Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 69
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    565

    Tell me reason do i need to get a gun?

    Hi all

    peoples can own a gun in my state. And i dont know that i should get one for my self to protect my family from crime..my area isn't bad at all..but i just worry other things which can come whenever in future..noone know or can tell..
    Last edited by traixanha; 05-03-2004 at 09:20 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    Yes, a gun may come into a situation as a necessity sometime during your life. Better safe than sorry, especially if your area has even a small history for robberies or other violent crime. But as your isn't, if you are really squeamish about firearms, you probably won't need it. But as I can admit, I like to go to the firearms range with my dad, just as a hobby. I don't think I'll ever have to use a weapon in a life or death situation.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    565
    what state are u in? i am in MN...Do we have to pay fee or license for carry out side ?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,033
    Hello traixanha,

    I would like to state a lot of people own guns for many different reasons. Some carry it, because they like to collect guns. Some people buy guns for hunting, and some for protections. Reasons I have a gun (well more then 1 ) is for all of the reasons I stated above. Though as you stated above you have a family I would talk to them about it to see how they feel. I have known families who got a divorce, because of guns.
    I am back....


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    9,576
    You don't need to have a gun.
    Former Webhost... now, just a guy.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    936
    If you need to ask you probably don't need it.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia
    Posts
    6,835
    You must get a certificate and take a training course to get your concealed-carry permit. Typically you can take one at your local range, pretty cheaply.

    Then bring your gun of choice to the Sheriff's office, say an oath (or sign, depending on state), give your fingerprints, give them a fee, and wait 6-8 weeks.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    978

    Re: Tell me reason do i need to get a gun?

    Originally posted by traixanha
    Hi all
    Tell me reason do i need to get a gun?

    peoples can own a gun in my state. And i dont know that i should get one for my self to protect my family from crime..my area isn't bad at all..but i just worry other things which can come whenever in future..noone know or can tell..
    ...To shoot your english teacher.

    -Matt

    (figuratively, of course)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,962
    A whle back a friend of mine was over at my house. He was two weeks behind on his car payment (paid weekly, bought it at a a ripoff car lot). Well, a repo man shows up. I knew something was wrong because of the way the dogs were going nuts. We look out the window, see him backing up to my friends car.

    I go out there with a rifle. Repo men will try to make you think they have every right to take a car, I know the law, and they dont. Here in Texas, if caught in the act, it's still theft. Not only that, he was trespassing. He started up his defense, I told him dont worry about it, I know the law and am calling his bluff.

    First off, I will not shoot anyone for just doing his job. I asked if he had a family, he said yes. Wife and tweo kids. Doing a bluff of my own, I told him please dont put me in a position to make them be without a father. Probably a mistake, as then he knew I wouldnt shoot him, and got cocky. He said "do what you need to do, I am taking this car. I know you wont shoot". I responded with "Your right, I wont, but your truck wont be getting 5 feet from the time you hook up to the car, then the cops will come and arrest you on multiple cahrges, one of which is car theft.

    He left without taking the car. That's what I hate about those ripoff little used car lots. They wont work with you, and will repo as soon as they have the opportunity....and he only had a month till is was paid off. However, having the gun came in quite handy that time.

  10. #10
    Originally posted by Webdude
    I go out there with a rifle. Repo men will try to make you think they have every right to take a car, I know the law, and they dont. Here in Texas, if caught in the act, it's still theft. Not only that, he was trespassing. He started up his defense, I told him dont worry about it, I know the law and am calling his bluff.
    Off topic a bit, but can you show me that law? I would be interested in reading up on it..
    Let Google know when your dead | Read More >>
    Submit Your Press Release, Article, or News Tip Today
    W3Reports - News for Webmasters

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    629
    If nobody had guns, nobody would need guns.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,067
    I thought every american have the rights to bare arms because the British might come attackin...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    946
    Originally posted by akashik
    You don't need to have a gun.
    American's beg to differ

