18:40
"Are you saying average Americans don't know the Japanese are our allies now?"

I think my fellow Yanks on this forum would generally agree that the majority of our fellow countrymen haven't a clue. Yes.

planeenglish
7th Aug 2006, 18:52
Using guns is how most people think to deal with intruders. Unfortunately it is also how they settle meatloaf disputes, parking space scuffles, cheating spouses and their lovers, and the list goes on to the ridiculous mistakes idiots make with guns in their possession. It is also how children try to prove to their friends that they are cool "cause my daddies gotta reeeel cool gunn comein look here BillyBob..."
Want to defend you home from burglars? Lock your doors and use an alarm system. :ok:
PE

con-pilot
7th Aug 2006, 18:53
I do remember a case many years ago were a farmer rigged a shotgun to go off when someone opened his barn door. The farmer had suffered a rash of burglaries of farm equiptment.

Sure enough early one morning a suspect broke into the barn and was seriously injured when the shotgun discharged.

The farmer was arrested and found guilty reckless endangerment and attempted manslaughter. I do not remember the farmers sentence.

The reason behind the charges and the guilty verdict was that anyone that opened the door was placed in mortal danger.

Apparently the fact that the person shot was indeed the robber had no bearing on the case.

AcroChik;

A more explicit Oklahoma statute, passed in response to a spate of violent burglaries, allows householders to use force no matter how slight the perceived threat.

That is true, it is called the "Make My Day" law. In fact one can use a personal weapon (if they have a concealed weapon permit) to prevent a crime in public if there is a compelling reason to believe that someone's life is in danger.

I two cases that I remember armed robbers (alleged) have been chased down the street and shot by citizens. One was a home invasion, where the homeowners son had been shot by the robber and the other was a attempted convenience store robbery. In both cases the citizen was not charged.

The point being that professional robbers rarely go into a home when the owners are there. However, the cases responsible for the passing of these laws was due to people wasted on drugs that had no hesitation hurting people to steal things to buy more drugs. Any policeman/woman will tell you that they much prefer dealing with a professional thief as compared to a person drugged up on crack, PCP, etc.

G-ZUZZ
7th Aug 2006, 18:57
That's another thing I've often wondered, what do they mean by a "personal" weapon?

Are you only allowed to use it on people you know well, like the wife? This happens from time to time.

What happens if it's a total stranger you want to shoot? Would you have a second weapon for that?

brickhistory
7th Aug 2006, 19:16
Although a shotgun is terribly effective at putting someone down without being too precise; it's really too unwieldy for home defense. Too long to go down hallways and around corners if needed. Most intimidating sound around, however, is the unmistakable 'racking' of the slide!

I use a .45 with the first round of "snakeshot" that will at least sting like hell and/or let the SOB that I will pull the trigger. Also, won't go through a wall to hit a sleeping kid. After that, all the rounds are loaded for bear! Pray to God I never have to use it, but a bit of practice at the range now and again keeps the basics handy.

As does teaching gun safety to reduce accidents.

con-pilot
7th Aug 2006, 19:28
As does teaching gun safety to reduce accidents.

Number one rule.

Oh, by the way. To receive a "Concealed Weapon Permit", in Oklahoma at least, the person must attend and pass a course with the county Sheriff's office and be state certified which includes a criminal (think FBI) and mental background check.

However, it is still legal to carry a long gun (shotgun, rifle) on a gun rack in plain sight in the back window of one's pickup without a permit in Oklahoma. You don't see that many pickups with gun racks in the metro areas, however, it is a very common sight in the rural areas.

(Reason being is that if it (the long gun) is plain sight, it is not concealed.)

7th Aug 2006, 19:29
One thing that is consistent with intruders, the authorities can't say too much if they find a weapon on the deceased intruder when they get to your house. That is pretty well consistent around most countries...

G-ZUZZ
7th Aug 2006, 20:39
A few more questions, if you don't mind?

Why would a normal person want to walk around town with a concealed weapon? It can't be for defense against bears, wolves, etc, because what would be the point of concealing it?

I thought gun-slinging disappeared not long after Wyatt Earp?? Is Okalhoma the only state where people still enjoy this past-time?

And.., is a shot-gun with it's had its barrel sawn-off still considered a "long gun"?

A big heavy shot-gun on a rack behind your head doesn't sound like gun-safety to me. Imagine what it'd feel like having a shot-gun impacting on the back of your head in a road accident smash (a la the "passenger/offload/handbag" thread) and then continuing on through the wind-screen and bouncing down the road on it's butt, going off every time it hits the ground. Is this likely?

con-pilot
7th Aug 2006, 20:54
Question 1. Is Okalhoma the only state where people still do this?


No, I really don't know how many states have this law. Florida passed this law before Oklahoma. I'll try and look it up for you.

Question 2. A big heavy shot-gun on a rack behind your head doesn't sound like gun-safety to me. Imagine what it'd feel like having a shot-gun impacting on the back of your head in a road accident smash (a la the "passenger/offload/handbag" thread) and then continuing on through the wind-screen and bouncing down the road on it's butt, going off every time it hits the ground.

