Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

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!!!!

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...

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.

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...

^ Really? What were the first 2?

I wonder if they checked him for 922r compliance...you always hear about how 'they could add that to the list of charges'.

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.

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.

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*

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

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."

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.

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...

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.

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.

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...

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,).

I think the government is allowing guys like that to "re-up" indefinately now. lol

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.

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).

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?

He sort of does...

purplefood wrote:He sort of does...

But not on the good side of the law...

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...