    Originally posted by Alfarin
    I thought every american have the rights to bare arms because the British might come attackin...
    Yeah they certainly do. I really think they should have some sort of restrictions. You know about 11,000 people die each year in the USA because of guns. Now that is a very large disturbing number, and something must be done to lower it.
    You really don't need an assult rifle at home. What kind of animal are you going to hunt with that
    Last edited by macdonaldp; 05-03-2004 at 11:58 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,962
    Originally posted by Trifolic
    Off topic a bit, but can you show me that law? I would be interested in reading up on it..
    Any time I have a question on the law, I call up an Constable friend of mine. This falls under one of those iffy things. It is illegal to repo a vehicle here. That's why being a repo guy is such a dangerous occupation here. If he is caught between the time of hooking up to the vehicle and the time he gets it to the lot, he's busted as a criminal. If it gets it to the lot without getting caught, no charges can be filed. However, here is what I have found..

    Texas Law

    Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
    ~ ~ (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
    ~ ~ (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
    ~ ~ ~ (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
    ~ ~ ~ (B to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
    ~ ~ (3) he reasonably believes that:
    ~ ~ ~ (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
    ~ ~ ~ (B the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
    You can also search Texas news and find many cases where repo men have been shot, and the shooter was let go since it was defense of property, which Texas law (as seen above) allows deadly force for. As far as Texas law goes, who owes who what money is a civil matter not a legal one, and the owner is whoever has possession of the vehicle in such a case. (ie: possession is 9/10th's of the law.)

    As I have stated here on these forums previously...in Texas they dont have to be in your house. They can be running down the road with your stuff in their arms, and you can shoot them in the back as they try to get away.. and it doesnt matter if he is armed or not..
    Last edited by Webdude; 05-04-2004 at 12:05 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    5,403
    Originally posted by webmultitude
    If you need to ask you probably don't need it.
    I was going to post exactly this comment, if you must ASK you do not need a gun, and probably shouldn't have one at all.

    To answer why I keep a gun:

    Animals - squirrels mainly other critters from time to time
    Protection - never had to use a gun for protection, and if I have my way I never will.
    Enjoyment - I like to shoot it's as simple as that, however I don't do it very often but sometimes it's fun to load up the pickup head down into the back hollow and increase the lead to wood ratio in some big logs (we shoot into big pieces of wood on their side, the growth rings are perfect targets).
    Gary Harris - the artist formerly known as Dixiesys
    resident grumpy redneck

  16. #16

    Re: Re: Tell me reason do i need to get a gun?

    Originally posted by RackNine
    ...To shoot your english teacher.

    -Matt

    (figuratively, of course)
    what the heck are you talking about?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,962
    I know someone will want to know what 9.41 says, here it is..

    Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
    ~ (b A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
    ~ ~ (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
    ~ ~ (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
    9.41 is important, because it puts both a qualification and limitation on the use of deadly force.

    Here's the qualificaton: justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force

    This essentially means that someone responding with deadly force to protect property in Texas is going to fall under the maxim "better to be tried by twelve than carried by six." Any prosecution is going to have to prove that the degree of force used was unreasonable to accomplish the protection of property.

    Second, the limitation: force, threat, or fraud against the actor Pickpockets, dine and dash (which are theft of property), shoplifters and the like during daylight cannot be met with deadly force. Now, if you chase down the pickpocket, and he pulls a knife on you, he's just escalated and you can now blow him away.

    It could also be interpreted that if a pickpocket is running away with your wallet, and you are too slow to catch up with him, you can try seeing if a bullet will catch up with him

  18. #18
    Originally posted by Webdude
    I go out there with a rifle. Repo men will try to make you think they have every right to take a car, I know the law, and they dont. Here in Texas, if caught in the act, it's still theft. Not only that, he was trespassing. He started up his defense, I told him dont worry about it, I know the law and am calling his bluff.
    Once you were aware this individual was repossessing the vehicle legally, you had no legal right to use or threaten deadly force and should be charged with a crime. You were aware this individual wasn't a thief and had no legal right to protect your property with deadly force. Please disclose the specific law in Texas that permits you the legal right to use deadly force against individuals known to be legally repossessing vehicles.