The guns are latched in the rack. By law there is to be no round in the chamber. I have never heard of the above scenario happening, except in Hollywood movies.

Sorry, I missed one;

And.., is a shot-gun with it's had its barrel sawn-off still considered a "long gun"?

A sawed-off shot gun is illegal in every state. No one may own one unless a federally licensed gun collector. So, even if one has a CW permit and is found with one conceled they go to jail and lose not only the weapon but also their permit. Same thing having one on the rack in a pickup.

CUNIM
7th Aug 2006, 21:00
In Blighty, one can still go back to the law of around 1860 where one can lay a man trap or similar machine between the hours of sunset and sunrise to protect the house. GREAT I LUV MANTRAPS!!!:E :E :E Personally I prefer the 12 bore with pepper corns.

slim_slag
7th Aug 2006, 21:05
A few more questions, if you don't mind?

Why would a normal person want to walk around town with a concealed weapon?Depends what you mean by normal, the definition is not the same in the US/UK. For instance the UK doesn't have a bill of rights that is currently interpreted to allow individual citizens to carry guns, and people will bear them as it makes them feel empowered against the guvmint. You need to live there to understand, and even then it's a bit of a struggle.

One thing is for sure, Pandora's box is opened in the States and you have to let honest people have guns now. No doubt if they could do it all over again they would not allow people to have guns at home. As Acrochik says, you don't get burglaries in the US and that's because people have guns. You get a lot of innocent kids get killed when they find daddies gun, but that's the price they pay for interpreting the bill of rights the way they did back in the past.

G-ZUZZ
7th Aug 2006, 21:09
Okay, thanks for the info. One more if you don't mind, and I realise it's not your own home-turf but......

I read a year or so ago that Governor Swhfartzannegger (sp?) decided to tighten up on gun control in his state of California. He specifically mentioned that no one would be allowed to own their own .50cal sniper rifles anymore.

Since sniper rifles come in all sorts of calibres and are obviously immensely popular, isn't it a little unfair to target the .50cal enthusiasts?

Also, I've only ever seen the Barret .50cal but it looked a lot longer than a shot-gun. Is it still classed as a 'long-rifle' or do they have a longer category?

Cheerio
7th Aug 2006, 21:18
Does anyone know anything of the Scots law regarding 'Hame Sacking' and the right to defend property? Was it ever repealed?

slim_slag
7th Aug 2006, 21:19
Okay, thanks for the info. One more if you don't mind, Well, I don't know about that example, but Arnie is a politician and is a democrat on a republican ticket as that was the way to get him elected.

However you are trying to introduce logic into the American way of looking at gun control and the right to bear arms. You aren't going to get it to make sense because it doesn't, you have to accept it as the way it is, and try and limit the damage which is going to happen in the future.

Wheel Nuts
7th Aug 2006, 21:30
YOU TAKE CONTROL OF THE SITUATION, show no fear in your voice.

If confronted in a room, give him/her what he/she wants and tell him/her to leave. If in a room with a door between you, tell him/her you have called the police there is nothing he/she wants in the house. He/she will not hang around to see if you are bluffing.

Get everyone into a room if you can or have time. Or drill the kids into what to do if there is an intruder. They are safer locking themselves into their room if they can and hiding in a cupboard.

Do not challenge him/her. If armed the person will be charged with adrenaline and unpredictable.

You/your familys' safety is paramount, materialistic things can be covered by insurance.

DO NOT BE A HERO

Report it as soon as he/she has gone.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
7th Aug 2006, 22:21
How would you deal with an intruder in your home?

I'd impose sanctions on them and then send an inspector to make sure they were observed.

AcroChik
7th Aug 2006, 22:23
"For instance the UK doesn't have a bill of rights that is currently interpreted to allow individual citizens to carry guns..."

US Bill of Rights, Amendment II:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Because of the words, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." there is much scholarly ~ and other ~ debate on the precise meaning of this Amendment. Well-meaning, intelligent people come down on both sides of "firearms regulation."

Do the words imply absolute freedom from any governmental restriction regarding the ownership of firearms? Or do they mean freedom to own firearms within the context of defending against tyranical government ~ whether foreign or domestic?

The debate has gone on for about 200 years. I hope it will continue that long into the future.

"As Acrochik says, you don't get burglaries in the US and that's because people have guns..."

Here in NY City, where I live, it borders on the impossible to obtain a legal handgun. Obtaining a concealed carry permit is, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Illegal firearms are easy to obtain, and no doubt, were I motivated to get one it would take a day or two.

In a NY Times article I read sometime last year, the NYC police department estimated one million illegal hand guns in the city ~ population about nine million including undocumented aliens.

I've lived in relatively crime-free neighborhods of the city all my life. Drug use is low or hidden. Burglaries are very rare. People don't own guns.

In areas of high crime, such as the vast tracts of inner city ghetto, people have guns ~ both the bad-actors and their victims, no doubt. Police here say gun ownership is correlated to drug traffiking and use. A map plotting NYC firearms homicides coincides beautifully with these areas.

Linkie-dinkie to the mappie-poo:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20060428_HOMICIDE_MAP.html

Note: Click the link to view all five boroughs.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
7th Aug 2006, 22:27
I think there's a lot of nonesense talked about gun ownership in the US, probably on both sides, but certainly on the loony pro gun side (which is not necessarily the same as the normal pro gun side), however, what brickhistory saidI use a .45 with the first round of "snakeshot" that will at least sting like hell and/or let the SOB that I will pull the trigger. Also, won't go through a wall to hit a sleeping kid. After that, all the rounds are loaded for bear! Pray to God I never have to use it, but a bit of practice at the range now and again keeps the basics handy.

As does teaching gun safety to reduce accidents.makes perfect sense to me, is a wonderful middle ground and is something with which I would have a great deal of difficulty in finding fault.

...except that it should be a 380, not a 45, cos they fit nicely in the top of yer boot.

G-ZUZZ
7th Aug 2006, 22:39
including undocumented aliensIs this serious?

Are the laws concerning shooting aliens (if you happen to see one) any different to shooting people?

Have you personally ever seen any of these aliens?

What do they look like?

AcroChik
7th Aug 2006, 22:49
"Is this serious?"

Yes.

"Are the laws concerning shooting aliens (if you happen to see one) any different to shooting people?"

They bleed green. Money's green, too. It's America. Mammon's our god.

"Have you personally ever seen any of these aliens?"

No doubt I dated a few.

What do they look like?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/multimedia/bushblair_endlesslove.mov

AMF
7th Aug 2006, 22:49
However you are trying to introduce logic into the American way of looking at gun control and the right to bear arms. You aren't going to get it to make sense because it doesn't, you have to accept it as the way it is, and try and limit the damage which is going to happen in the future.

It makes perfect sense if you're philosophy is based on certain fundamentals regarding the state of one's existence, and the relationship of an individual to another, to the State, and what constitutes a moral government.

The fundamentals of the American viewpoint re the above....if you're interested...can be found in John Locke's 2nd Treatise of Government. In there, you'll find our generally-accepted viewpoint on relevant matters such as Natural Law and Inherent Rights, such as the Right to Life and the ability to defend it with violence, using arms, if necessary.

Our Declaration of Independence is basically a rephrasing of these same philosophical ideals. While our Constitution, minus the Bill of Rights, is merely an attempt to frame a system to secure the ideals, it was found necessary by those with foresight to include a more specific detailing of what Inherent Individual Rights the Government could not infringe upon.

The Bill of Rights are NOT an "issuance" of rights bestowed upon citizenry by a benevolent government. On the contrary, the 1st 10 Amendments are re-inerated instructions TO Congress/Government (even duly elected) of Inherent Rights, and thus are off-limits. The Right (including to keep and bear arms) exists a priori in Natural Law, because a legitimate Government must never attempt to take away a person's ultimate right to defend one's own Life.

Gun control, or rather weapon control, had been imposed by the English Crown and throughout Europe by royalty going back hundreds of years. Weapons in the hands of peasants (except when issuing conscripts swords just before the battle and making the survivors turn them back in immediately following) were viewed as highly dangerous and subversive things.

The Founders of our country saw this as a grave injustice, and were more than familiar with both tyrannical goverment(s) and a need for personal weapons kept by individuals if they choose to do so, to defend one's own Life against "intruders".

The pre-Independence, ultra-pacifist Quakers who governed the colony of Pennsylvania from the safety of Philadelphia, were perfectly willing to allow the slaughter of their own settlers in the hinterland by Indians, refusing to fund or arm a militia to be used in defense. Untimately, it cost them their jobs and "moderates" such as Ben Franklin began to take prominence, and use logic.

brickhistory
7th Aug 2006, 22:58
...except that it should be a 380, not a 45, cos they fit nicely in the top of yer boot.


Depends on the size of yer boot!

Oh, and a .45 has one heckuva lot more stopping power than a .380. Someone strung out on something strong might keep going after a .380 zips through, a .45 leaves a much bigger hole and transmits a lot more shock = knock-down 'umph.'

AcroChik
7th Aug 2006, 23:03
Natural Law is not recognized without debate in the United States, either today or by the Framing Fathers of the US Constitution two centuries ago.

For a brief overview of the debate on both sides of the application of natural law in a non-sectarian constitutional state go to:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/law-phil.htm#SH1a

It's a very subtle discusson on a topic with which I have only the most glancing familiarity ~ just like most folks.

AMF
7th Aug 2006, 23:19
"For instance the UK doesn't have a bill of rights that is currently interpreted to allow individual citizens to carry guns..."

US Bill of Rights, Amendment II:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Because of the words, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." there is much scholarly ~ and other ~ debate on the precise meaning of this Amendment. Well-meaning, intelligent people come down on both sides of "firearms regulation."

Do the words imply absolute freedom from any governmental restriction regarding the ownership of firearms? Or do they mean freedom to own firearms within the context of defending against tyranical government ~ whether foreign or domestic?

The debate has gone on for about 200 years. I hope it will continue that long into the future.
.

Well-framed AcroChik, you've explained the debating points perfectly.

