1309
Post by: Lordhat
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/07/long-island-man-arrested-for-defending-home-with-ak-47/
UNIONDALE, N.Y. (CBS 2) — He was arrested for protecting his property and family.
But it’s how the Long Island man did it that police say crossed the line.
He got an AK-47 assault rifle, pulled the trigger and he ended up in jail, reports CBS 2’s Pablo Guzman.
George Grier said he had to use his rifle on Sunday night to stop what he thought was going to be an invasion of his Uniondale home by a gang he thought might have been the vicious “MS-13.” He said the whole deal happened as he was about to drive his cousin home.
“I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?’ Grier said.
Grier said the five men dared him to use the gun; and that their shouts brought another larger group of gang members in front of his house.
“He starts threatening my family, my life. ‘Oh you’re dead. I’m gonna kill your family and your babies. You’re dead.’ So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass,” Grier said.
Grier was later arrested. John Lewis is Grier’s attorney.
“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,” Lewis said.
Grier said he knew Nassau County Police employ the hi-tech “ShotSpotter” technology in his area and that the shooting would bring police in minutes. Cops told Guzman he was very cooperative.
Grier also said he was afraid the gang outside his house was the dreaded MS-13. And Nassau County Police Lt. Andrew Mulraine, head of the gang unit, said MS-13 has 2,000 members in the county.
“They’re probably the most organized. They almost have a military hierarchy within the gang, so they are the most organized gang we encounter on a daily basis,” Mulraine said.
You may think a person has the right to defend their home. But the law says you can only use physical force to deter physical force. Grier said he never saw anyone pull out a gun, so a court would have to decide on firing the gun.
Police determined Grier had the gun legally. He has no criminal record. And so he was not charged for the weapon.
That ShotSpotter technology pinpoints where a gun has been fired within 35 feet. Police said it also detected two other shootings in nearby Roosevelt that night.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
So we are charging people for trying to protect themselves from vicious thugs?
So with all the people who have guns are taken out the picture doesn't that mean that the gangs will go around unhindered by anyone?
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
But were they wearing hoodies?
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
SlaveToDorkness wrote:But were they wearing hoodies?
Slave.... no.
MS-13 is a massive gang that basically has alot of weaponry. I've heard about them and I live in chicago. These guys are little bit worse than you think.
56307
Post by: unmercifulconker
Innocent man arrested for protecting his property and family?
Woohoo, way to go justice! This person was clearly in the wrong, who does he think he is to protect his loved ones from evil.
 
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
This story seems a bit far fetched, seems to sensalized to me.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
unmercifulconker wrote:Innocent man arrested for protecting his property and family?
Woohoo, way to go justice! This person was clearly in the wrong, who does he think he is to protect his loved ones from evil.
Did you actually read the article, by chance?
George Grier said he had to use his rifle on Sunday night to stop what he thought was going to be an invasion of his Uniondale home by a gang he thought might have been the vicious “MS-13.” He said the whole deal happened as he was about to drive his cousin home.
Note:
It doesn't say "He was inside of his house and they were breaking in". He was outside and he thought his house was going to be invaded.
“I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?’ Grier said.
There's a key piece in there.
I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house.
He escalated the situation, right here and it effectively 'changes the rules' as to what's happening. We don't know that they were going to break in. We don't know that they were threatening him, etc prior to this point.
All we know is that he went into the house and came back outside with a gun.
Grier said the five men dared him to use the gun; and that their shouts brought another larger group of gang members in front of his house.
“He starts threatening my family, my life. ‘Oh you’re dead. I’m gonna kill your family and your babies. You’re dead.’ So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass,” Grier said.
Depending on where you are, the idea of "warning shots" is...unlikely to be accepted.
“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,” Lewis said.
You see this?
This right here is why he was arrested. Not for "defending his family" or anything. Because he fired a gun in the direction of these individuals. If he had shot and killed one of them, he likely would have been arrested as well.
But the law says you can only use physical force to deter physical force. Grier said he never saw anyone pull out a gun, so a court would have to decide on firing the gun.
This is where the issue lies. Was he allowed to do this? You cannot use physical force to deter physical force. I can't shoot you in the face because I think you might be reaching for a gun to shoot me in the face. I have to have a reasonable expectation of immediate danger, such as you pulling out a gun and aiming it at me.
That said:
MS-13 is no joke, but at the same time they as a gang are not really known for doing home invasions. Executions of informants or rival gang members?
Oh hell yeah they do that. They're brutal as hell.
29110
Post by: AustonT
a journalist wrote:You may think a person has the right to defend their home. But the law says you can only use physical force to deter physical force.
This guy must be slowed. "the law" says :
use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person.
Which is pretty universal in intent if not wording in every justification section of state laws. I'm sure given the size and posture of the crowd that the dude can demonstrate the reasonable belief that the use of unlawful force was imminent.
Never fire a warning shot. Which is really what he is being charged with. I'd be pretty surprised if the DA doesn't drop the charges after a short investigation.
27391
Post by: purplefood
This seems unfair...
29110
Post by: AustonT
Hold the fricken phone...this story is 2 years old.
27391
Post by: purplefood
It is?
Quick, someone find out what happened to him!
29110
Post by: AustonT
I don't know why I didn't realize it sooner the date is in the link in the OP. But when I searched to find out "new" information all the articles were from 6 and 7 Sept, 2010. Haven't found an outcome yet. Apparently a man by the same name was arrested in Dallas though.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/uniondale-man-who-fired-gun-into-lawn-not-indicted-1.2432459
Found that, but can't testify as to the validity of newsday. They give you "5 free views", so I'd assume everyone can see it though.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
So it all happened over a year ago and the man was not indicted.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Tempest in a teacup!
29110
Post by: AustonT
Head line should have been "Black man threatens and shoots at unarmed Hispanic teens just walking home after buying skittles for thier little brothers: La Raza outraged. Protests in the streets. Justice for MS-13"
Oh, I'm sorry: were they wearing hoodies?
Ps: it's good to know the state did right by that guy; although I am surprised they pursued it to grand jury.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Actually Auston, a lot of the articles I saw did make a note of "Black Man shoots at youths with AK47".
29408
Post by: Melissia
“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,”
I think that's a fairly good argument myself.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Melissia wrote:“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,”
I think that's a fairly good argument myself.
It really is not though.
While he was not indicted for it, it certainly is behaving with a "depraved indifference to human life" firing a weapon in the direction of people in a residential area. It certainly is creating a risk as well pulling out a gun and then opening fire in said residential area, especially when it's not necessarily the case that the people "advancing on his house" were going to break in, etc.
27987
Post by: Surtur
Someone get Frazzled in here. He can sort this mess out.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Even in gun-happy Oklahoma with some pretty good self defense laws, this guy would have been in trouble.
You cannot walk around showing your weapon with an intend to intimidate anybody, even if they are bad guys. That will get you felony branding charges.
You also cannot fire "warning shots", that will get you felony charges as well. Any bullet not fired into a bad guy is a bullet that can hit an innocent bystander down the road. "Firing in the yard is not going to hurt anybody" is not an valid excuse. All it takes is for it to hit a rock, bounce of, and fly through the window next door.
I am 100% pro self-defense, I am 100% for concealed carry, but I also think that your gun only leaves your holster for one single purpose. To neutralize a thread. It doesn't come out to scare people. It doesn't come out to fire warning shots. It only comes out because something is about to go down, and if you don't kill them before they kill you.