    And keep in mind.. regardless of any Texas law pertaining to the use of deadly force to protect personal property, you are wide open to possible Federal criminal charges and/or civil liability if any of these courts determine you were negligent when using deadly force. Are you prepared to risk your freedom and livelihood to protect these replaceable tangible items?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,239
    Originally posted by sh-directssl
    I really think they should have some sort of restrictions. You know about 11,000 people die each year in the USA because of guns. Now that is a very large disturbing number, and something must be done to lower it.
    You really don't need an assult rifle at home. What kind of animal are you going to hunt with that
    Hmmm....where to start on this one...


    Okay, first of all the "assault weapon in every home" bit has been dragged through the ground endlessly by the media. There is nothing wrong with owning an assault weapon. A lot of people like to collect guns and it's a part of history. Second, people own such weapons for range practice against dummy targets. It's fun to shoot these guns. They have very little kickback and they are accurate.

    A lot of people forget that it's against the law to own an automatic assault weapon in the United States without a federal permit. There's a BIG difference between SEMI and AUTOMATIC.

    While we're on the subject of banning guns, why don't we ban .22 cal rifles? You could mount a simple scope on it and then you would have a sniper rifle! (being sarcastic there) Come on folks if we start down this road where would it end?

    Banning target practice without government approval?

    Registering all firearms with the government so they can keep track of them? (this has already happened in the United States with all new gun purchases, however guns bought before this law are not registered...yet)

    Restriction of the sale of ammunition?



    There are many reasons why the "Right to Bear Arms" clause is in the Bill of Rights. Now, you may not like where I'm going with this, but please keep an open mind....

    Currently, all new gun purchases are registered with the United States government. Some point down the road they may force mandatory registration of all pre-existing guns owned by citizens. Fast forward ten years later after that. The government demands that all guns be turned over to be destroyed. (hey...it CAN happen to the United States as it has happened to other countries in the past. We've got fail safes in place to prevent it, but no system is foolproof).

    Now, the government and the military control all the guns in the nation. What is going to stop the government from declaring martial law, restricting freedoms, dissolving Congress, etc.? (please no Patriot Act jokes) What can the general population do about this? Nothing!

    Let's put this in perspective now. The Framers of the Constitution obviously were very knowledgeable of past history. They knew it was imperative that the new government should represent ALL THE PEOPLE and not certain groups of rank, status, etc. Many civil wars, rebellions, etc. had been started due to a certain group getting greedy or not listening to their peers. The Framers wanted the power to rest with the people who could control the government directly (or through elected representatives) which would minimize the risk of rebellion (sadly not even 80 years later the US was involved in a bloody civil war).

    Another reason for this clause is to defend one's family and property. The United States had just recently signed a treaty with Great Britain ending the war. However, it was well known that the United States did not have well organized standing army or navy. Any country could have easily invaded again. Therefore, the right of a citizen (and militia) to own a weapon was imperative if an invasion ever came about (can we say War of 1812)??

    I want to revisit the "government taking full control" scenario. Have you ever heard of a book or movie called "Seven Days in May"? HBO made a remake called "The Enemy Within" in the early 1990s. Basically, it's about a high ranking US General who is fed up with the way the President of the United States is handling the Cold War. The General takes matters into his own hands and with a series of "military maneuvers and exercises" attempts to force the President of of office and place himself as the leader of the US. This is only of the very CORE REASONS why the leader and commander-in-chief of our country is a civilian.

    Check out the movie. I'll guarantee you'll have a whole new appreciation for the Constitution after watching it. The scary part is that it is eerily realistic.
    TradeViceroy

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,239
    Originally posted by localhost
    Once you were aware this individual was repossessing the vehicle legally, you had no legal right to use or threaten deadly force and should be charged with a crime. You were aware this individual wasn't a thief and had no legal right to protect your property with deadly force. Please disclose the specific law in Texas that permits you the legal right to use deadly force against individuals known to be legally repossessing vehicles.

    And keep in mind.. regardless of any Texas law pertaining to the use of deadly force to protect personal property, you are wide open to possible Federal criminal charges and/or civil liability if any of these courts determine you were negligent when using deadly force. Are you prepared to risk your freedom and livelihood to protect these replaceable tangible items?
    Well...here's your evidence:
    http://www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Public...epossess&hl=en

    Straight from the Texas Attorney General's web site. I'll paraphrase for people who don't want to read all the text:

    "Texas dealerships have the legal right to repossess your car without prior notice, even in the middle of the night. Keep your records safe and up-to-date for your protection."


    So, technically if you see someone trying to "steal" your car in the middle of the night, you have the right to intervene, but if the person can show proper proof that the repossession is legal, then by all rights the owner has to let the person take the vehicle. Here's the kicker though...the person must repossess the vehicle peacefully. They may not use deadly force, bodily harm, or threats to take the vehicle.

    That is where the law gets a little shady. On one hand, the person is trespassing on your property. On the other the person has the legal right to take your vehicle since you defaulted.

    Another kicker is that under the Texas Consumer Protection Law, debt collectors (ie NOT the car dealership) are NOT legally allowed to repossess anything you own with going through a series of court proceedings. A judgment must be ruled before any repossession may begin.

    Sooooo....it all depends on who wants to repossess your car. The debt collection agency or the dealership which technically still owns the car until you finish payment.
    TradeViceroy

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,962
    Originally posted by localhost
    Once you were aware this individual was repossessing the vehicle legally, you had no legal right to use or threaten deadly force and should be charged with a crime. You were aware this individual wasn't a thief and had no legal right to protect your property with deadly force. Please disclose the specific law in Texas that permits you the legal right to use deadly force against individuals known to be legally repossessing vehicles.

    And keep in mind.. regardless of any Texas law pertaining to the use of deadly force to protect personal property, you are wide open to possible Federal criminal charges and/or civil liability if any of these courts determine you were negligent when using deadly force. Are you prepared to risk your freedom and livelihood to protect these replaceable tangible items?
    You seem to have missed the fact that it was not my car, it was a friend visiting. The repo man was trespassing. Now, if the repo man chose to go the legal way, which was identify himself and show proper papers...... he can take the car off the owner's property as long as he doesnt do anything else that is illegal, such as forcing a garage door open, moving another vehicle to get to the one he needs, or opening/busting a gate.

    However, he was not on the car owner's property, he was on mine. I also made it clear here that I would not have shot him for doing his job. I would have, however, made sure his vehicle would not be going anywhere if he chose to force the issue. Several of my rifles can do quite the job of rendering a vehicle inoperable.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,239
    Webdude has a point. Texas law states the a repossession may take place on the CONSUMER'S property, but not on a property owned by a unrelated third party.

    So, technically this particular person was trespassing and depending on how he gained access to the property, burglary.
    TradeViceroy

  23. #23
    It doesn't really matter what Texas law states.

    Once again..

    "And keep in mind.. regardless of any Texas law pertaining to the use of deadly force to protect personal property, you are wide open to possible Federal criminal charges and/or civil liability if any of these courts determine you were negligent when using deadly force."


    Originally posted by TradeViceroy
    Webdude has a point. Texas law states the a repossession may take place on the CONSUMER'S property, but not on a property owned by a unrelated third party.

    So, technically this particular person was trespassing and depending on how he gained access to the property, burglary.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,239
    Which federal laws are you speaking of specifically?

    I never said anything about using deadly force. That was WebDude. I was merely getting the facts straight as to where a repossession may take place and how it may be conducted.
    TradeViceroy

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,239
    On another note, in order for that specific Texas law to be deemed unconstitutional, either the State (since it's a Texas law) or the US Supreme Court must rule that it is.

    Otherwise, it's law and must be enforced until someone successfully challenges the validity of it.

    Regarding civil lawsuits...yes legally a suspect can file a lawsuit, but chances are it will get thrown out due to the circumstances surrounding the supposed "deadly response" by the victim.
    TradeViceroy

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,962
    Originally posted by TradeViceroy
    On another note, in order for that specific Texas law to be deemed unconstitutional, either the State (since it's a Texas law) or the US Supreme Court must rule that it is.

    Otherwise, it's law and must be enforced until someone successfully challenges the validity of it.

    Regarding civil lawsuits...yes legally a suspect can file a lawsuit, but chances are it will get thrown out due to the circumstances surrounding the supposed "deadly response" by the victim.
    Yes, those are the words I was looking for. It would have to go to the supreme court for the feds to prosecute someone for shooting to protect their property in Texas, and the Supreme Court would have to rule that the Texas law is illegal.

    As for civil matters, yes the driver could sue me for shooting up his vehicle.....oh wait a minute, no he cant since texas law states you cannot profit from an illegal action. Since he was trespassing in the first place...well you know the civil issue goes right down the drain. Of course he could attempt to sue, but then if he gets a profit from that, he faces criminal charges by the state at a federal level. Any lawyer would strictly advise him not to do it..

    Potential vistims are very well protected here in Texas regardless how anyone feels about it.

  27. #27
    Originally posted by sh-directssl
    Yeah they certainly do. I really think they should have some sort of restrictions. You know about 11,000 people die each year in the USA because of guns. Now that is a very large disturbing number, and something must be done to lower it.
    You really don't need an assult rifle at home. What kind of animal are you going to hunt with that
    There is no practical solution to lowering gun crime rates. The majority of deaths by guns are not by accidents involving a responsible gun owner, they're by criminals. There are enough guns already available now, that if guns were no longer manufactured and sold, there would be enough to continue the current gun crime rate for over 100 years in America.

    Guns are used defensively over 2.5 million times a year, and those involved believe that the use of the gun saved a life in 400,000 of those situations (Hemenway, D. (2001). The Western Journal of Medicine, 174, 396). Compare that to 30-35,000 people killed by guns each year (not 11,000 as you quoted).

    In the United Kingdom the rate of crimes that occur when a householder is home is about 50 percent, compared to just 13 percent in the United States (Gorman, Linda & Kopel, David B. (2000). Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, 15, 92.)

    The United Kingdom, Japan, Canada and Australia have introduced strict gun bans but the benefits expected by supporters have not been realized. In fact, in some of those countries, crime increased after enacting the gun bans (Gorman, Linda & Kopel, David B.)

    Taken from a paper I wrote last year. I am not a gun owner and never will be, but when I check the facts, I can't say "ban em".
    Dan Grossman - dan @ awio.com
    My Blog | Affiliate Program for Web Hosts

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,962
    Very very good Dan. You and Trade are on a good roll tonight. Glad I'm not on the other side..LOL

  29. #29
    I don't spend much time here so I'm not going to debate misinformation but Federal law generally states the following as a guideline for the reasonable use of deadly force:

    The use of deadly force (force intended to cause or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury) is never justified for the defense of property other than the dwelling. A person can use reasonable non-deadly force to prevent the unlawful taking or carrying away of his or her personal property, and to prevent the unlawful entry or trespass to his real property (land). However to use force it must be necessary. Accordingly, no use of force is justified if a request to desist (stop) would be successful.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,239
    Localhost, could you please state the source of that statement? Which department in the United States government did it come from?

    BTW Dan, I've got to commend you on stating the source of your information. It adds creditability to you and your stated opinion. =)
    TradeViceroy

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,026
    No, I don't think you need a gun.

    We do just fine without them here (UK) and you can walk the streets and feel safe.
    Gone.

  32. #32
    Statistics say criminals are more likely to mug or burglarize you during the day in UK than US. Those rates skyrocketed in your country when strict gun control laws went into effect. They have no reason to be scared of individual citizens anymore.
    Dan Grossman - dan @ awio.com
    My Blog | Affiliate Program for Web Hosts

  33. #33
    I know the general concept of a gun is "Killing" and stated throughout various posts of using "Deadly Force". What I am missing is, why would it ever have to come to that? If you own a gun, there is a high probability that you got it for protection or for a hobby. Either way you have knowledge of it.. Wouldn't most people go for a "wound shot" before a "Kill shot" ? I know i would.
    Let Google know when your dead | Read More >>
    Submit Your Press Release, Article, or News Tip Today
    W3Reports - News for Webmasters

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Duluth MN
    Posts
    3,864
    Originally posted by traixanha
    what state are u in? i am in MN...Do we have to pay fee or license for carry out side ?
    Where in MN are you? I'm in Duluth (originally from Dassel (near Hutchinson/Litchfield))

    Are you talking handgun or rifle? In MN, the law concerning Handguns is that you need to apply for a permit to carry or concealed carry. You need to be 21 or older and have no criminal record. Once you get your permit, you can then conceal carry.

    If you are talking rifle, then you will want to check into the laws about them, I'm not as well versed in those since I dont hunt. But now that I'm 21, I'm thinking of applying for my conceal carry permit. Not that I'll be carrying with me all the time, since guns aren't allowed where I am most days, but more of the "I can, so I will". I enjoy trap shooting, and target shooting, and that will be the majority of the shooting I do.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ellesmere Port, Wirral, UK
    Posts
    1,541
    Originally posted by phision.com
    No, I don't think you need a gun.

    We do just fine without them here (UK) and you can walk the streets and feel safe.
    Where the heel do you live, i need to move there Im local to liverpool, so nowheres safe and i would carry if i felt the need.

    1 question for US based members, whats the deal if someone comes into your house and has a gun....maybe threatens to shoot you, but you have a gun. If you get into a bit of a gunfight, are you allowed to reload or would that become intent to kill?
    BTi-Hosting.co.uk High quality hosting, low low prices.
    One step ahead of the competition - Today IS tomorrow.
    FraudWise.Net - Fight the fraud!

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,239
    Yeah you can reload. =) Nothing wrong with that.
    TradeViceroy

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,026
    Originally posted by Philipf
    Where the heel do you live, i need to move there Im local to liverpool, so nowheres safe and i would carry if i felt the need.

    1 question for US based members, whats the deal if someone comes into your house and has a gun....maybe threatens to shoot you, but you have a gun. If you get into a bit of a gunfight, are you allowed to reload or would that become intent to kill?
    I'm on the surrey/north hants border. Nice place to live
    Gone.

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    The Woodlands, Tx
    Posts
    5,962
    Originally posted by Philipf
    Where the heel do you live, i need to move there Im local to liverpool, so nowheres safe and i would carry if i felt the need.

    1 question for US based members, whats the deal if someone comes into your house and has a gun....maybe threatens to shoot you, but you have a gun. If you get into a bit of a gunfight, are you allowed to reload or would that become intent to kill?
    Are you talking about reloading the clip? Or reloading the chamber? It would probably be considered overboard if the person was down, and you reloaded the clip, and continued firing. Reloading the chamber however is acceptable.

    A .22 semi-automatic rifle with a tube load can hold 15 long rounds. Unless you are an extremely bad shot, I'd say that's more than enough to take down the bad guy. Especially if they are hollowpoints. One .22 long rifle hollow point can knock a baseball size in someone wherever it exits. Most bullets spin in the air, but a .22 doesnt. It flies straight and true, making it one of the most accurate bullets in the world. I think there is only one bullet more accurate, and it's used in some military sniper rifles.

    I have some pretty powerful rifles, but my 22 is my favorite because of it's consistent accuracy. To prove my skills to my nephew, I once shot the red top off a coke bottle from 20 yards away. Of course, the small scope on it helped a bit, but he still couldnt do it. When I go rabbit hunting, I shoot them in the spine at the neck. Far as I can tell, it kills them instantly and painlessly.

    So when it comes to a man threatening my family or property, I may not kill him, but you can bet your sweet arse he will never walk well enough again to be going around causing harm to others. Shattered kneecaps (and cartlidge) kinda does that to someone. Nice to be able to shoot as precisely as I do. Anyone wanna come visit Texas?

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ellesmere Port, Wirral, UK
    Posts
    1,541
    I love shooting, I have used(from what i can remember):

    L98(5.56)
    SA80(5.56)
    LSW(5.56)
    L1A1(some british army sniper rifle, heavy as **** and needs strapping to your arm(7.62))
    .22(Dunno what it was, but i could pop holes in stuff)
    9MM something or other, was years ago before they were banned, had to be used in a basement thing.

    Had to use the sniper rifle at 300yards with an iron site that you could barely see through.

    Was all good
    BTi-Hosting.co.uk High quality hosting, low low prices.
    One step ahead of the competition - Today IS tomorrow.
    FraudWise.Net - Fight the fraud!

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Lake Arrowhead, CA
    Posts
    933
    Originally posted by Alfarin
    I thought every american have the rights to bare arms because the British might come attackin...
    No....they made that mistake once before.
    Dale Poncy
    Retired from Zana Web Hosting

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •