# Woman kills intruder with 16-gauge shotgun while 911 listens



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 8, 2009)

CNN has the 911 tape recording online.

I've always been an advocate of the shotgun as a home defense weapon.  It is handy, easy to use, accuracy is not a requirement, and it has little risk of over-penetration.  As this woman demonstrated, it can also be used while talking on the phone to 911.

And I'm a huge fan of the 16 gauge!  The 16 is a nice compromise between the 20, which is way underpowered for self-defense in my opinion, and the 12, which is fine but can be too much for some people - too much muzzle blast, too much kick.  The 16 is just a fine, fine, weapon.  Too bad it is out of favor these days.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20091204_11_0_Anintr984663



> *Lincoln County woman shoots, kills intruder*
> 
> By MATT BARNARD World Staff Writer
> Published: 12/4/2009  8:03 AM
> ...


----------



## Stuey (Dec 8, 2009)

Man, I wish that in the UK we could keep actual weapons in our own home to defend ourselves. Its seen over here as paraphernalia of drug dealing/abusing (in my experience). Gosh, why would a law abiding person want to defend themselves in their own home I wonder?!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 8, 2009)

Stuey said:


> Man, I wish that in the UK we could keep actual weapons in our own home to defend ourselves. Its seen over here as paraphernalia of drug dealing/abusing (in my experience). Gosh, why would a law abiding person want to defend themselves in their own home I wonder?!



In the United States, the US Supreme Court has stated on numerous occasions that it is not the duty of the police to protect citizens:

_"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."_
_
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."_ -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

_"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."_ Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

What this means is that self-defense is the responsibility of the individual.  In the USA, that has historically been understood, and citizens have not complained that they are _'on their own'_ to protect themselves, choosing not to rely upon the state to protect them in real-time against whatever random dangers might come their way.

This historical understanding was coupled, however, with an understanding that law-abiding citizens have the right to arm themselves in order that they can provide for their own defense (as well as for other reasons).

In recent decades, both traditional understandings have come under challenge and have been subject to the changing tides of public opinion.  Many are those who now feel that the state should indeed be considered the primary protector of the individual citizen, rather than the citizen themselves, and likewise that citizens therefore should not be armed.

In my opinion, one cannot exist without the other.  The Supreme Court has always said, and continues to say, that the job of the police is not to protect the individual citizen.  If that job falls on the individual themselves, then they must have the means by which to do so.  That means access to firearms.

I mean this not as a criticism of any nation or their own system of governance.  However, as often as I find the my nation to be messed up, wrong, and sometimes even idiotic, I could not live anywhere else in the world.  I keep firearms and I always will.  I won't have them taken from me by any legal entity for any reason whatsoever as long as I remain a law-abiding citizen, and I'll defend myself using them if forced to.  I am a free man.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 8, 2009)

Stuey said:


> Man, I wish that in the UK we could keep actual weapons in our own home to defend ourselves. Its seen over here as paraphernalia of drug dealing/abusing (in my experience). Gosh, why would a law abiding person want to defend themselves in their own home I wonder?!


 
Why can't you? I have shotguns legally in my house. Along with many others you are under the assumption that we cannot defend ourselves here, well it maybe a surprise but you can. There is absolutely nothing against the law that says you can't defend yourself against someone entering your house if you are in fear of your life, you can even strike first.
Please read up the laws before spouting stuff from The Sun about how defenceless we are and please don't quote the Tony Martin case as that was a whole different situation where he lured young men into his house then shot them as they were escaping, he also made threats to kill his brother among others. His was never a case of self defence. There has been no case of anyone being proscecuted for defending themselves legally in this country despite what the tabloids tell you. 
Having weapons is not seen as having anything to do with drugs here, that certainly is  your experience not mine or much of the rest of the UK. I live in the country and we all have shotguns to shoot game with and if necessary people too such as poachers and burglars certainly, we just don't have many. All you need to get a shotgun is a certificate and somewhere safe to keep it, no point in having one if a burglar can walk in and pinch it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Dec 8, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I live in the country and we all have shotguns to shoot game with and if necessary people too such as poachers and burglars certainly, we just don't have many. All you need to get a shotgun is a certificate and somewhere safe to keep it, no point in having one if a burglar can walk in and pinch it.



Not to criticize, but in the UK (and in most countries), one has the right to own a firearm if one is permitted to by the government.  In the US, one has the right as a basic civil liberty, which can only be infringed by (constitutional) act of law.  It's a different way of looking at things.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 8, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Not to criticize, but in the UK (and in most countries), one has the right to own a firearm if one is permitted to by the government. In the US, one has the right as a basic civil liberty, which can only be infringed by (constitutional) act of law. It's a different way of looking at things.


 
No, the right to own a shotgun is given by the police whose oaths are to the Queen not the government.
If we wanted to be armed we can change our government and demand we are armed. If the wish to be armed was universal in the UK how long do you think a government would hold out?


----------



## tshadowchaser (Dec 8, 2009)

Back to the lady who defended herself and her home.
It may be seen as excessive but I applaud her for doing so


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 8, 2009)

tshadowchaser said:


> Back to the lady who defended herself and her home.
> It may be seen as excessive but I applaud her for doing so


 

I don't see how it would be excessive, she only took one shot.  Had she taken one fewer, it might have ended badly for her.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 8, 2009)

tshadowchaser said:


> Back to the lady who defended herself and her home.
> It may be seen as excessive but I applaud her for doing so


 
As far as I could see she did all the right things, she phoned the police then defended herself as she was in fear of her life. Even here that's allowed.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 8, 2009)

Kudos to her. 

The intruder got what they deserved. 

They freely chose to break into her home; therefore, they accepted the risk that the homeowner may be armed and willing to defend themselves. 

His death is his fault and nobody elses. 

'nuff said.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 8, 2009)

Anybody pounding loudly on the door in the middle of the night and then throwing a patio table through a glass door and entering ... Would in all probability *NOT* have the best intentions. Granted the guy was smelling of alcohol... and MAYBE thought he was at his house and was trying to get in. 
Mistakes happen... but it could've turned out worse if the lady had not shot him.


----------



## MJS (Dec 8, 2009)

Good for her!  Who knows what would've happened had this woman not had the gun.  The guy got what he deserved, IMHO.  Excessive?  I dont think so.  I listened to this clip earlier today (link was posted elsewhere) and kinda skimmed thru it, but in this situation, when you dont know what intentinos this guy had, any weapons, etc., she did the right thing.


----------



## SensibleManiac (Dec 8, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Anybody pounding loudly on the door in the middle of the night and then throwing a patio table through a glass door and entering ... *Granted the guy was smelling of alcohol... and MAYBE thought he was at his house and was trying to get in.*
> Mistakes happen...



Hey, happens to me all the time, I get ***** faced and throw patio tables through my door instead of just using my keys, (uh not really).


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 8, 2009)

Here in Texas we have the Castle Doctrine and the 'Stand Your Ground' law. That is with the Castle Doctrine you are considered in fear of your life if anyone invades your house. The police MUST consider that to be fact when they come. You can use lethal force to stop the invaders and nether the invaders NOR THEIR KIN, can sue you.

And with the 'Stand Your Ground' law, if, outside your home, you are legally where you are when attacked AND you did not provoke the attack, you have NO DUTY TO RETREAT.

Add our CHL (Concealed Handgun License) which is a 'shall issue' item, then it can be quite dangerous for those wishing to do harm.

But the only question I have to ask the lady with the 16 gauge scattergun is.... was it full choke or modified?

Deaf


----------



## seasoned (Dec 8, 2009)

A persons home is their castle. This is basic knowledge for everyone. If you force your way into this castle, you are inviting trouble. If you are drunk, deranged or drugged up, it makes no difference. We are required in all situations of physical contact to do all we can to preserve life, and prove our actions in a court of law. Forced entry in the wee hours of the night into a persons castle carries few exceptions. In this situation you cross a line of no return, and risk deadly physical force upon you. My only response to this post would be a resounding "good for you", you kept your cool and did what you had to do faced with the situation at hand. Also, as Bill said, 16ga shot gun, good choice.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 9, 2009)

Good comments. The only thing I can comment on Bill is the "accuracy is not a requirement" line. Accuracy is always a requirement IMO. At social ranges 00-Buck only spreads a few inches and I want all pellets hitting the BG...a pellet is pretty much equal to a .38 cal round and can travel through a wall and hit someone in the next room. People can and have missed with the SG.

And Tez..Bill is right as I see it. "The Police give permission not the Gvt" seems a bit of semantic slieght of hand. The Police are a representative of some form of authority with the power to limit the freedom of the populace. "Queen" or "government"...here in the USA for all practical purposes..if they have the power to grant or deny they are "the government".

The point is that here in the USA the gvt has to provide a reason for NOT letting you have a weapon. Even in our more restrictive states, a person WILL get a weapon unless the gvt can state a valid reason for not granting a permit. While where you are someone has to "give permission" to have one.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2009)

Archangel, it may be semantics tue enough but the problem is that everyone, including some English it seems, think that we arent allowed weapons at all and it annoys me a bit that 'foreigners' think that but it appalls me that my own countrymen don't know their own laws so I get somewhat fed up at criticism.
I'm tired of the UK being portrayed as some place where crime is rampant and the people powerless. Only lazy people are powerless. We get a couple of burglaries here and everyone is blaming the police but when you look at the facts you'll find the householders practically invited them in, windows left open or unlocked, doors with flimsy locks, ladders left in sight, keys left tied to the door so they can be pulled out through the letterbox to open it, valuables left within sight. Prevention is the first and easiest step to take but seemingly the hardest for many. There's Neighbourhood Watch but many people are 'too busy' to bother. Many people are also too busy to help the police when it comes to helping them when they ask for witnesses something which really annoys me.
On the subject of firearms the truth is that only a few are in favour of being armed here, its not the government. It doesn't come up in political debates, no one is petitioning their MPs nor is any newspaper campaigning. TBH it's a non issue here, only outsiders think it is., Now rightly or wrongly thats how we are, we don't have firearms for all. We rioted not so long ago and got rid of the hated Poll tax, if owning firearms was an issue here, we'd riot again and force the government to change the laws especially now with a General Election on the horizon next year. I can tell you now the electorate will not be clamouring for us to all be armed if we wish, in fact I think the Afghan war and the budget will be the big issues, politicial forecasters are predicting some dirty campaigns and of course as the BNP (the Nazis) are going to be involved I think there will be violence on the streets.


----------



## Stuey (Dec 9, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Why can't you? I have shotguns legally in my house. Along with many others you are under the assumption that we cannot defend ourselves here, well it maybe a surprise but you can. There is absolutely nothing against the law that says you can't defend yourself against someone entering your house if you are in fear of your life, you can even strike first.
> Please read up the laws before spouting stuff from The Sun about how defenceless we are and please don't quote the Tony Martin case as that was a whole different situation where he lured young men into his house then shot them as they were escaping, he also made threats to kill his brother among others. His was never a case of self defence. There has been no case of anyone being proscecuted for defending themselves legally in this country despite what the tabloids tell you.
> Having weapons is not seen as having anything to do with drugs here, that certainly is your experience not mine or much of the rest of the UK. I live in the country and we all have shotguns to shoot game with and if necessary people too such as poachers and burglars certainly, we just don't have many. All you need to get a shotgun is a certificate and somewhere safe to keep it, no point in having one if a burglar can walk in and pinch it.


 Really? Then why can one no longer buy things like swords etc? Because they are, or can be offensive weapons. Sure we can defend our selves and be within the law, but offensive weapons are frowned upon. I have no land to shoot game off of. Do you think I could get a permit for a weapon? It is not my birth right to own and use a gun by virtue of being a citizen of the UK. It is an application, which by my understanding is judged in a case by case way. The question asked is 'why do you need a shot gun'. The emphasis is on the do you NEED one? If the answer is no will you get one: NO! 
On to defense. I didnt say that it was illegal to protect oneself. In fact I said the opposite. But it will need to be proven that you need to justify the feeling of threat. I know the law, maybe not in depth, but I know what I need to. I know that offensive weapons are frowned upon, and in my experience mostly associated with drug abuse. 
I used to be in the armed forces. Every guard duty I got dicked with I got informed of the limit of my powers. If someone steals your stuff you dont have authority to shoot them unless you feel you are under threat or in danger. You must use the Minimum force necessary.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2009)

Stuey said:


> Really? Then why can one no longer buy things like swords etc? Because they are, or can be offensive weapons. Sure we can defend our selves and be within the law, but offensive weapons are frowned upon. I have no land to shoot game off of. Do you think I could get a permit for a weapon? It is not my birth right to own and use a gun by virtue of being a citizen of the UK. It is an application, which by my understanding is judged in a case by case way. The question asked is 'why do you need a shot gun'. The emphasis is on the do you NEED one? If the answer is no will you get one: NO!
> On to defense. I didnt say that it was illegal to protect oneself. In fact I said the opposite. But it will need to be proven that you need to justify the feeling of threat. I know the law, maybe not in depth, but I know what I need to. I know that offensive weapons are frowned upon, and in my experience mostly associated with drug abuse.
> I used to be in the armed forces. Every guard duty I got dicked with I got informed of the limit of my powers. If someone steals your stuff you dont have authority to shoot them unless you feel you are under threat or in danger. You must use the Minimum force necessary.


 
No, _minimum_ force was replaced by _reasonable_ force. You can buy swords actually quite easily what you can't buy is the cheap replicas off market stalls. As you used to be in the forces you will know as a 'modplod' I know the law and it's as I said. By the way you aren't a citizen of the UK you are a subject of the Queen, we don't have a constitution and any rights you have are granted by parliament and the Queen, thats the difference between the States and us.
You don't need land to shoot off, many people are either in syndicates or just go off and shoot on common land so besides having a weapon to defnd yourself with you also get food for cheap.
Shooting people because they steal your stuff is hardly the best solution as you well know, in certain regiment's barrack blocks we'd have no soldiers left if they got shot for stealing kit, we are also talking about the 'gizits', a soldier sees something and its 'give it here it's mine now', a common problem. 
Military law is different from civil law, I was also in the forces before doing my present job, if you go to this thread I have already shown what our laws are regarding self defence and weapons.
http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82614&page=2


----------



## Stuey (Dec 9, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> No, _minimum_ force was replaced by _reasonable_ force. You can buy swords actually quite easily what you can't buy is the cheap replicas off market stalls. As you used to be in the forces you will know as a 'modplod' I know the law and it's as I said. By the way you aren't a citizen of the UK you are a subject of the Queen, we don't have a constitution and any rights you have are granted by parliament and the Queen, thats the difference between the States and us.
> You don't need land to shoot off, many people are either in syndicates or just go off and shoot on common land so besides having a weapon to defnd yourself with you also get food for cheap.
> Shooting people because they steal your stuff is hardly the best solution as you well know, in certain regiment's barrack blocks we'd have no soldiers left if they got shot for stealing kit, we are also talking about the 'gizits', a soldier sees something and its 'give it here it's mine now', a common problem.
> Military law is different from civil law, I was also in the forces before doing my present job, if you go to this thread I have already shown what our laws are regarding self defence and weapons.
> http://martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=82614&page=2


Now your just mocking me. lol
As a MODplod both military AND civil law applies to these instances. My point with shooting licenses is that they are not just handed out. They are designed to keep guns out of hands. The emphasis is on not giving licenses. 
Had I a license and shotgun I doubt if I would actually use it in a robbery situation unless really pushed to. If I were an old lady awoken in the middle of the night by a robber I would certainly feel threatened enough to shoot someone.
Also, keeping things like a baseball bat behind the door would be frowned upon and perhaps seen as offensive. Lucky you and the rest of the UK who you speak for that you have no experience with drug abusers.


----------



## Stuey (Dec 9, 2009)

Here is some info on offensive weapons and the law. This counts in public from what I can make out. 
http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/law/weaponscrime/weaponsandthelaw
http://www.herts.police.uk/basestation/the_law/offensive_weapons.htm
"The law does not allow you to carry any item for self-defence"
I think that this shows the attitude towards weapons, even though people may defend themselves with weapons and be within the law.
I cant find anything yet for offensive weapons in the home.

Edit:
On all police service forums I saw the attitude was such that having a weapon designed to injure someone was a no no in just about any case. Exceptions include a handy large torch 'for when the leccy switch trips'. A large stick with a hook 'to close the tall windows'. A stanley knife 'to open the cardboard boxes that arrived from ebay'. They all condone using a weapon which is not designed to be a weapon. Most of the cases argued were in a shop of some sort or even in your own car and included 'where counts as a private place and public place?', the verdict of which was 'it doesnt matter'. It is my feeling that this attitude is carried over to the home. It was made clear that the police 'dont want every Tom, Dick & Harry carrying offensive weapons "just in case"'. I cannot directly link weapons with drugs, and granted this is just one perception of it. I think, however, that it is a valid one depending on circumstances according to my own experience.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2009)

Stuey said:


> Here is some info on offensive weapons and the law. This counts in public from what I can make out.
> http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/law/weaponscrime/weaponsandthelaw
> http://www.herts.police.uk/basestation/the_law/offensive_weapons.htm
> "The law does not allow you to carry any item for self-defence"
> ...


 
Oh well as you obviously know better I shall resign immediately and take up crocheting. You are allowed to use a weapon to defend yourself, that doesn't mean you are stupid and carry machetes around 'just in case', then you are asking for trouble. Condone is not the word to use, the word is 'allow', you are allowed to use weapons to defend yourself.
 If you have to rely on having a conventional weapon to defend yourself you are going to be stuck if called to defend yourself just that one time you haven't got it on you, aren't you, thats why we do unarmed combat techniques. (Krav Maga is a good style for using anything thats available as a weapon) You have to be very sure about your competence to use weapons too, they can easily be taken off you and then you are in more trouble. Rely on carrying knives gets you into trouble in a couple of ways, firstly carrying it without a legitimate reason will get you into police trouble, secondly the temptation to use it is great whereas without a knife you can defuse a situation without it escalating but with a knife it's too easy to pull it out and use it. It's actually the same with guns, if you have one it's so easy to use. 

Carrying around weapons is rightly against the law here frankly there is little need to walk around tooled up, it's paranoia that there's an attacker around every corner.
'Police' forums are the internet and the same people use it, so always take with a pinch of salt. The only ones that are taken seriously are the closed ones the public can't read.


----------



## Stuey (Dec 9, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Oh well as you obviously know better I shall resign immediately and take up crocheting. You are allowed to use a weapon to defend yourself, that doesn't mean you are stupid and carry machetes around 'just in case', then you are asking for trouble. Condone is not the word to use, the word is 'allow', you are allowed to use weapons to defend yourself.
> If you have to rely on having a conventional weapon to defend yourself you are going to be stuck if called to defend yourself just that one time you haven't got it on you, aren't you, thats why we do unarmed combat techniques. (Krav Maga is a good style for using anything thats available as a weapon) You have to be very sure about your competence to use weapons too, they can easily be taken off you and then you are in more trouble. Rely on carrying knives gets you into trouble in a couple of ways, firstly carrying it without a legitimate reason will get you into police trouble, secondly the temptation to use it is great whereas without a knife you can defuse a situation without it escalating but with a knife it's too easy to pull it out and use it. It's actually the same with guns, if you have one it's so easy to use.
> 
> Carrying around weapons is rightly against the law here frankly there is little need to walk around tooled up, it's paranoia that there's an attacker around every corner.
> 'Police' forums are the internet and the same people use it, so always take with a pinch of salt. The only ones that are taken seriously are the closed ones the public can't read.


 PM'd.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2009)

Stuey said:


> PM'd.


 
Shot gun licences are actually easy to obtain, just fill in the form online, send it to the police with photos, money, names of referees. A policeman will come out and interview you make sure you aren't a scrote and you will get your licence.
http://www.northeastshooting.co.uk/shotgun.html

Swords while expensive are easy to buy as well. Only money stops me buying lots! but it's hard not to drool at the blades.
http://www.sussexswords.com/newswords.html
http://www.blades-uk.com/
https://swordmart.co.uk/home.php?cat=21
http://www.bronze-age-craft.com/swords_for_sale.htm


----------



## Stuey (Dec 9, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Shot gun licences are actually easy to obtain, just fill in the form online, send it to the police with photos, money, names of referees. A policeman will come out and interview you make sure you aren't a scrote and you will get your licence.
> http://www.northeastshooting.co.uk/shotgun.html
> 
> Swords while expensive are easy to buy as well. Only money stops me buying lots! but it's hard not to drool at the blades.
> ...


Bad example. The message I want to get across is that a weapon for the sake of a weapon is frowned upon and may lead to charges of 'possession of an offensive weapon'. I fear that this may be the case in ones own home in certain circumstances. Even shop keepers who have been robbed several times have been advised against keeping 'weapons'. (in inverted commas because they have been advised that things which are not immediately designed but not altered as weapons can be kept for such a purpose).


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2009)

Stuey said:


> Bad example. The message I want to get across is that a weapon for the sake of a weapon is frowned upon and may lead to charges of 'possession of an offensive weapon'. I fear that this may be the case in ones own home in certain circumstances. Even shop keepers who have been robbed several times have been advised against keeping 'weapons'. (in inverted commas because they have been advised that things which are not immediately designed but not altered as weapons can be kept for such a purpose).


 
No you said we couldn't buy swords I was pointing out we can in case I start getting all those posts again telling me posters had friends emigrate to keep their swords or had to sell them. You can buy swords here, I said it would stay legal.

Often a baseball is advocated for self defence and the police go 'well no, don't think so matey' but carrying a baseball bat in a country that doesn't play the game is iffy to say the least. There is no need to carry illegal weapons, there are plenty of legal ones, a nice thick walking stick is good. there plenty on here who will tell you a cane walking stick is brilliant and perfectly legal. can be taken and kept anywhere.
http://www.thestickman.co.uk/generalsticks.htm

http://ejmas.com/jnc/jncart_barton-wright_0200.htm

In the home, there's golf clubs, hockey sticks, cricket bats and broom and mops handles just like Bo staffs only cheaper. There various garening tools as well, all legal and useful weapons. None of these, I promise, kept in the home will be illegal under any circumstances.

There's little need to carry offensive weapons here but with a bit of imagination you can use things to defend yourself legally and safely.


----------



## Stuey (Dec 9, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> No you said we couldn't buy swords I was pointing out we can in case I start getting all those posts again telling me posters had friends emigrate to keep their swords or had to sell them. You can buy swords here, I said it would stay legal.
> 
> Often a baseball is advocated for self defence and the police go 'well no, don't think so matey' but carrying a baseball bat in a country that doesn't play the game is iffy to say the least. There is no need to carry illegal weapons, there are plenty of legal ones, a nice thick walking stick is good. there plenty on here who will tell you a cane walking stick is brilliant and perfectly legal. can be taken and kept anywhere.
> http://www.thestickman.co.uk/generalsticks.htm
> ...


 Agreed and all to the better. 
Just to clear things up, I dont think that we should all own guns in the UK or that we should all have a right to. It is possible for people to own guns legally, fortunately, this privellige is reserved for the responsible. 
I get all flustered if a situation arises where I may require an implement to aid in my defense. In that respect it is frustrating that I need to consider 'improvised' weapons rather than weapons. Had I the forethought I would have previously planned and bought my implement which can be an 'improvised' weapon. And thanks for the shotgun tips, I had not thought of doing this previously. I may well research that one with a view to obtaining.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2009)

Stuey said:


> Agreed and all to the better.
> Just to clear things up, I dont think that we should all own guns in the UK or that we should all have a right to. It is possible for people to own guns legally, fortunately, this privellige is reserved for the responsible.
> I get all flustered if a situation arises where I may require an implement to aid in my defense. In that respect it is frustrating that I need to consider 'improvised' weapons rather than weapons. Had I the forethought I would have previously planned and bought my implement which can be an 'improvised' weapon. And thanks for the shotgun tips, I had not thought of doing this previously. I may well research that one with a view to obtaining.


 
Shotguns in the UK always have a class stigma attached to them but a great many people shoot not just the upper class. It's a well respected country pursuit. There's plenty of places to shoot, farmers are always pleased to have rabbits and woodpigeons shot plus they make good eating. You can also shoot duck, goose, pheasants etc which aren't on a shoot. People pay thousands to shoot but it isn't necessary.

Looking around you to think what you can use as weapons is good practice as is looking to see how you'd get out of buildings ( and where the loo is lol).
Get yourself up to us and Mick will take you through improvised weapons. He can break an attackers wrist with a plastic spoon which I've always wanted to see explained in court lol! You use it as you would a kubotan when holding someone in a gooseneck, with a bit of pressure the wrist goes. A pen or pencil will do the trick too, a CD, torn drinks can or credit card makes a knife. Anyway, this digresses from the thread!! Apologies!
The best weapon is still the brain, this lady might have had a shotgun but she could also have panicked and it could have ended badly but she used her head, kept calm....and safe as a result.


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 9, 2009)

"offensive weapons"??

Lord....


----------



## Stuey (Dec 9, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> "offensive weapons"??
> 
> Lord....


Hahaha, yeah. 
Offensive weapon = bad. 
Car jack round the head = ok. Go figure

At 57 no lady should need to be in that situation. Sad world.


----------



## theletch1 (Dec 9, 2009)

This has been a fascinating digression regarding British (or is that UK) law and "citizens" vs "subjects" and I've learned a great deal but can ya'll start another thread where these things can be discussed more deeply and directly without taking the original topic too far?


----------



## Stuey (Dec 9, 2009)

Thats put to bed, appologies for the hijacking.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 9, 2009)

Stuey said:


> Thats put to bed, appologies for the hijacking.


 
Yep all sorted. We agreed Brits right, Americans wrong!  No, no only joking, honest!


----------



## Mider1985 (Dec 10, 2009)

Its a bloody shame the cops arent here to protect us......what exactly are they here for? to prevent crime? Oh yeah a person threatens you and they dont do jack. or they harrass you and they dont do jack. but when your laying face down dieing then they come in. Or when your family is being plagued by someone and you feel in yourself you have no choice but to take the law into your own hands THEN they show up. And act self rightious and then you have to put up iwth some self rightious lawyer...........the lawyers are all the same............they dont care if your actually innocent or guilty do they? Half of them dont probably most thats why they get paid so much, even the DA gives poeple breaks one guy is given immunity even though he killed all these people but his boss is a much bigger target............i guess thats justice i uno


----------



## Archangel M (Dec 10, 2009)

Oh boy..another one.

Or the same one under a different name.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 10, 2009)

Mider1985 said:


> Its a bloody shame the cops arent here to protect us......what exactly are they here for? to prevent crime? Oh yeah a person threatens you and they dont do jack. or they harrass you and they dont do jack. but when your laying face down dieing then they come in. Or when your family is being plagued by someone and you feel in yourself you have no choice but to take the law into your own hands THEN they show up. And act self rightious and then you have to put up iwth some self rightious lawyer...........the lawyers are all the same............they dont care if your actually innocent or guilty do they? Half of them dont probably most thats why they get paid so much, even the DA gives poeple breaks one guy is given immunity even though he killed all these people but his boss is a much bigger target............i guess thats justice i uno


 
That's why I keep a police officer in a glass case by my front door.  Yessir, if anyone tries to break into my house day or night, I simply tap the glass with the little mallet hanging on a chain and he goes right to work protecting me.  I think everyone should have their very own police officer in a glass case.  You can also buy carts with little wheels so you can take your police officer in a glass case everywhere you go.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Dec 10, 2009)

CoryKS,
 
That would be nice. Kind of like a can of whup-***. Just pop the top and let the action begin.

But in actually, you are your own protection. Society mealy protects itself in general. The function of police is to keep order in society. It is NOT to protect anyone individual (unless you are a politician, and even then it's to protect the office, not the person.)


Here in Texas our can of whup-*** is called weapons. And many times you can carry a can of it cause the police readily admit they cannot be everywhere and most of them here are quite in favor of the CHL (concealed handgun license.) 

It's even been liberalized to where you can carry an illegal knife (that's one with a blade at or over 5 1/2 inches), club, or handgun in your car WITHOUT a license.

Yet, compared to the East and West coast, we have less crime.

Deaf


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 10, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> "offensive weapons"??
> 
> Lord....


 
Is there any other kind? LOL 



Mider1985 said:


> Its a bloody shame the cops arent here to protect us......what exactly are they here for? to prevent crime? Oh yeah a person threatens you and they dont do jack. or they harrass you and they dont do jack. but when your laying face down dieing then they come in. Or when your family is being plagued by someone and you feel in yourself you have no choice but to take the law into your own hands THEN they show up. And act self rightious and then you have to put up iwth some self rightious lawyer...........the lawyers are all the same............they dont care if your actually innocent or guilty do they? Half of them dont probably most thats why they get paid so much, even the DA gives poeple breaks one guy is given immunity even though he killed all these people but his boss is a much bigger target............i guess thats justice i uno


 
Unfortuneatley, in many cases LE's can only attempt to apprehend the criminal _after_ you've become a victim. 

In all fairness to LE, many of their routine tactics are meant to curtail and prevent crime from happening in the first place but at the end of the day the only person you can rely on being there at the time you find yourself in a sticky situation is you. Which is one of the reasons I study MA. 

Also, you must accept the fact that they must act within the parameters of the law while criminals don't have to worry about that hinderance. So, if you have a problem with the law you need to take that up with your local government representative. 



CoryKS said:


> That's why I keep a police officer in a glass case by my front door. Yessir, if anyone tries to break into my house day or night, I simply tap the glass with the little mallet hanging on a chain and he goes right to work protecting me. I think everyone should have their very own police officer in a glass case. You can also buy carts with little wheels so you can take your police officer in a glass case everywhere you go.


 
Have you ever considered a career in stand up? You constantly crack me up! ROFLMAO

At any rate, I heard earlier today that no charges were being brought against the woman which I think is good and sends a clear message: if you break into someone's house you may be crappin' buckshot for the next month. 

In all seriousness, I feel it's of paramount importance for people to know they can defend their life and property without fear of repercussion. 

I'm compassionate and merciful, but I don't let those traits distract me from also holding people accountable for their actions.

Does anyone honestly feel that somebody breaking into a home that is not their own may actually think that it's okay to do so? Especially when their intent is to take property that doesn't belong to them or worse? 

I challenge anyone to present a logical and rational argument that anyone choosing to force their way into another's home for the purpose of taking property that does not belong to them or worse; injure those inside (keeping in mind that the property owner has no idea what motives or intentions the one breaking in has) does not also freely choose any and all consequences resulting from that initial decision up to and including getting their head blown off by a shotgun.


----------



## BLACK LION (Dec 10, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the United States, the US Supreme Court has stated on numerous occasions that it is not the duty of the police to protect citizens:
> 
> _"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."_
> 
> ...


 

This was one of my arguments on my CCW application. It was denied. 
I was basically told to go get shot or stabbed, survive, file a police report and then re-apply.  He said they may consider it then...


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 10, 2009)

BLACK LION said:


> This was one of my arguments on my CCW application. It was denied.
> I was basically told to go get shot or stabbed, survive, file a police report and then re-apply. He said they may consider it then...


 
Well... you do live in California. Right?


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 10, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> CoryKS,
> 
> That would be nice. Kind of like a can of whup-***. Just pop the top and let the action begin.
> 
> But in actually, you are your own protection. Society mealy protects itself in general. The function of police is to keep order in society. It is NOT to protect anyone individual (unless you are a politician, and even then it's to protect the office, not the person.)


 
Agreed, and that was the point of my post.  If you have to rely _only_ on the police for self-defense, then the only place you will be safe is wherever a police officer happens to be standing.  If that's the case, I want him standing in a glass case by my front door.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 10, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Have you ever considered a career in stand up? You constantly crack me up! ROFLMAO


 
Nope, I'm what you'd call an Internet Funny Guy.  Oh, I talk a good game hiding behind my keyboard, but in person?  My timing's crap.


----------



## MJS (Dec 10, 2009)

Mider1985 said:


> Its a bloody shame the cops arent here to protect us......what exactly are they here for? to prevent crime? Oh yeah a person threatens you and they dont do jack. or they harrass you and they dont do jack. but when your laying face down dieing then they come in. Or when your family is being plagued by someone and you feel in yourself you have no choice but to take the law into your own hands THEN they show up. And act self rightious and then you have to put up iwth some self rightious lawyer...........the lawyers are all the same............they dont care if your actually innocent or guilty do they? Half of them dont probably most thats why they get paid so much, even the DA gives poeple breaks one guy is given immunity even though he killed all these people but his boss is a much bigger target............i guess thats justice i uno


 
Well, they can't be everywhere all the time, but yes, they do come when called.  BTW, I find it interesting that you're so new here, you come right to this thread, and start bashing the cops, just like some of the other trolls have.  Agenda maybe?  Bad run in so now you have to come onto a forum and start bashing?  if you're going to post something constructive, fine, but if you're here to do nothing but troll, you'll find that your time here will be short.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 11, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> No, the right to own a shotgun is given by the police whose oaths are to the Queen not the government.
> If we wanted to be armed we can change our government and demand we are armed. If the wish to be armed was universal in the UK how long do you think a government would hold out?



It's a fundamental difference between how Europeans view their citizens and how US governments have always viewed it's citizens........the tools of revolution are inherent in our founding document and clearly stated in our Declaration of Independence.........the United States was a nation founded on the ideal that governments are entirely based on the consent of the governed.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Dec 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> It's a fundamental difference between how Europeans view their citizens and how US governments have always viewed it's citizens........the tools of revolution are inherent in our founding document and clearly stated in our Declaration of Independence.........the United States was a nation founded on the ideal that governments are entirely based on the consent of the governed.


 
Would tell Washington about that? I think they forgot.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Dec 11, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Nope, I'm what you'd call an Internet Funny Guy.  Oh, I talk a good game hiding behind my keyboard, but in person?  My timing's crap.



:headbangin:


----------



## Bruno@MT (Dec 11, 2009)

MJS said:


> Well, they can't be everywhere all the time, but yes, they do come when called.  BTW, I find it interesting that you're so new here, you come right to this thread, and start bashing the cops, just like some of the other trolls have.  Agenda maybe?  Bad run in so now you have to come onto a forum and start bashing?  if you're going to post something constructive, fine, but if you're here to do nothing but troll, you'll find that your time here will be short.



Now now, don't be such a meanie.


----------



## Hudson69 (Dec 17, 2009)

Stuey said:


> Man, I wish that in the UK we could keep actual weapons in our own home to defend ourselves. Its seen over here as paraphernalia of drug dealing/abusing (in my experience). Gosh, why would a law abiding person want to defend themselves in their own home I wonder?!


 
In the socialist state of Europe isn't it illegal to own a bladed item wherin the blade has a length in excess of 3''? Or is that just England? Control of the citizenry is easier when it cannot properly fight back.

Really though, not to fire anyone up, I have heard that England has banned any blades in excess of 3", is this true?


----------



## Hudson69 (Dec 17, 2009)

Back on point:
In the City of Colorado Springs, as I recall, there was a serial rapist in the early years at or around 2000.  He was finally taken down by a woman in her 70's or 80's with a .38 revolver.

Apparently this bandit was targeting much older women and found her.  If the story (and my memory) is correct then while he was attempting to enter her home she gave him several warning to leave before even going for her gun.

When she did get it though she apparently put five rounds on .38 Special into him and ended his assaulting career.

More power to her and the lady with the 16 gauge.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 17, 2009)

Hudson69 said:


> In the socialist state of Europe isn't it illegal to own a bladed item wherin the blade has a length in excess of 3''? Or is that just England? Control of the citizenry is easier when it cannot properly fight back.
> 
> Really though, not to fire anyone up, I have heard that England has banned any blades in excess of 3", is this true?


 

Do you have to be so insulting and snide, I don't make comments about America so it would be nice if you could do us the courtesy of being at least equally polite. It's not as though you are even correct about Europe.
When you say 'England' do you mean the UK or just England?
The blades aren't banned you just can't carry in public without a good reason of which there are plenty btw.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 17, 2009)

Regarding the original topic:

A glass raised in joyous celebration of the dear departed's critical error in the victim-selection process.


----------



## Mider1985 (Dec 19, 2009)

Hudson69 said:


> Back on point:
> In the City of Colorado Springs, as I recall, there was a serial rapist in the early years at or around 2000. He was finally taken down by a woman in her 70's or 80's with a .38 revolver.
> 
> Apparently this bandit was targeting much older women and found her. If the story (and my memory) is correct then while he was attempting to enter her home she gave him several warning to leave before even going for her gun.
> ...


 
I agree forgive me if i sound corny as hell but i remember the movie Death Wish were the people were not allowd to own a gun, and then the star meets a man who says "i dont know anyone who DOESNT own a gun we can still walk through our parks and sleep with out doors unlocked" In death wish 3 the star of deathwish gets a wildey magnum BEAUTIFUL GUN MAN 10 INCH BARREL CAN ADD ON AN 18 INCH BARREL AND A STALK


----------