Most people get twisted up in the notion of what constitutes a "well-regulated milita", or a "free state" while discussing the 2nd Amendment. But a debate as to whether there IS a militia (some take the extreme traditional view..that every able-bodied male between 16 and 60 is a member) vs there's no such thing, or even if it's necessary with a professional, standing army....doesn't change what is clearly indicated by the latter part of the statement....the recognition of an Inherent Right.

For myself, there's no question that the language contained in the second part of the statement indicates the Founder's recognition of this.. of the Right to keep and bear arms. Also, the Founders never wrote about "the people" in terms of being a collectivist group, but rather as freely associating individuals. When they meant such a "Group" notion they used "general welfare", or Common good. That "the people" means "individuals" is made clear not only from Locke-ean principles they looked to, but also illuminated by their writings in the Federalist Papers and anti-Federalist essays.

The outcome of any debate regarding "well-regulated militias" does not...and can not (if you adhere to the philosophy of legitimate government)...wag to dog, so to speak, and cancel the fact that the a priori Inherent Right exists. It does.

AcroChik
7th Aug 2006, 23:31
For me, the debate's the thing. The day the debate stops, the Republic is dead.

AMF
7th Aug 2006, 23:53
Natural Law is not recognized without debate in the United States, either today or by the Framing Fathers of the US Constitution two centuries ago.
For a brief overview of the debate on both sides of the application of natural law in a non-sectarian constitutional state go to:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/law-phil.htm#SH1a
It's a very subtle discusson on a topic with which I have only the most glancing familiarity ~ just like most folks.

Indeed the framers of the Constitution, charged with actually coming up with a scheme to govern long-term, debated Natural Law and to what extent it could, or should, manifest itself into workable governance based on an ideal that government only exists legitimately if it's by the will of the people, and for the purpose of securing an individual's rights. That was the trick to attempt, since it had never been done, or even tried, before.

That is, legally enumerating and constructing a system of government that recognized the individual holds primacy over the State, and not the other way around, while not allowing it sink into "Mob Rule" democracy/anarchy. That was the uniqueness of the American experiment.

But the underlying philosophy...recognizing that inherent Individual Rights do exist in the first place....the Founders DID agree upon, and that philosophy has it's roots in Natural Law. The preceding Revolutionary War was, of course, the culmination of that debate.

I'm sure the colonial Tories disagreed vehemently with such ideals, even after the shooting was over, and still viewed "rights" as something allotted to them by their former tyrannical, British rulers if they were faithful, kowtowing subjects.

Unfortunately, some still do.

Thanks for the link. I'm such a geek I'll most likely read it!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
8th Aug 2006, 00:31
The outcome of any debate regarding "well-regulated militias" does not...and can not (if you adhere to the philosophy of legitimate government)...wag to dog, so to speak, and cancel the fact that the a priori Inherent Right exists. It does.Would you therefore say that questions concerning the presence, or indeed absense of "the comma" would likewise enjoy only a secondary position?

FakePilot
8th Aug 2006, 00:50
I don't drink. I don't know why anybody does. Irresponsible people drink, drive then kill others. They wouldn't if they didn't have alcohol. People can live better lives without alcohol. I know many people drink but it's not worth it the risk. Let's ban alcohol before another person dies!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
8th Aug 2006, 01:17
You're as crazy as the kneejerk liberals who wan't to ban guns! You need a dose of reality I think. Call yourself a doctor?


Oh, sorry, that's Maryland :O

FakePilot
8th Aug 2006, 01:27
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhh!

I'm so clever, I was just trying to illustrate what anti-gun people sound like to me. And I'm not a doctor nor a pilot!
Well, I'm kinda a pilot and I just have to rub it in - I can drink AND fly legally. :p

galaxy flyer
8th Aug 2006, 01:44
Interesting Thread

While this might shock Europeans, I grew up with guns around the house, shot a .45 when I was about 9 or 10, under my father's tutelage. I look at the guns around my house no differently than I do the hammer on the workbench-a tool, no more, no less. I could build a house with a hammer OR kill my wife or an intruder with the hammer--it is my intention, NOT the device! Get over it!

GF

brickhistory
8th Aug 2006, 02:12
I can drink AND fly legally. :p


Hopefully, not at the same time! :p Unless you are armed, then you are talking some serious fun!!!! :}

(It's a joke, lighten up!)

G-CPTN
8th Aug 2006, 02:14
The clue's in the screen-name.

AntiCrash
8th Aug 2006, 04:47
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d191/fairwater/CheeseWiz.jpg
First I'd take him down with the Cheeze Wiz and finish him off one of them Big Arse Hams.
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d191/fairwater/BigAssHam.jpg

Loose rivets
8th Aug 2006, 07:19
I think there's a lot of nonesense talked about gun ownership in the US, probably on both sides, but certainly on the loony pro gun side (which is not necessarily the same as the normal pro gun side), however, what brickhistory saidmakes perfect sense to me, is a wonderful middle ground and is something with which I would have a great deal of difficulty in finding fault.

...except that it should be a 380, not a 45, cos they fit nicely in the top of yer boot.

For 'ace card' hidden weppons, I used to put salt in the first round, snake dust in the second, 38 special in the third and fourth, and 357 magnums in fith and sixth.

For the life of me, I can not understand how one would load (I assume a semi-auto Colt 45) with snake-pellet rounds.

Loose rivets
8th Aug 2006, 07:59
Can't sleep, so I'll ramble on for a bit. I used to be a very keen club member till the first tragedy.

Talk of using 45s - 44 mags and the like is utter nonsense. If you are determined to render yourself deaf after the first round, I suppose it's okay, but it will make any further strategy very difficult.

I once hand-honed a Browning ‘High-Power' for target use. It was dangerous to a reported 1,760 yards. I didn't test that of course, but what I did do was test it on a pile of ‘Playboy' magazines. Oddly, it went through 1,760 pages of bums and bits. It would also go through stud walls and the like. My 44 6 7/8" Was just plain tedious. It would hurt my hand after 20 rounds, and the slightest leak in my ear-defenders would leave my ears ringing for a week.

The thought of shooting anyone with one of these is bizarre. Yes, the hydraulic shock could possibly kill even when hitting a limb.

To save the [rather special] lead that Winchester would use, my pal made a bullet catcher. It was all steel plate and took two of us to lift it. The bullet, on entering, would hit several baffles...up down up down etc., then impact on the rear plate which was 3/8" steel and deep welded to the box. As the bullet entered the box, an adiabatic cloud formed for a second. Within a few rounds, the rear of the box had been torn away from the body and bent into an arc.

BTW The remnants of copper jacket and lead were just useless dust.

If you really want to make a mess of someone, why not get an AutoMag 44 with a very hot load. They use a .762 case with the neck cut off and re-shaped If you are very strong, you will just be able stop the kick before the back of the slide hits you on the nut. Having shot a [concrete] breeze-block, I wondered if I had missed it...it looked the same. I prodded it with my finger and it fell apart in almost pea sized bits.

If I had to reach for a weapon, I would go for a .22 Browning target pistol. They are so rapid and very, very accurate. Clip change and breach in 2-3 seconds if you are practiced. Down side is that if a round should not burn properly, the bullet might get stuck in the barrel...once in a couple of years of regular practice I would think, and this is true of most weapons. If the fulminate of mercury OWHY burns, and the powder doesn't, the gun will most lightly jam.

I think the danger of having a loaded gun in a house with children is too great. No matter how sensible the kids seem, or how carful you training of them is, it is still an unacceptable risk.

Solid Rust Twotter
8th Aug 2006, 08:15
Pull the circuit breaker if at night and stalk the bugger with NVGs and a pointed stick.

Daytime? .22 pistol, first round snakeshot and subsequent rounds jacketed sabre tips.


Of course, in SA you'd probably be up against a gang armed with AK47s...

slim_slag
8th Aug 2006, 10:44
It makes perfect sense if you're philosophy is based on certain fundamentals regarding the state of one's existence, and the relationship of an individual to another, to the State, and what constitutes a moral governmentAnd then you continue to argue in a very elegant way the reasons for what happened 200 years ago and why they affect what happens today. But it's totally irrelevant to the initial question which was why are some guns OK but others not OK. There is no answer to that which makes sense, especially from those who might argue "guns don't kill, humans kill".

As for Fundamental Rights and Natural Law. All you need to do in the States is raise enough special interest money to get your chosen politicians voted in and you can change the US constitution. The bit in the US constitution which is currently interpreted to allow individual citizens to carry guns is an Amendment. No reason why it cannot be amended again, a bit like the experiment with not being allowed to drink booze was.

Of course, amending a US constitutional amendment would cost a lot of money, far easier to pack the supreme court with your lackeys and get them to amend their interpretation of the amendment. Same effect in practice, and this is what the current special interest controlled lot in DC is trying to do by removing 'rights' that have been in place for several years. Get a gun control EL Presidento and gun control congress in place, cut the brake lines of a few supreme court justices, and 5 years later you have removed the right to bear arms simply by messing with the interpretation of the punctuation found in the 2nd Amendment.

Unfortunately it's far too late for that now in the States. My opinion would be that anybody who is stupid enough to break into your house in the States has no clue what he is doing, so is likely to cause you significant physical harm so shooting them in the back when you get to see him is quite justified. In the UK, burglars are generally only after property and generally don't want to harm you, so leave them alone and let them take what they want. Shoot them in the back and you should go to jail. Same effect on the burglar, but different society so different punishment for the shooter.

brickhistory
8th Aug 2006, 10:49
For the life of me, I can not understand how one would load (I assume a semi-auto Colt 45) with snake-pellet rounds.

?Que? Commercially available, off the shelf round for Colt 1911 model semi-auto.

boogie-nicey
8th Aug 2006, 11:24
Ask him if he/she can come back some other day as now is not really a good time :}

markflyer6580
8th Aug 2006, 12:54
I used to know quite a few mean chaps,learnt some good moves:E

Doesn't matter how big they are and how small/female/car salesman like (delete as appropriate) you are, hardest kick you can muster to the knee,nuts also good but knee is best,if you do it side on they will go down.As they lean forward upper cut to the throat even if you are not that strong will put them one the floor until they either pass out,or their windpipe opens back up!

Whilst they are on the deck you can:

a)call the feds/ambulance.
b)help them out of your house


c) none of the above,get a hammer and turn both their hands in to a pulp-no more crime for them:D

I personally would do something similar to the above and proceed to put them in the boot and drive em to the middle of nowhere,leave em tied up and blindfolded near a cliff or similar.That way if they fall off its no disaster and you are doing society a favour,the police would never know it was you as the scumbag wont be giving anything away:E

galaxy flyer
8th Aug 2006, 16:45
Loose rivets:

Any gun fired in a house is going to be LOUD! But a .45 ACP isn't too bad--.44 Magnum is way over the top and LOUD!. And unnecessary. Shotgun would be worse, but not much. Also, amazing how quiet it is after the gunshot in a house. No, I didn't but I was inside when a friend did.

GF

Rich Lee
8th Aug 2006, 17:35
A single fragmentation grenade will do nicely though it may damage the drapes.

Cheerio
8th Aug 2006, 17:53
Drapes? I would have thought that a fragmentation grenade would be the least of an intruders worries should they have the misfortune of breaking into Castle Draper......

Solid Rust Twotter
8th Aug 2006, 18:14
Grenade? Ridiculous...!!

Frighten the goldfish, don'tcherknow?:}

Ozzy
8th Aug 2006, 18:47
I'd like to shoot the barsteward with one of these! (http://www.securityprousa.com/mod44adtasm1.html) And keep the trigger depressed until the police arrive....:E

Ozzy

Loose rivets
8th Aug 2006, 19:11
?Que? Commercially available, off the shelf round for Colt 1911 model semi-auto.

Hah! Never seen one of them. I guess that they were shaped so that they would enter the forcing cone without jamming. Now that I am at a better blood :vino ratio, I realize that blanks were made to auto-feed, so any load was possible. I have to say that I imagined someone doing their own load as per my salt load. I used to wad the powder so that it would stay near the primer (bad mistake I know) and then a wax wad over the salt. When it was fired it looked like confetti at a wedding.


G - F's Any gun fired in a house is going to be LOUD! But a .45 ACP isn't too bad--.44 Magnum is way over the top

I don't know much about the ACP, the only club members that had them just wanted them for the collection inventory. Their attempts to ‘accurize' them was simply to stop making holes in the next bloke's target. :}

AntiCrash
8th Aug 2006, 19:53
Perhaps one of these would be in order!
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d191/fairwater/ProtonPack.jpg

Solid Rust Twotter
8th Aug 2006, 20:36
There's always this horror....:ooh:

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d132/Lardbeast/yanke1e.jpg

Willows
8th Aug 2006, 22:09
I have a set of nunchuks under the bed. "HIIIIIIIIIII YAAAAAA!"

I wish I had a stun gun or very potent pepper spray. That'll teach 'em to break into my house.

Foss
9th Aug 2006, 10:45
However, it was only a month ago when somebody here recounted a situation where he'd almost fired on two people who turned out to be window cleaners.

That was me. :uhoh: Scared the [email protected] out of me.

Also fired a shotgun from inside the house, in my jammies, at a beer can in the garden. I'd only had the gun two or three days and I was 18. It's very loud, and made the TV room smell.
It took a six feet strip of turf from the lawn, and I had it cleaned and back in the cupboard in record time.
My father had a great place to keep a revolver, beside his chair in the tv room. With the constant cry of 'wheres the bloody bullets for this thing'. Very safe.
Another mate kept his in the pocket of his driving coat. 'Quick, quick there's someone in the house' 'I'll get me coat'.

And I'll get mine

Fos

flowman
9th Aug 2006, 12:36
How would you deal with an intruder in your home?
I just lay down with a gun in my face and a hand around my throat and gave them what they wanted (the car keys).
We all have great ideas about what we could do, but when it actually happens the intruders have the upper hand. They have the element of surprise, guns (in my case), and they had done it many times before. Unless you are prepared to be tooled up and to sit and wait every night on the off chance, they will get what they want. :(
I was lucky they only wanted the car.

Foss
9th Aug 2006, 14:30
Did have a relative who had a couple came to view his house, which was for sale. They'd come to shoot him. They fired their gun, it jammed, then they ran away. He fired his pistol, a lot, and missed, a lot.
Not one hit, for either team.

Pointy stick sounds like a good option.

Fos

Capt. Queeg
9th Aug 2006, 19:48
My 44 6 7/8" Was just plain tediousAll the talk of .44 calibre this and that and Smith and Jones and Wesson and nickle-plated full-leather jackets and the rest is very manly and tough.

But as the Flowman said, unless you're prepared to sit around all night with your hand-cannon in one hand and something else in the other, you're wasting your time. If it happens, chances are it's a pro and he's going to sort you out anyway.

All you get is a warped lifestyle which is predicated on keeping your cannon clean and oiled and loaded but out of the kids sight but close enough to get to in a hurry no matter where you are but not in the shower because it might rust but close enough in case the hoods bust in while you're washing ya crack and somewhere they won't find it if you step out to quickly replenish ya baked beans stockpile before rushing back home to re-oil it and take up position again but where you won't accidentally squeeze off a round in your sleep..... etc etc etc.

You end up living for the constant reponsibility of a loaded gun in the house at all times. What a way to exist.....:rolleyes:

brickhistory
9th Aug 2006, 21:21
All the talk of .44 calibre this and that and Smith and Jones and Wesson and nickle-plated full-leather jackets and the rest is very manly and tough.

But as the Flowman said, unless you're prepared to sit around all night with your hand-cannon in one hand and something else in the other, you're wasting your time. If it happens, chances are it's a pro and he's going to sort you out anyway.

All you get is a warped lifestyle which is predicated on keeping your cannon clean and oiled and loaded but out of the kids sight but close enough to get to in a hurry no matter where you are but not in the shower because it might rust but close enough in case the hoods bust in while you're washing ya crack and somewhere they won't find it if you step out to quickly replenish ya baked beans stockpile before rushing back home to re-oil it and take up position again but where you won't accidentally squeeze off a round in your sleep..... etc etc etc.

You end up living for the constant reponsibility of a loaded gun in the house at all times. What a way to exist.....:rolleyes:

That's one way to look at it.

Another is that while A) I hope I never have and intruder, I, B) hope he's a pro, takes the loot and gets out without anyone being the wiser, I, C) sure as hell am glad I have the option of a .45 ACP (smell the testosterone - better than any Tour de Farce cyclist high any day!) if things turned ugly! :ok:

arcniz
9th Aug 2006, 21:50
As Galaxy Flier wisely remarked above, "Guns are just tools." They make noise and can project a certain amount of power over distance. An advancement on the hurled rock, basically. Sometimes more lethal and sometimes less.

In most households, one finds a great variety of dangerous and deadly items. In the kitchen, for example, things for silently slicing skewering and shredding are to be found hanging on the wall or tucked in accessible drawers. Under the sink likely are some chemicals that can poison or blind a person in seconds. Electrical appliances offer a host of opportunities for mayhem and quick or slow and painful death, depending how creatively used or abused. In the shop or shed, the number and variety of devices to cut, smash, pin and perforate flesh is comparable to that found in an Inquisition playroom. And the garden likely holds assorted rocks, spears, and truncheons, not to mention frightful stickers and whackers like pitchforks and shovels. The world we live within is fraught with dangerous avenues and devices, limited only by imagination.

Ordinary folk (who seem a relatively small subset of the pprune population) abide these accustomed hazards because each has some compensating utility or other benefit in normal life. The same may be said for guns. If one has some practical need - as do most who live in the coutryside - or sincere interest (a category added for the enthusiasts who take care to learn and understand what they are about), then guns need not seem especially dangerous or out of place. In some circumstances, walking the woods at dusk in places where large-ish wild animals convene, then one is a fool to not carry some means for protection or deterrent.

Children, fools, maniacs, drunken and/or drugged persons, jealous spouses, etc.... join a long list of people who should not be allowed access to guns except under close supervision. If only we could apply that rule to certain areas of the map, as well.

For personal safety in and about one's home, the greatest advantage a person has is familiarity and the abillity to prepare defensive methods and spaces in advance. Good locks, good habits regarding one's acquaintances and friends, adequate lighting, alarms, noise-making devices, and good communications via cell, radio, or phone can either prevent or control problems before they get out of hand.

After that, something small and readily reloadable, plus something long and fully accurate at, say, 100 yards, should provide cushion against life's unhappy surprises. Note that a pocket knife and a good crossbow can satisfy these criteria. So can Beretta and Colt.

AcroChik
9th Aug 2006, 21:56
I've always enjoyed archery. Moving targets add an interesting challenge to the sport.

matt_hooks
9th Aug 2006, 23:53
The approved method apparently is to not corner the intruder, or make in any way to hinder their exit from the property. Most are high/scared sh#tless or in some other way desperate, and will run away if disturbed.

Does anyone here seriously believe that they would stand a chance in a stand up fight, whilst half asleep, with an intruder who is both fully awake and very aware of the consequences of not being able to escape from a situation?

My first thought would I think be to let them know that I am present and aware of their presence. Then I'd like a cell phone in my hand and a very sturdy locked door between myself and the intruder.

If for some reason a confrontation becomes inevitable then I would like to bring it to a swift and safe (for myself anyway) conclusion.

As stated earlier the average house is full of implements which, when pressed, can serve as effective and deadly weapons. I have a pair of very inocuous binoculars sitting on the windowsill which weigh a couple of kilos. I'm sure a well aimed blow with those would make a very effective, possibly terminal, deterrent.

I think anyone who says that they would go after an intruder with their baseball bat/golf club/insert your improvised weapon of choice really hasn't taken the time to consider the consequences of such action. The best way of staying safe from an intruder surely has to be separation!

And if someone is poking the barrel of his saturday night special up my spout then I'm gonna give him what he wants!

er340790
10th Aug 2006, 02:39
As the Canadians say, "the right to bear arms is almost as stupid as the right to arm bears."

That said a 10-gauge loaded with slugs should see them off.

Patriot328
10th Aug 2006, 02:52
Yeah I know, 7 pages and late to jump in, but what would I do if someone broke into my house? Why, I'd just grab somethin off my truck...
http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=24830

In all seriousness, since my parents have my 870 on loan so to speak, I have an lightweight AR-15 carbine with a weapon mounted light. That being said, door to the bedroom stays closed while I call the police. Announce to intruder that I am armed and the police are on their way. If the door opens, they are shot.

Obviously I have no teenage daughters sneaking in after midnight or anything (if I did, I'd grab a scoped rifle and plug that little sh*t that's tappin my daughter while he's farther away).

None of this nonsense about snake-shot or shooting to wound, etc. Shoot them to stop, center of mass. Continue to shoot until the threat is over. If they die in the process, so be it.

And handguns are notoriously poor for stopping someone with any reliability...

galaxy flyer
10th Aug 2006, 03:02
And everyday, some Americans use weapons to commit crimes and many use them to stop criminals and home invaders. To paraphrase someone above, we have been doing that since the ultimate home invasion in April, 1775. And again to repel the King's army in 1812, and again to end slavery in 1865, and to end WWI and to repel those who occupied Europe in 1945, and so on and so on. In my Massachusetts town (Massachusetts, for God's sake!) guns are so prevalent, the Chief of Police runs classes for children in school on how to identify and handle guns in the house. Folks, they are tools, period. As inanimate objects, guns have NO judgement, NO morals, NO criminal intent! An armed society is a polite society.

GF

con-pilot
10th Aug 2006, 03:56
An armed society is a polite society.

Yup, just look at Sweden or Switzerland, dang near every house has an automatic weapon in their home and knows how to use it.

"I know how to stop hijacking, just give everybody on the airliner a gun by god, no hijacking then." Archie Bunker.

Capt. Queeg
10th Aug 2006, 08:33
"Chinese food? What's wrong with some good American food like.... pizza?"

-Archie Bunker.


PS: For the Americans :p , Sweden and Switzerland are too different countries. You're thinking of Switzerland with their home reserve set-up, I believe? :ok:

Foss
10th Aug 2006, 10:56
It might just be better to take the barrel of the weapon off, and hit the intruder with that.
I haven't played hockey for years, I don't play baseball or cricket, so I'm a bit short of sticks.
Did have a friend, his da was in the army, he kept a loaded flare pistol in a cupboard next to the front door 'to fire through the letter box' :eek: loony bin.
He also had thunder flashes. Great idea. Fire one of those things in the hall and you're going to be in more trouble with the wife than the burgular.

Fos

slim_slag
10th Aug 2006, 12:18
Yup, just look at Sweden or Switzerland, dang near every house has an automatic weapon in their home and knows how to useSwiss society is not particulary close to American society, but if you want to see how the US 2nd Amendment could have been interpreted in a sensible way then Switzerland would be a good place to start. They still have many more kids killing themselves or their mates than you might find in the places like the UK though.

Bluesteel705
10th Aug 2006, 13:08
I wouldnt even bother calling the police round here. I remember a few weeks ago at work when my mate and I were on night shift some homeless looking guy walks in with a machette and asks to be let in the safe, now for better or worse we dont have access to it at night but he didnt believe this, I managed to phone the cops whilst he was shouting/arguing and was told someone would be despatched immediately.

It took the useless f*****s 40 minutes to arrive from the police station less than 1/4 of a mile away! Now I know they have to put on body armour etc etc, but they only sent 2 guys anyway :ugh: By this time the guy had run off with my mates wallet and a set of master keys for some reason.

Now 3 weeks later when I had some random drunk women who forced the fire door and were skinny dipping in the pool, police were there less than 5 minutes after the manager (Not me :cool: ) called them :yuk:

The Otter's Pocket
10th Aug 2006, 13:11
I have a 16 inch chainsaw in the spare room - no weasel is going to hang around on my property when he hears the motor start. Noisey scarey bsadart of a machine.:eek:
What I would like is an electric start to the two stoke motor...even quicker response time.:cool:

con-pilot
10th Aug 2006, 17:17
PS: For the Americans , Sweden and Switzerland are too different countries. You're thinking of Switzerland with their home reserve set-up, I believe?

Er, sorry:uhoh: , Scotch induced mistake. (aka an ARI):O

(By the way, I do know the difference as I've flown to both, still no excuse.)

Ozzy
10th Aug 2006, 17:44
Just don't go doing what this cop did (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdvTwgQjB34)if you plan on using a firearm against an intruder:E

Ozzy

Loose rivets
11th Aug 2006, 06:34
There's always this horror....:ooh:
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d132/Lardbeast/yanke1e.jpg
Is that a hat?
My mate goes fox-hunting and wears a bit of kit like that on his head.

one will see if I can find a pic of him ( he gave permission a while back.)
tis with a gun he made earlier...every single part, except that he didn't drill the hole for the barrel.


mmmm....I see that he is in disguise. tis to fool the foxies. :}

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/Andyfunny.jpg

rotated
11th Aug 2006, 07:47
...tis with a gun he made earlier...every single part...

Did he make the jeep, too? :eek: :8 :ok: