Dunblane

[sntaylor]

No where else better to put this I think, especially as it is at risk of huge debate, if allowed. Dunblane is the home town of world tennis star Andy Murray, who was at school that day!

just saying.......

 

[dan330]

i am not a gun guy.. so educate me...

what is the difference between cartridge and non-cartridge ammunition?
Revolvers are non?

 

[saltire]

Yeah, watched the programme on it this week - can only imagine what some of the families are still going through.

Think the language was used to exclude air pistols from the ban.

 

[bjacks12]

Non-cartridge would be black powder weapons.
Revovlers, semi-autos, etc all use cartridge ammunition(brass casing with a ball and powder already sealed inside).


I should also note that Utah has some of the most lax gun ownership laws around, and it is a very safe state. I even carried my gun to class(legally with a CCW) in college. Surprise, nobody died from it.

 

[dan330]

ok.. thanks for the def..
I was thinking it was like a CLIP.. of bullets.

so.. all modern guns.

 

[bjacks12]

Yeah. Clip is a largely inaccurately used term as well. Most guns use magazines, not clips

 

[sntaylor]

The idea behind the law though is that the main purpose for hand guns is for shooting people, it was felt we are a country that does not need to shoot people(exception being the army during war) therefore no need to be able to own or carry one! You can legally own rifles and shotguns of course.

Though Scotland are currently bringing out licence laws for air guns, which are both pointless and meaningless in many ways, one being it's a short drive/train ride to England where it will still be legal to buy any air weapon you wish without licence etc!

 

[bjacks12]

I guess it's a cultural difference.

Handgun shooting is a time honored tradition and hobby here in the US. I love shooting them.

And if somebody breaks into my house with a weapon of any sort(whether firearm or melee), I don't intend to engage them in melee combat. They're getting lead. Their choice, not mine.

 

[Deleted User]

Very much a cultural difference.

Now tell me, if you killed that intruder with a handgun, how would the judicial system deal with you? In the UK you would almost certainly be found guilty of manslaughter, and go to jail.

And what happens if you shoot an unarmed intruder?

BTW, I am fully in favour of being able to defend yourself from an intruder, by whatever means, and if that is fatal to the scumbag breaking into *my* house, then so be it. As I see it, if someone chooses to be a professional thief, then death is an occupational hazard!

 

[dan330]

in usa...

if an intruder breaks into my home. with or without a weapon.
I can defend my life and property with deadly force... with or without a weapon... by any means.

I would be found.. defending myself.. so no issue.
unless there is evidence of other intent.

 

[bjacks12]

Very much a cultural difference.

Now tell me, if you killed that intruder with a handgun, how would the judicial system deal with you? In the UK you would almost certainly be found guilty of manslaughter, and go to jail.

And what happens if you shoot an unarmed intruder?

BTW, I am fully in favour of being able to defend yourself from an intruder, by whatever means, and if that is fatal to the scumbag breaking into *my* house, then so be it. As I see it, if someone chooses to be a professional thief, then death is an occupational harard!

in usa...

if an intruder breaks into my home. with or without a weapon.
I can defend my life and property with deadly force... with or without a weapon... by any means.

I would be found.. defending myself.. so no issue.
unless there is evidence of other intent.

It very much depends on what state you're in. Some states have what is called Castle Doctrine. This means that you have no duty to retreat within your own home. If somebody is in your home illegally and you have a reasonable belief that they are there to commit a forcible felony, you are justified in using deadly force.

Remember that unarmed doesn't mean harmless. An 18 year old male could easily beat my mother to death. I don't believe it's right to require the homeowner to take the riskiest path to protecting their home and property. If you make the decision to break into somebody's house, your death should be on YOU.


More liberal states require you to first try to flee to a safe space and allow the burglar free reign over your house. Basically, they've made burglary legal.

 

[dan330]

here in Texas... if you are trespassing... you can be shot!!!

 

[sntaylor]

There is no trespassing law in Britain, our Scotland at least, but breaking and entering is against the law!

You are allowed to use reasonable force here as well.

My issue with the defence argument re guns.... Responsible gun owners keep their gun locked away, so if being broken into would not necessarily be able to get their gun in the time needed, depending on the situation of course!

Over here, guns are less readily available therefore the chances of an intruder having one are far lesser than over in the states!

You should only point a gun at someone if you intend to use it, and more so prepared to deal with those consequences too... Guns are not made for defending yourself or your property, they are made for killing!

 

[bjacks12]

You should only point a gun at someone if you intend to use it, and more so prepared to deal with those consequences too... Guns are not made for defending yourself or your property, they are made for killing!

Sometimes you have to kill to defend yourself. One shouldn't have to be an expert in hand-to-hand combat to live a safe life. My mother should not be expected to have to fight back physically against a 20 year old thug.

Here's the simple principle. If you don't want to get shot, don't go into homes you shouldn't be in. 100% of people who have been killed by homeowners during burglaries could have avoided their deaths if they hadn't broken in.

I will never have sympathy for the dead criminal. They chose their life.

You'd be surprised as well, how readily I can access my guns if a home invasion happens. My safe opens very fast. And when I'm home I generally keep a gun readily available(then I lock it up or take it with me when I leave).

Please don't lecture on responsible gun ownership. It's a topic you are not qualified to discuss.

 

[Deleted User]

I really think the laws surrounding a person's right to defend their own property in the UK are ridiculous. You are allowed to use 'reasonable force' against an intruder. But what constitutes reasonable force? Depends on the intruder, are they armed? If I used a baseball bat, let alone a gun against an unarmed intruder, and injured them, I'd probably be in a lot of trouble. To me that is wrong. The intruder chose to break in, and put me in that position. All I want is the person out of my house, and not in a position where they can hurt me or my family. To ask someone to make a split second decision in the heat of the moment, on whether to attack an intruder, and weigh up what level of force to apply, based on their build, possibility of being armed (or not) etc, in a likely dark environment in the early hours of the morning, is quite frankly ridiculous. You cannot weigh up all these factors in this situation, you just react in the strongest way possible.

Having said all that, I don't hear a lot of cases where armed criminals have confronted homeowners during burglaries. I think house burglaries tend to be more 'discrete' and intruders are likely to be scared off easily. Certainly the lack of gun availability I think does not give the level of confidence and bravado to criminals that they would have in the U.S.