Heck, if that guy would have stayed inside his house and unloaded the gun through the front door as soon as the doorknob rattled I would defend him 100%. But going outside with a gun to threaten a gang was dumb. This isn't Gran Tourino.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Kanluwen wrote:Melissia wrote:“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,”
I think that's a fairly good argument myself.
It really is not though.
While he was not indicted for it, it certainly is behaving with a "depraved indifference to human life" firing a weapon in the direction of people in a residential area. It certainly is creating a risk as well pulling out a gun and then opening fire in said residential area, especially when it's not necessarily the case that the people "advancing on his house" were going to break in, etc.
I'd argue that it was the fact he wasn't indifferent to human life which made him open fire.
It's not like he saw some people on his lawn and started firing.
People threatened him, his wife and his child then he fired warning shots rather than directly firing at them (Which frankly wouldn't have been a difficult task considering where they stood)
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Heh, I do find it funny that a guy can fire an assault rifle in a residential area and people are surprised that he gets arrested.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
d-usa wrote:I am 100% pro self-defense, I am 100% for concealed carry, but I also think that your gun only leaves your holster for one single purpose. To neutralize a thread. It doesn't come out to scare people. It doesn't come out to fire warning shots. It only comes out because something is about to go down, and if you don't kill them before they kill you.
Neutralize a thread? No wonder so many on Dakka are pro-gun
But yeah, im pro second amendment. But for its original intent, to protect yourself. People should not be going around with 90 guns in there garage.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
purplefood wrote:Kanluwen wrote:Melissia wrote:“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,”
I think that's a fairly good argument myself.
It really is not though.
While he was not indicted for it, it certainly is behaving with a "depraved indifference to human life" firing a weapon in the direction of people in a residential area. It certainly is creating a risk as well pulling out a gun and then opening fire in said residential area, especially when it's not necessarily the case that the people "advancing on his house" were going to break in, etc.
I'd argue that it was the fact he wasn't indifferent to human life which made him open fire.
It's not like he saw some people on his lawn and started firing.
That's actually exactly what happened. He saw people standing around his house, went inside and got his gun. Which led to this next part.
People threatened him, his wife and his child then he fired warning shots rather than directly firing at them (Which frankly wouldn't have been a difficult task considering where they stood)
People threatened him after he stepped out of his house with a gun.
27391
Post by: purplefood
If they threatened him after he had his gun out then clearly they mean him some kind of harm if they felt he wouldn't use it.
Why the hell would you threaten someone holding a gun?
54832
Post by: Jumpin Jesus
This is ridiculous? What was supposed to do when those people attacked him? Twenty people and you can only respond with pyshical force? I thought we had a right to defend ourselves.
I just really hope this guy dosent get put in jail for this...
27391
Post by: purplefood
Jumpin Jesus wrote:This is ridiculous? What was supposed to do when those people attacked him? Twenty people and you can only respond with pyshical force? I thought we had a right to defend ourselves.
I just really hope this guy dosent get put in jail for this...
Read the thread dude.
The article is a year old and he hasn't been convicted of it...
54832
Post by: Jumpin Jesus
purplefood wrote:Jumpin Jesus wrote:This is ridiculous? What was supposed to do when those people attacked him? Twenty people and you can only respond with pyshical force? I thought we had a right to defend ourselves.
I just really hope this guy dosent get put in jail for this...
Read the thread dude.
The article is a year old and he hasn't been convicted of it...
Ah. Sorry. xP
4869
Post by: ShumaGorath
Lordhat posted an overblown populist article talking about the great oppression of the authorities? Shock. It was a year old and wrong? Doubleshock.
Hats!
27391
Post by: purplefood
ShumaGorath wrote:Lordhat posted an overblown populist article talking about the great oppression of the authorities? Shock. It was a year old and wrong? Doubleshock.
Hats!
The authorities are being oppressed!
We must stop this!
33160
Post by: Iur_tae_mont
While this Article is old, I still have to tell a story.
I have a friend who recently bought a Gun. He bought it because he wanted to protect his family in case something were to ever happen. But he does not know if he could pull the trigger to harm another Person, Because it's against his Religion to take someone's life. While I wanted to tell him that rule is within every religion, I didn't want to come off as an ass.
He was hoping he could get a loud enough gun so he could fire it in the air and scare away and assailants.
I told him to sell the gun right then if he had no intent to use it to end someone's life if someone were to pull a weapon on him and make it clear they had all intent to end his.
There are only three reasons to have a gun out of it's home, When you are at the range, when you are maintaining it, and when someone has a weapon drawn on you and intents to use it.
All firing in the air/into the ground does is show them you will not shoot them and they can walk up, take your gun and use it on you. You should NEVER have to pull your weapon on another person, but if you do (AKA in a situation were the other person is armed with intent to harm you) make sure you take them out.
This is a "with great power comes great responsibility" thing. You have the power to save your life, but should only use it in the most dire of straits, when your life is actually on the line and there is no other option.
No practicing your quick draws, no showing it off to people. it's only out if you are on the shooting range(and then only when the range official okays it), if you are maintaining it, and if you have to use it on an armed individual that intends to use their weapon on you.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Iur_tae_mont wrote:
No practicing your quick draws, no showing it off to people. it's only out if you are on the shooting range(and then only when the range official okays it), if you are maintaining it, and if you have to use it on an armed individual that intends to use their weapon on you.
Yes, we want everyone who has a gun to have no idea how to present it, spend no time dryfiring, and build no useful skills outside of cleaning it and punching paper. That way when you clumsily yank out your firearms you can have little to no muscle memory jerk the trigger you are barely familiar with and miss your intended target endangering your neighbors and family. You know if you make it out of your shirt since you never practiced your draw in your day to day clothes. You give out fantastic advise, where are you instructing people in firearms training? The Brady Institute?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
He means larking around with the gun like Travis Bickle.
That sort of giddy goat acting causes plenty of accidents with guns.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
AustonT wrote:Iur_tae_mont wrote:
No practicing your quick draws, no showing it off to people. it's only out if you are on the shooting range(and then only when the range official okays it), if you are maintaining it, and if you have to use it on an armed individual that intends to use their weapon on you.
Yes, we want everyone who has a gun to have no idea how to present it, spend no time dryfiring, and build no useful skills outside of cleaning it and punching paper. That way when you clumsily yank out your firearms you can have little to no muscle memory jerk the trigger you are barely familiar with and miss your intended target endangering your neighbors and family. You know if you make it out of your shirt since you never practiced your draw in your day to day clothes. You give out fantastic advise, where are you instructing people in firearms training? The Brady Institute?
No, using his idea would be a fine way of owning a firearm. He did say to take it to the range, so one would have the understanding of its functions and know how to use it correctly. The only problem I have with his statement, is the weapon that is USED for home defense purposes, SHOULD bring it out, and so dry runs when safe, of the danger spots in your home and practice a simple drill so you can quickly, quietly and easily bring the weapon out, load it and have your plan in action with no problems what so ever. Thats the only thing Lur Tae missed IMO
722
Post by: Kanluwen
purplefood wrote:If they threatened him after he had his gun out then clearly they mean him some kind of harm if they felt he wouldn't use it.
Why the hell would you threaten someone holding a gun?
Again:
He escalated the situation. We do not know if the truly meant him some kind of harm. You can infer whatever you want from the situation, but the fact of the matter is that there's a reason the police and military have to train individuals to shoot at other human beings. It is not something which comes easily to us, but can be negated by training and reflex.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
The bloke sounds like a fething idiot.
Crack on and slot someone if they are in your house, or even actually making an attempt to get into your house, kicking a door, breaking a window.
gak, even if they are actually on your porch maybe. But this feth head went aways to trying to make himself look like Charlie big spuds when it was unnecessary.
If they are just loitering NEAR your house, call the cops and turn the TV up a bit. No need to go wind them up with your AK like you think your fething Rambo. 
29408
Post by: Melissia
But... what if he WAS Rambo?
"GET OFF MY LAWN!" *fires a minigun in to the air* "My name is John Rambo, and I approve this message."
21853
Post by: mattyrm
If he was Rambo he would have flown his manoeuvrable helicopter into within 6 feet of the ground and then rammed it into a main battle tank rather than fired one of its many air to ground missles at it, just for a laugh.
Its funny because its true...
How did the excellent Rambo, turn into the ridiculous Rambo 3 anyway!? Did he give the franchise to his grandpa to write?!
29110
Post by: AustonT
mattyrm wrote:If he was Rambo he would have flown his manoeuvrable helicopter into within 6 feet of the ground and then rammed it into a main battle tank rather than fired one of its many air to ground missles at it, just for a laugh.
Its funny because its true...
How did the excellent Rambo, turn into the ridiculous Rambo 3 anyway!? Did he give the franchise to his grandpa to write?!
I don't know if it's impressive or sad but Sly has always been involved in the writing process of Rambo. He gets writer credits put I think of him more as an editor. The difference between First Blood and every other Rambo flick was that First Blood was more of a small town thriller than an action movie. And Let's be honest; still the best of them. Apparently the next Rambo if there is one will be like Taken, but replace France with Mexico, and Liam Neeson with Sly.
As an aside I probably haven't watched Rambo3 in over a decade if he flies the Hind like I remember it's actually not very maneuverable; it actually turns like a friggin pig, but it is moronic to fly an airplane into a tank. Even if it is a Hind.
25220
Post by: WarOne
I live on Long Island, so a few things I can add to this:
This article is for real.
The threat of gangs is very real here. Near NYC, LI is overshadowed by a much larger metropolis that spills over with narcotics and gangs. The good news is is there is little violence because the local police wash their hands of the infestation, merely arresting the violators who do the most harm. Schools have a serious drug problem, the welfare system is overtaxed (don't ask how that ties in with gangs), and people feel threatened by the city's influence.
An equally concerning issue at hand is gun ownership.. Nassau County has enacted tougher gun laws recently, but Long Island is more Republican and Conservative than NYC and therefore no wehere near as restrictive in their gun laws. There has been a spike in gun purchases here by concerned citizens. My friend being one of those gun purchasers, he needs to get another 1 ton safe to keep his growing supply of guns secure that his family owns.
He also thinks a zombie invasion is imminent, so I don't often lean on him for sage advice, but take it for what it is worth; there are enough people here who distrust Obama and fear for their lives that this incident here was going to happen inevitably. The local shooting ranges are packed day in and day out by people shooting guns, and your average conservative here laments how society has degenerated.
Guns don't mix well with that mentality.
221
Post by: Frazzled
If it really was MS 13 your gun laws are irrelevant. They might even have good old fashioned full auto AKs and RPGs direct from your local former communist paradise.
44654
Post by: Lone Cat
It is a posession of Full-auto firearms (which many countries in the world classified as miltary-grad weapons) that is illegal.
But why NYC cops chose to catch an honest civilian rather than even more powerful and villainious gangsters?
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
The first rule of home defence is "leave no witnesses" 
221
Post by: Frazzled
Lone Cat wrote:It is a posession of Full-auto firearms (which many countries in the world classified as miltary-grad weapons) that is illegal.
But why NYC cops chose to catch an honest civilian rather than even more powerful and villainious gangsters?
The gangsters would exterminate them? NYC prosecutors are more interested in removing firearms from citizens than keeping them safe? Maybe just simple bribery of the powers that be? Automatically Appended Next Post: SilverMK2 wrote:The first rule of home defence is "leave no witnesses"
Son, I like what you've done here. 
29110
Post by: AustonT
Lone Cat wrote:It is a posession of Full-auto firearms (which many countries in the world classified as miltary-grad weapons) that is illegal.
But why NYC cops chose to catch an honest civilian rather than even more powerful and villainious gangsters?
1. wasn't fully automatic
2. wasn't in New York City
Edit: 3. Because he's black
Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:The first rule of home defence is "leave no witnesses"
Son, I like what you've done here.
And it's 100% true ideally if you have to kill someone in self defense the only story you want is your own. You know, unless you are a hispanic male living in Sanford, FL. Then you want a whole shitpot of witnesses.
44654
Post by: Lone Cat
AustonT wrote:Lone Cat wrote:It is a posession of Full-auto firearms (which many countries in the world classified as miltary-grad weapons) that is illegal.
But why NYC cops chose to catch an honest civilian rather than even more powerful and villainious gangsters?
1. wasn't fully automatic
2. wasn't in New York City
Edit: 3. Because he's black
Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:The first rule of home defence is "leave no witnesses"
Son, I like what you've done here.
And it's 100% true ideally if you have to kill someone in self defense the only story you want is your own. You know, unless you are a hispanic male living in Sanford, FL. Then you want a whole shitpot of witnesses.
Just because he's black and has a gun is enough for the cops to brand him as a gangster?
So is there any official reports that NYPD was bribed? the MOST RECENT ones.
this is 2012 not 1932.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Lone Cat wrote:AustonT wrote:Lone Cat wrote:It is a posession of Full-auto firearms (which many countries in the world classified as miltary-grad weapons) that is illegal.
But why NYC cops chose to catch an honest civilian rather than even more powerful and villainious gangsters?
1. wasn't fully automatic
2. wasn't in New York City
Edit: 3. Because he's black
Frazzled wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:The first rule of home defence is "leave no witnesses"
Son, I like what you've done here.
And it's 100% true ideally if you have to kill someone in self defense the only story you want is your own. You know, unless you are a hispanic male living in Sanford, FL. Then you want a whole shitpot of witnesses.
Just because he's black and has a gun is enough for the cops to brand him as a gangster?
Haven't been to America have we?
5793
Post by: drunkorc
This world is getting crazzy, where the bad guys get justice. 
Would it be too much if i put up an Turret mounted Auto-Cannon infront of my house?
SilverMK2 wrote:
The first rule of home defence is "leave no witnesses
Son, I like what you've done here.
I second that. 
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Question. Why is an AK-47 a legal weapon?
I can understand a hand gun but an ak-47?
Those things should be illegal.
221
Post by: Frazzled
hotsauceman1 wrote:Question. Why is an AK-47 a legal weapon?
I can understand a hand gun but an ak-47?
Those things should be illegal.
Something in the Bill of Rights I believe and the right of the people to be free of the tyranny of men.
39004
Post by: biccat
hotsauceman1 wrote:Question. Why is an AK-47 a legal weapon?
I can understand a hand gun but an ak-47?
Those things should be illegal.
Why should an AK-47 be illegal? (assuming it's not an automatic weapon)
37231
Post by: d-usa
He probably had an AK-47 because the news reported it that way and they usually don't know gak about guns (or report the worst possible gun they can get away with).
Local news here talked about Wal-Mart selling M-16s when they were really selling AR-15s.
29110
Post by: AustonT
No, he actually had an AK. don't ask me how but the news got it right.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Well, there is always the off chance that he has the license for a fully automatic. My guess would be that it is a semi-auto though.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Frazzled wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:Question. Why is an AK-47 a legal weapon?
I can understand a hand gun but an ak-47?
Those things should be illegal.
Something in the Bill of Rights I believe and the right of the people to be free of the tyranny of men.
Yeah, it says right to bear arms, it doesnt say assault rifles.
A hand gun or two would suffice in protecting a home. Heck i could understand a shot gun. but an AK-47 is just stupid.
221
Post by: Frazzled
hotsauceman1 wrote:Frazzled wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:Question. Why is an AK-47 a legal weapon?
I can understand a hand gun but an ak-47?
Those things should be illegal.
Something in the Bill of Rights I believe and the right of the people to be free of the tyranny of men.
Yeah, it says right to bear arms, it doesnt say assault rifles.
A hand gun or two would suffice in protecting a home. Heck i could understand a shot gun. but an AK-47 is just stupid.
And the First Amedment doesn't mention the internet either.
29110
Post by: AustonT
I could be wrong but I believe the last time an NFA class III was used in self defense was the late 80's. It was an HK employee with a Ruger he bought to product compare. Waxed some 1%er. Also fired warning shots.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
exactly. The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.
And AK are overkill.
Oh and the whole idea behind the second amendment was so states could have a credible army. now that we have the national guard the only reason it is needed is protection. and like i said, a hand gun would suffice.
29110
Post by: AustonT
hotsauceman1 wrote:exactly. The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.
And AK are overkill.
Oh and the whole idea behind the second amendment was so states could have a credible army. now that we have the national guard the only reason it is needed is protection. and like i said, a hand gun would suffice.
your right to free speech is overkill.
221
Post by: Frazzled
hotsauceman1 wrote:exactly. The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.
And AK are overkill.
Oh and the whole idea behind the second amendment was so states could have a credible army. now that we have the national guard the only reason it is needed is protection. and like i said, a hand gun would suffice.
You're so wrong you've almost completely circled the globe to land just this side of right.
The Constitution is NOT malleable. Only a tree hugging hippy capitalist republican democrat would think that. if it was your right to free speech would have been gone by now.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Could he have used his AK47 if they entered his home?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Medium of Death wrote:Could he have used his AK47 if they entered his home?
yes indeedy. This one's tricky to me though. if I have the local chapter of the crips outside I might open up, as they might open up outside too. I'm not necessarily going to wait for them to storm the place.
39004
Post by: biccat
hotsauceman1 wrote:The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.
Exactly. I eagerly await the 28th Amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment. Until then, however, we're stuck with the current one.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Yeah, it says right to bear arms, it doesnt say assault rifles.
What's wrong with assault rifles? Specifically, which parts or functions of an AK-47 make it "overkill"?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Like i said, A hand gun or shot gun would be sufficient. An AK-47 just seems like the type of weaon you would want to keep out of the hands of civilians.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
If only we had rubber nuclear weapons!
37231
Post by: d-usa
Classic case of "I can't explain why it is wrong, but I know it when I see it"?
221
Post by: Frazzled
hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
So you're a proponent of dictatorship then? Automatically Appended Next Post: hotsauceman1 wrote:Like i said, A hand gun or shot gun would be sufficient. An AK-47 just seems like the type of weaon you would want to keep out of the hands of civilians.
A shotgun is much more lethal. I'd rather a nice Mossberg in my hands then an AK if defending the house.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:exactly. The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.
And AK are overkill.
Oh and the whole idea behind the second amendment was so states could have a credible army. now that we have the national guard the only reason it is needed is protection. and like i said, a hand gun would suffice.
You're so wrong you've almost completely circled the globe to land just this side of right.
The Constitution is NOT malleable. Only a tree hugging hippy capitalist republican democrat would think that. if it was your right to free speech would have been gone by now.
The constitution contains mechanisms for it to be changed by constitutional means, and it has been amended a number of times.
That's a different argument to whether guns are a good thing or not.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Frazzled wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?
That's not what he said...
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
purplefood wrote:Frazzled wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?
That's not what he said...
Frazzled, argue in good faith?
My word.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kilkrazy wrote:Frazzled wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:exactly. The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.
And AK are overkill.
Oh and the whole idea behind the second amendment was so states could have a credible army. now that we have the national guard the only reason it is needed is protection. and like i said, a hand gun would suffice.
You're so wrong you've almost completely circled the globe to land just this side of right.
The Constitution is NOT malleable. Only a tree hugging hippy capitalist republican democrat would think that. if it was your right to free speech would have been gone by now.
The constitution contains mechanisms for it to be changed by constitutional means, and it has been amended a number of times.
That's a different argument to whether guns are a good thing or not.
And unless you use those means (as Biccat noted) the Constitution is NOT malleable. Thats the point of the Constitution.
Automatically Appended Next Post: purplefood wrote:Frazzled wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?
That's not what he said...
yea actually he did.
21720
Post by: LordofHats
Melissia wrote:“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,”
I think that's a fairly good argument myself.
But Mel, what about the Mole people?
221
Post by: Frazzled
LordofHats wrote:Melissia wrote:“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,”
I think that's a fairly good argument myself.
But Mel, what about the Mole people?
the Mole People. Surface for the Surface Dwellers!
27391
Post by: purplefood
Frazzled wrote:purplefood wrote:Frazzled wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?
That's not what he said...
yea actually he did.
What he said was 'So we should apply a 200 year old document to today's world?'
That doesn't necessarily mean he is a proponent of dictatorship.
It seems like a bad idea to run a country by a set of rules written 200 years ago unless you update them frequently to respond to changing times.
200 years ago we didn't have assault rifles, if we had maybe the constitution would be a bit different...
221
Post by: Frazzled
purplefood wrote:Frazzled wrote:purplefood wrote:Frazzled wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?
That's not what he said...
yea actually he did.
What he said was 'So we should apply a 200 year old document to today's world?'
That doesn't necessarily mean he is a proponent of dictatorship.
It seems like a bad idea to run a country by a set of rules written 200 years ago unless you update them frequently to respond to changing times.
200 years ago we didn't have assault rifles, if we had maybe the constitution would be a bit different...
Any change to the Bill of Rights - which is what he was referring to- is a lessening of our liberties. So, yea actually he was.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Frazzled wrote:purplefood wrote:Frazzled wrote:purplefood wrote:Frazzled wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?
That's not what he said...
yea actually he did.
What he said was 'So we should apply a 200 year old document to today's world?'
That doesn't necessarily mean he is a proponent of dictatorship.
It seems like a bad idea to run a country by a set of rules written 200 years ago unless you update them frequently to respond to changing times.
200 years ago we didn't have assault rifles, if we had maybe the constitution would be a bit different...
Any change to the Bill of Rights - which is what he was referring to- is a lessening of our liberties. So, yea actually he was.
Fair enough-lets get him before he convinces other to join his cause.
29110
Post by: AustonT
purplefood wrote:Frazzled wrote:purplefood wrote:Frazzled wrote:purplefood wrote:Frazzled wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
So you're a proponent of dictatorship then?
That's not what he said...
yea actually he did.
What he said was 'So we should apply a 200 year old document to today's world?'
That doesn't necessarily mean he is a proponent of dictatorship.
It seems like a bad idea to run a country by a set of rules written 200 years ago unless you update them frequently to respond to changing times.
200 years ago we didn't have assault rifles, if we had maybe the constitution would be a bit different...
Any change to the Bill of Rights - which is what he was referring to- is a lessening of our liberties. So, yea actually he was.
Fair enough-lets get him before he convinces other to join his cause.
Thanks God we won't have to worry about him having guns. That way else can just walking and search through his gak for incriminating evidence or make stuff up since we don't have to have a trial. That's if we don't just throw him in a dungeon. While he's out though my army buddies and I can live in his house, I hope he kept it tidy.
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
Who the heck keeps an Kalishnikov for Self-Defense? I mean, whatever! Props to the guy for actually being prepared and not killing anyone, but an AK is excessive :3
221
Post by: Frazzled
Samus_aran115 wrote:Who the heck keeps an AK for Self-Defense? I mean, whatever! Props to the guy for actually being prepared and not killing anyone, but an AK is excessive :3
I have an M1. Whats the difference? Oh yea, mine's American. HURR!
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Slightly OT, but why would this guy have an AK47 or AK74, given that it is a non-US weapon, and given the cold war history and the whole McCarthy thing. The guy is a red!  and if Frazz defends him, that confirms what I've been saying for months - Frazz is a red!!!
29110
Post by: AustonT
Because they are cheap and so is ammo. Also because people who are not generally "gun people" but would like to be, start at cheap surplus.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Slightly OT, but why would this guy have an AK47 or AK74, given that it is a non-US weapon, and given the cold war history and the whole McCarthy thing. The guy is a red! and if Frazz defends him, that confirms what I've been saying for months - Frazz is a red!!!
Well I am from a Red state. Just call me Comrade Frazzled
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Slightly OT, but why would this guy have an AK47 or AK74, given that it is a non-US weapon, and given the cold war history and the whole McCarthy thing. The guy is a red! and if Frazz defends him, that confirms what I've been saying for months - Frazz is a red!!!
There are undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of Kalishnikovs in the US. Being a Russian gun has nothing to do with if people use it. It's a foolproof rifle that has cheapish ammunition, and an abundance of spare parts. Same with Mosin Nagants.
I see what you're saying frazz, but I don't know... Even an M1 seems excessive. 7.62 isn't a wounding round. It's built to kill. 5.56 LR is plenty to disable an intruder to the point that they aren't going to cause you anymore trouble.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Frazzled wrote:
Look folks, People who successfully instiuted gun control (except Marx).
27051
Post by: Do_I_Not_Like_That
Auston, I know they're cheap in Afghanistan, the blood of a goat will get you an AK47 and fifty rounds, but St Elmo's beard, this is America! America I tells ya!
Plenty of worthy american alternatives: Colt Python, Lee enfield, Bren gun, SA80, L1A1, Sten, Mauser 40/42 etc etc
221
Post by: Frazzled
Samus_aran115 wrote:
I see what you're saying frazz, but I don't know... Even an M1 seems excessive. 7.62 isn't a wounding round. It's built to kill. 5.56 LR is plenty to disable an intruder to the point that they aren't going to cause you anymore trouble.
We were good until you said that. There is no such thing as a "wounding" round. A .223 certainly isn't one. The guy who taught me to shoot rifle had 23 permanent "woundings" I guess.
.22LR can kill you. People don't normally use .22LRs outside of the Mob (and zombie killing of course hurray!) because there are more powerful rounds and a .22LR is designed for smaller game.
45587
Post by: Makarov
hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
The US constitution is designs how our government is setup, it dictates how elections are held, how the highest levels of government are setup. So yeah it's kinda important. Not to forget .all the other old amendments such as the Freedom of speech/Religion, Freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, State's rights, etc. Automatically Appended Next Post: Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Auston, I know they're cheap in Afghanistan, the blood of a goat will get you an AK47 and fifty rounds, but St Elmo's beard, this is America! America I tells ya! Plenty of worthy american alternatives: Colt Python, Lee enfield, Bren gun, SA80, L1A1, Sten, Mauser 40/42 etc etc
SA80s aren't imported to the US, so we don't have any. A full auto sten is upwards of $5,000 minimum, not including all of the legal fees. Over here you can get an AK from $300( A crappy Century arms import) to upwards of $1,000 (An AK from Russia's Izmash factory) Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:exactly. The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.
And AK are overkill.
Oh and the whole idea behind the second amendment was so states could have a credible army. now that we have the national guard the only reason it is needed is protection. and like i said, a hand gun would suffice.
You're so wrong you've almost completely circled the globe to land just this side of right.
The Constitution is NOT malleable. Only a tree hugging hippy capitalist republican democrat would think that. if it was your right to free speech would have been gone by now.
I lived in Nassau county for over 17 years. It isn't worth getting a hand gun in the county. Because you have to apply up for a permit to be allowed touch a handgun in that count. Not own, touch. It takes at least 2 years to get said permit, and that's if you are lucky.
1309
Post by: Lordhat
hotsauceman1 wrote:Like i said, A hand gun or shot gun would be sufficient. An AK-47 just seems like the type of weaon you would want to keep out of the hands of civilians.
This is exactly why "assault rifles" are legal. Even professional lawmakers cannot sufficiently define what makes an Mak-90 (semi-automatic version of an AK-47) different than, say, your standard Remington Model 750 (Semi-auto hunting rifle). The clinton administration tried with the Brady bill, but all that did was increase the market of pre-ban weapons and aftermarket parts sales. The fact of the matter is that a MAK-90 (or AR15 etc) is no more or less lethal than a hunting rifle by itself. It is the user and the user's intent that makes a firearm deadly.
34168
Post by: Amaya
hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
Makes about as much sense as applying an 1700 year old document does.
1309
Post by: Lordhat
Samus_aran115 wrote:
I see what you're saying frazz, but I don't know... Even an M1 seems excessive. 7.62 isn't a wounding round. It's built to kill. 5.56 LR is plenty to disable an intruder to the point that they aren't going to cause you anymore trouble.
Generally in the US if you shoot someone in self-defense you had better be trying to kill them. As even a "minor" bullet wound can be lethal, intentionally shooting anybody at amy time in any place on their body can considered attempted murder, and is at least aggravated assault. Shooting somebody is always a crime; self-defense is simply a justification of that crime. For example, here in AZ, if you're not defending your own life, the life of another person, stopping a rape in comission, or preventing the arson of an occupied building, then shooting somebody is an unjustified felony.
TLDR; You had better be trying to kill that person or you have no business even touching a firearm. Whether or not you were justified in killing said person will be determined in court.
19347
Post by: gregor_xenos
hotsauceman1 wrote:exactly. The constituition was made to be malleable, which means we can change to what we see fit.
And AK are overkill.
Oh and the whole idea behind the second amendment was so states could have a credible army. now that we have the national guard the only reason it is needed is protection. and like i said, a hand gun would suffice.
Change it? Apparently only if you have enough powerful friends and money. As for the "states credible army", What do you think this impromptu militia is made of...... hmmmm.... lets see here..... oh that's right... the ARMED CITIZENS. If you would like to be conscripted with only a pop-gun, be my guest.... I personally would like a M1A1 or Apache attack helecopter.... but to each his own.
hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
Dont love it? LEAVE IT!
SilverMK2 wrote:If only we had rubber nuclear weapons!
Indeed.... in anti-personell rounds... wait'a'miniute.... i guess all Nukes are truly anti-personell.. lol
Samus_aran115 wrote:Who the heck keeps an Kalishnikov for Self-Defense? I mean, whatever! Props to the guy for actually being prepared and not killing anyone, but an AK is excessive :3
Legal AKs are about as "excessive" as your cell phone that vibrates as it rings. Now MY firearm collection.... might be called "excessive"
Amaya wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
Makes about as much sense as applying an 1700 year old document does.
OOOOOHHHH BURN!!!! 
27391
Post by: purplefood
gregor_xenos wrote:
Amaya wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
Makes about as much sense as applying an 1700 year old document does.
OOOOOHHHH BURN!!!!
Can i ask how?
Once again i fail to understand what people are getting at...
1309
Post by: Lordhat
purplefood wrote:gregor_xenos wrote:
Amaya wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
Makes about as much sense as applying an 1700 year old document does.
OOOOOHHHH BURN!!!!
Can i ask how?
Once again i fail to understand what people are getting at...
I believe this was a reference to the bible.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Lordhat wrote:purplefood wrote:gregor_xenos wrote:
Amaya wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
Makes about as much sense as applying an 1700 year old document does.
OOOOOHHHH BURN!!!!
Can i ask how?
Once again i fail to understand what people are getting at...
I believe this was a reference to the bible.
Okay that was about my 3rd guess...
Thanks...
19347
Post by: gregor_xenos
^ Really? What were the first 2?
21611
Post by: Ronin-Sage
I wonder if they checked him for 922r compliance...you always hear about how 'they could add that to the list of charges'.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
d-usa wrote:Even in gun-happy Oklahoma with some pretty good self defense laws, this guy would have been in trouble.
You cannot walk around showing your weapon with an intend to intimidate anybody, even if they are bad guys. That will get you felony branding charges.
You also cannot fire "warning shots", that will get you felony charges as well. Any bullet not fired into a bad guy is a bullet that can hit an innocent bystander down the road. "Firing in the yard is not going to hurt anybody" is not an valid excuse. All it takes is for it to hit a rock, bounce of, and fly through the window next door.
I am 100% pro self-defense, I am 100% for concealed carry, but I also think that your gun only leaves your holster for one single purpose. To neutralize a thread. It doesn't come out to scare people. It doesn't come out to fire warning shots. It only comes out because something is about to go down, and if you don't kill them before they kill you.
Heck, if that guy would have stayed inside his house and unloaded the gun through the front door as soon as the doorknob rattled I would defend him 100%. But going outside with a gun to threaten a gang was dumb. This isn't Gran Tourino.
I may be being dense but isn't concealing the fact that you are carrying a firearm (which I'm assuming is what "concealed carry" is) eliminating one of the main advantages of carrying said firearm, the deterrent factor? If someone knows you are carrying a weapon then they are a lot less likely to attack you unless they also have a weapon of equal or greater lethality than yours. Then if they do attack you with a weapon then their weapon is already out and ready for use, whereas yours is in a holster in a harder to reach location. If they see you go reaching into your jacket they're probably going to automatically assume that you're going for a gun anyway, so you get shot before you even draw your weapon.
21611
Post by: Ronin-Sage
A Town Called Malus wrote:
I may be being dense but isn't concealing the fact that you are carrying a firearm (which I'm assuming is what "concealed carry" is) eliminating one of the main advantages of carrying said firearm, the deterrent factor?
If someone knows you are carrying a weapon then they are a lot less likely to attack you unless they also have a weapon of equal or greater lethality than yours.
There's often a debate about this...I would agree about visibility of a firearm serving as a basic deterrent in most cases, and while one can train to be really fast on the draw with their CCW weapon, you're certainly going to be faster drawing from an OWB holster than some concealed alternatives.
On the other hand, open-carrying in pretty much any environment outside of gun shows and shooting ranges is almost always going to be socially unacceptable to some degree. Depending on where you live, you risk seriously freaking people the feth out. I'm sure there are some areas where no one really cares, but I think I can safely say in most areas of the country, that isn't the case(but it does depend on where you are).
EDIT: To clarify, yes there are environments and situations where open-carrying doesn't get you more than an extra glance or two, but I think in your typical non-open environment(say, a restaurant that doesn't serve alcohol or the waiting room of an autocare shop), it might take some balls.
19347
Post by: gregor_xenos
A Town Called Malus wrote:I may be being dense but isn't concealing the fact that you are carrying a firearm (which I'm assuming is what "concealed carry" is) eliminating one of the main advantages of carrying said firearm, the deterrent factor?
If someone knows you are carrying a weapon then they are a lot less likely to attack you unless they also have a weapon of equal or greater lethality than yours. Then if they do attack you with a weapon then their weapon is already out and ready for use, whereas yours is in a holster in a harder to reach location. If they see you go reaching into your jacket they're probably going to automatically assume that you're going for a gun anyway, so you get shot before you even draw your weapon.
1. Publicly desplaying your side arm is "threatning" to some of the populace and could get you in trouble. Besides; this cuts down on your oppourtunity to be attacked and therefore blast some cretin in the face.
2. It lets said assailaint know what youre bringing. So now he can "upgrade". ( WTF?! He's got a .50 Desert Eagle.... Time to use the car... Hit n run baby!!!)
3. A properly trained individual will not "go for the gun" when a gun is pointed at them.... it's all about oppourtunity. In all truth; the smart criminal will shoot you in the back of the head and take what he wants. Less hasstle that way. 
Oh crap..... just saw your origion flag.... now I know why all the questions. Is there even such a thing as "legal" concealed carry permits in Britania? *not sarcastic.... curious*
37231
Post by: d-usa
I am not opposed to open carry, but I feel that open carry just means that the bad guys know that you are the guy to take out first. I think the element of surprise is more important than being perceived as a threat.
21611
Post by: Ronin-Sage
d-usa wrote:I am not opposed to open carry, but I feel that open carry just means that the bad guys know that you are the guy to take out first. I think the element of surprise is more important than being perceived as a threat.
I can see this being relevant in hostage situations or some kind of prelude to a mass-shooting, but in more common situations(say, muggings), I can't fathom that criminals would intentionally go after 'hard targets' like that. 'seems like they would choose a softer target, because feth, why would they intentionally go after the guy they know has a firearm as opposed to another target or choosing another area or day to commit whatever crime they have in mind.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Really just a personal choice situation for me. I am not against the concept of open carry, and I hope that Oklahoma passes it this year. Just saying that I would not do it for that reason. I do open carry when hunting though.
21611
Post by: Ronin-Sage
d-usa wrote:Really just a personal choice situation for me. I am not against the concept of open carry, and I hope that Oklahoma passes it this year. Just saying that I would not do it for that reason. I do open carry when hunting though.
Sure. I live in Louisiana, myself, and open-carry w/o a license is fine here. I'm sure there might be a state or two that's more free in terms of firearm restrictions, but I think we have it pretty good here :p
New Orleans, however, is a bit weird...
27391
Post by: purplefood
gregor_xenos wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:I may be being dense but isn't concealing the fact that you are carrying a firearm (which I'm assuming is what "concealed carry" is) eliminating one of the main advantages of carrying said firearm, the deterrent factor?
If someone knows you are carrying a weapon then they are a lot less likely to attack you unless they also have a weapon of equal or greater lethality than yours. Then if they do attack you with a weapon then their weapon is already out and ready for use, whereas yours is in a holster in a harder to reach location. If they see you go reaching into your jacket they're probably going to automatically assume that you're going for a gun anyway, so you get shot before you even draw your weapon.
1. Publicly desplaying your side arm is "threatning" to some of the populace and could get you in trouble. Besides; this cuts down on your oppourtunity to be attacked and therefore blast some cretin in the face.
2. It lets said assailaint know what youre bringing. So now he can "upgrade". ( WTF?! He's got a .50 Desert Eagle.... Time to use the car... Hit n run baby!!!)
3. A properly trained individual will not "go for the gun" when a gun is pointed at them.... it's all about oppourtunity. In all truth; the smart criminal will shoot you in the back of the head and take what he wants. Less hasstle that way.
Oh crap..... just saw your origion flag.... now I know why all the questions. Is there even such a thing as "legal" concealed carry permits in Britania? *not sarcastic.... curious*
You don't have guns here... not legally...
I mean, you get the occasional hunting shotguns and such but you aren't allowed to own a gun.
You can get them illegally but, AFAIK, they are difficult to get and usually they have already been used in a crime so they're a time bomb...
Here's the Wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
Knives and bladed weapons are far more common in Britain...
Everything from machetes and kitchen knives to samurai swords and meat cleavers...
19347
Post by: gregor_xenos
As for why someone would attack a "open carrying" person.... bigger payoff. If they surprise ya, they win a gun.
UK: No wonder you guys think the USA is out of control. And to think our leadership is trying to "secretly" bring us on board with the UN's gun ideals.
I call BS
To quote a personal hero: "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead, hands."
221
Post by: Frazzled
Lordhat wrote:hotsauceman1 wrote:Like i said, A hand gun or shot gun would be sufficient. An AK-47 just seems like the type of weaon you would want to keep out of the hands of civilians.
This is exactly why "assault rifles" are legal. Even professional lawmakers cannot sufficiently define what makes an Mak-90 (semi-automatic version of an AK-47) different than, say, your standard Remington Model 750 (Semi-auto hunting rifle). The clinton administration tried with the Brady bill, but all that did was increase the market of pre-ban weapons and aftermarket parts sales. The fact of the matter is that a MAK-90 (or AR15 etc) is no more or less lethal than a hunting rifle by itself. It is the user and the user's intent that makes a firearm deadly.
Well a guy with a hunting rifle and scope is much more lethal in many circumstances.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Well we do have one of the lowest gun crime rates...
Though knife crime is pretty high but the laws against it are fairly staggering but knives are too easy to get a hold of...
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
gregor_xenos wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:So we should apply a 200 year old document to todays world?
Dont love it? LEAVE IT!
Or change it, which is what democracy is all about.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
purplefood wrote:gregor_xenos wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:I may be being dense but isn't concealing the fact that you are carrying a firearm (which I'm assuming is what "concealed carry" is) eliminating one of the main advantages of carrying said firearm, the deterrent factor?
If someone knows you are carrying a weapon then they are a lot less likely to attack you unless they also have a weapon of equal or greater lethality than yours. Then if they do attack you with a weapon then their weapon is already out and ready for use, whereas yours is in a holster in a harder to reach location. If they see you go reaching into your jacket they're probably going to automatically assume that you're going for a gun anyway, so you get shot before you even draw your weapon.
1. Publicly desplaying your side arm is "threatning" to some of the populace and could get you in trouble. Besides; this cuts down on your oppourtunity to be attacked and therefore blast some cretin in the face. 2. It lets said assailaint know what youre bringing. So now he can "upgrade". ( WTF?! He's got a .50 Desert Eagle.... Time to use the car... Hit n run baby!!!) 3. A properly trained individual will not "go for the gun" when a gun is pointed at them.... it's all about oppourtunity. In all truth; the smart criminal will shoot you in the back of the head and take what he wants. Less hasstle that way. Oh crap..... just saw your origion flag.... now I know why all the questions. Is there even such a thing as "legal" concealed carry permits in Britania? *not sarcastic.... curious*
You don't have guns here... not legally... I mean, you get the occasional hunting shotguns and such but you aren't allowed to own a gun. You can get them illegally but, AFAIK, they are difficult to get and usually they have already been used in a crime so they're a time bomb... Here's the Wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom Knives and bladed weapons are far more common in Britain... Everything from machetes and kitchen knives to samurai swords and meat cleavers...
Not strictly true. We can own rifles with a license but there are strict requirements on the action of the firearm (it cannot be self loading if chambered above .22) and the muzzle energy of the ammunition used. My dad has a friend who owns a Lee Enfield, Mauser and a 7.62 calibre Canadian rifle from WW2 (can't remember the name), which I got to fire at a Rifle Association open day. If I remember correctly he had to make the ammunition for the 7.62 himself to ensure it didn't exceed the maximum energy. The checks for obtaining a license are very thorough and strict, though. Any mental health problems (including depression) is instant removal of your license. It's because of all this that when we do have a shooting (which are thankfully pretty rare) it makes big news.
27391
Post by: purplefood
A Town Called Malus wrote:purplefood wrote:gregor_xenos wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:I may be being dense but isn't concealing the fact that you are carrying a firearm (which I'm assuming is what "concealed carry" is) eliminating one of the main advantages of carrying said firearm, the deterrent factor?
If someone knows you are carrying a weapon then they are a lot less likely to attack you unless they also have a weapon of equal or greater lethality than yours. Then if they do attack you with a weapon then their weapon is already out and ready for use, whereas yours is in a holster in a harder to reach location. If they see you go reaching into your jacket they're probably going to automatically assume that you're going for a gun anyway, so you get shot before you even draw your weapon.
1. Publicly desplaying your side arm is "threatning" to some of the populace and could get you in trouble. Besides; this cuts down on your oppourtunity to be attacked and therefore blast some cretin in the face.
2. It lets said assailaint know what youre bringing. So now he can "upgrade". ( WTF?! He's got a .50 Desert Eagle.... Time to use the car... Hit n run baby!!!)
3. A properly trained individual will not "go for the gun" when a gun is pointed at them.... it's all about oppourtunity. In all truth; the smart criminal will shoot you in the back of the head and take what he wants. Less hasstle that way.
Oh crap..... just saw your origion flag.... now I know why all the questions. Is there even such a thing as "legal" concealed carry permits in Britania? *not sarcastic.... curious*
You don't have guns here... not legally...
I mean, you get the occasional hunting shotguns and such but you aren't allowed to own a gun.
You can get them illegally but, AFAIK, they are difficult to get and usually they have already been used in a crime so they're a time bomb...
Here's the Wiki on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
Knives and bladed weapons are far more common in Britain...
Everything from machetes and kitchen knives to samurai swords and meat cleavers...
Not strictly true. We can own rifles with a license but there are strict requirements on the action of the firearm (it cannot be self loading if chambered above .22) and the muzzle energy of the ammunition used. My dad has a friend who owns a Lee Enfield, Mauser and a 7.62 calibre Canadian rifle from WW2 (can't remember the name), which I got to fire at a Rifle Association open day. If I remember correctly he had to make the ammunition for the 7.62 himself to ensure it didn't exceed the maximum energy.
The checks for obtaining a license are very thorough and strict, though. Any mental health problems (including depression) is instant removal of your license.
It's because of all this that when we do have a shooting (which are thankfully pretty rare) it makes big news.
Yeah, i figured that as i was reading the wiki...
34168
Post by: Amaya
purplefood wrote:Well we do have one of the lowest gun crime rates...
Though knife crime is pretty high but the laws against it are fairly staggering but knives are too easy to get a hold of...
I'm probably the only male over 18 that doesn't have a knife capable of killing someone with.
Everyone has a fething knife here it is ridiculous.
And speaking of gun crimes, people should be glad no trained riflemen (especially a SF guy) has gone nutters and started killing people since Charles Whitman (I believe he is the last former service member to go on a killing spree against American civilians at least,).
19347
Post by: gregor_xenos
I think the government is allowing guys like that to "re-up" indefinately now. lol
53002
Post by: Tibbsy
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Plenty of worthy american alternatives: Colt Python American, Lee enfield British, Bren gun British, SA80 British, L1A1 British made copy of a Belgian gun, Sten British, Mauser 40/42 German etc etc
Hate to be pedantic - but in that list above, IIRC only one is actually American (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those above are right) - You seem to like your British guns
Anyway, laws here on firearms are interesting, shotguns and rifles/carbines are available, but you need a license for them, shotgun licenses IIRC are fairly easy to get hold of (most farmers have them, and those who shoot wildfowl etc. They're probably more available than most people realise) Rifles/carbines are different, Malus has it right that there's rules about the action of them, and they can't be self loading above .22 (I'm not too sure on the muzzle energy point, but I would be inclined to believe it) There are also checks on storage of the firearm itself and the storage of ammunition (They need to be stored seperately, both in a locked and secured safe, and this is checked fairly regularly by a Police representative IIRC. There's no enforcement on the storage of shotguns or shotgun ammunition.
Handguns are flat out not available, I believe in the law they define a "Handgun" as any firearm under 2 foot long (Excepting antiques, like blackpowder weapons.) My Dad's friend runs a shooting range that used to be pretty much for pistols and handguns only until this law came in in the early 80's. They've actually got a handful of revolvers that measure at just over 2 foot, so they can still do pistol shooting I'd like to see someone try and concealed carry that monster though
Air rifles and pistols are freely available to those over 18. One thing that has endlessly annoyed those that play Airsoft though is that airsoft guns and replicas are not, and you have to be registered with a site to be able to purchase realistically coloured airsoft guns, until you get registered, they have to be in bright colours. 
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
gregor_xenos wrote:
Oh crap..... just saw your origion flag.... now I know why all the questions. Is there even such a thing as "legal" concealed carry permits in Britania? *not sarcastic.... curious*
Realised I didn't really answer this completely with my other post. There's no legal concealed carry for ordinary citizens here in Britain. The Police I'm not sure about as the only armed officers I've seen are the policemen outside the gates of Parliament with their MP5s but I'd imagine there'd be a license for some plains clothes officers to carry a concealed side-arm. Apart from that the only people who I can think of who would be legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm would be MI5 and MI6 (so Homeland Security and James Bond).
46277
Post by: squidhills
Kanluwen wrote:unmercifulconker wrote:Innocent man arrested for protecting his property and family?
Woohoo, way to go justice! This person was clearly in the wrong, who does he think he is to protect his loved ones from evil.
Did you actually read the article, by chance?
George Grier said he had to use his rifle on Sunday night to stop what he thought was going to be an invasion of his Uniondale home by a gang he thought might have been the vicious “MS-13.” He said the whole deal happened as he was about to drive his cousin home.
Note:
It doesn't say "He was inside of his house and they were breaking in". He was outside and he thought his house was going to be invaded.
“I went around and went into the house, ran upstairs and told my wife to call the police. I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house. I tell them, you know, ‘Can you please leave?’ Grier said.
There's a key piece in there.
I get the gun and I go outside and I come into the doorway and now, by this time, they are in the driveway, back here near the house.
He escalated the situation, right here and it effectively 'changes the rules' as to what's happening. We don't know that they were going to break in. We don't know that they were threatening him, etc prior to this point.
All we know is that he went into the house and came back outside with a gun.
Grier said the five men dared him to use the gun; and that their shouts brought another larger group of gang members in front of his house.
“He starts threatening my family, my life. ‘Oh you’re dead. I’m gonna kill your family and your babies. You’re dead.’ So when he says that, 20 others guys come rushing around the corner. And so I fired four warning shots into the grass,” Grier said.
Depending on where you are, the idea of "warning shots" is...unlikely to be accepted.
“What he’s initially charged with – A D felony reckless endangerment — requires a depraved indifference to human life, creating a risk that someone’s going to die. Shooting into a lawn doesn’t create a risk of anybody dying,” Lewis said.
You see this?
This right here is why he was arrested. Not for "defending his family" or anything. Because he fired a gun in the direction of these individuals. If he had shot and killed one of them, he likely would have been arrested as well.
But the law says you can only use physical force to deter physical force. Grier said he never saw anyone pull out a gun, so a court would have to decide on firing the gun.
This is where the issue lies. Was he allowed to do this? You cannot use physical force to deter physical force. I can't shoot you in the face because I think you might be reaching for a gun to shoot me in the face. I have to have a reasonable expectation of immediate danger, such as you pulling out a gun and aiming it at me.
That said:
MS-13 is no joke, but at the same time they as a gang are not really known for doing home invasions. Executions of informants or rival gang members?
Oh hell yeah they do that. They're brutal as hell.
Kan, you and I don't agree on much (Squats in particular) but your assessment and understanding of the law is spot-on, here. I read this article with the legal knowledge I've gained from my college law classes and came to the exact same conclusions you did. I'm curious to know if you've got a legal background?
27391
Post by: purplefood
He sort of does...
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
purplefood wrote:He sort of does...
But not on the good side of the law...
27391
Post by: purplefood
MrDwhitey wrote:purplefood wrote:He sort of does...
But not on the good side of the law...
Yeah turns out Kan is a drug dealer...
A racist drug dealer...
41291
Post by: Troy
purplefood wrote:MrDwhitey wrote:purplefood wrote:He sort of does...
But not on the good side of the law...
Yeah turns out Kan is a drug dealer...
A racist drug dealer...
He's been known to wear a hoodie.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
That Skittles eatin Mutha.....
NM
9217
Post by: KingCracker
Apparently everyone is racist on DAKKA....and I mean EVERYONE!! 
722
Post by: Kanluwen
purplefood wrote:MrDwhitey wrote:purplefood wrote:He sort of does...
But not on the good side of the law...
Yeah turns out Kan is a drug dealer...
A racist drug dealer...
Purplefood has a vivid imagination.
And he's confused me with Soladrin. 
14070
Post by: SagesStone
That's precisely what you'd say if you were. Sol's clearly a scapegoat in your nefarious plot.
9217
Post by: KingCracker
Poor Sol Does he even visit the OT? lol
27391
Post by: purplefood
Actually Sol is a drug dealer...
Though it's legal in Holland...
221
Post by: Frazzled
purplefood wrote:Actually Sol is a drug dealer...
Though it's legal in Holland...
If sniffing glue while running traffic control is a crime then, well, er never mind.
39004
Post by: biccat
purplefood wrote:Actually Sol is a drug dealer...
Though it's legal in Holland...
I'm pretty sure we've got at least one US drug dealer that posts in the OT.
19347
Post by: gregor_xenos
heh heh.... um.... that's ex.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
This topic seems to be finished now.
|
|
