Good Girls: 1, Bad Guys: 0

[Jason von Evil]

I'm pretty sure a hollowpoint to the chest at what was point blank will end a threat pretty damn quick.

[aerius]

Black Talon is a hollowpoint with a thicker jacket that is supposed to expand into several sharp points.

It never was banned. Winchester simply dropped the name after being accused of being racist for using the name 'Black Talon'.

Ah! Thanks for the correction. It's been a while since I'd last read up on this and my memory's kinda fuzzy.

I'm sorry, but keeping a gun with no safety stashed somewhere unlocked is a bad idea when you have kids who can find it and accidentally set it off. I don't care how long and heavy the trigger pull is.

In almost all cases I'd agree with you, guns and kids don't mix well. But IF the kid has been taught about firearms and knows how to treat & respect them it's not such a big deal. There's people I know on various message boards and in real life who have been handling guns since they were old enough to go to school. Of course these people are the rare exception. And if I think back on my own childhood I've been handling knives since I was 3, and I still have all my fingers, but I lost a testicle when I dropped a kitchen knife when I was 5.

I'm pretty sure a hollowpoint to the chest at what was point blank will end a threat pretty damn quick.

In theory, and in theory a broken ankle will keep a guy from running after you. But theory rarely translate well in practice. Shoot a guy through the heart with a .45 hollowpoint and he'll still live long enough to stab a knife through your heart. And of course there have been many documented cases of people continuing to fight on after taking multiple gunshot wounds to vital areas. Pretty much anything short of a headshot or a bullet that severs the spinal cord in the neck is not a sure fire fightstopper. Thus it never hurts to make sure, and that's why people are trained to keep shooting until the attacker goes down.

[Uraniun235]

I'm pretty sure a hollowpoint to the chest at what was point blank will end a threat pretty damn quick.

Yeah, but I doubt that's something a lot of people would be aware of in the heat of the moment. Fuck, if I were in a position where I would shoot someone, I'd probably be so scared I wouldn't stop shooting until they hit the ground.

You're really trying to hold on to the notion that she could be going to jail.

[David]

You can be tried for murder if you shoot someone trying to break into your home.


Just in case it ever happens to you and the person falls out side the house, be sure to drag him inside. Makes it easier to defend your case if he's actually all the way inside your home/.

[Iceberg]

You can be tried for murder if you shoot someone trying to break into your home.


Just in case it ever happens to you and the person falls out side the house, be sure to drag him inside. Makes it easier to defend your case if he's actually all the way inside your home/.

Fuck no. Leave the body where it lies - otherwise you're in a lot more trouble.

[David]

You can be tried for murder if you shoot someone trying to break into your home.


Just in case it ever happens to you and the person falls out side the house, be sure to drag him inside. Makes it easier to defend your case if he's actually all the way inside your home/.

Fuck no. Leave the body where it lies - otherwise you're in a lot more trouble.

I'm talking about if he's in the window. I think this came up when someone shot a person breaking into their house. The guy later sued the house owner and won. Part of the decision had to do with the fact that the guy was just getting through the window, so he wasn't technically in the house yet.

[Stofsk]

I'm talking about if he's in the window. I think this came up when someone shot a person breaking into their house. The guy later sued the house owner and won. Part of the decision had to do with the fact that the guy was just getting through the window, so he wasn't technically in the house yet.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! Please tell me this is a joke? This guy actually sued the people he was trying to rob? And he won? Fucking hell.

[David]

I'm talking about if he's in the window. I think this came up when someone shot a person breaking into their house. The guy later sued the house owner and won. Part of the decision had to do with the fact that the guy was just getting through the window, so he wasn't technically in the house yet.

You've got to be fucking kidding me. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! Please tell me this is a joke? This guy actually sued the people he was trying to rob? And he won? Fucking hell.

It's happened many times before. The man shot sues the people he was attacking if they can't prove that their lives were in imminent danger he gets money. Soemthing like the US policy in Somalia about shooting only if shot at first, wait till he tries to actually kill you before resisting.

[Stofsk]

It's happened many times before. The man shot sues the people he was attacking if they can't prove that their lives were in imminent danger he gets money. Soemthing like the US policy in Somalia about shooting only if shot at first, wait till he tries to actually kill you before resisting.

I have a problem with a policy like that. If you wait for them to try and kill you then they might actually succeed. Then what the fuck are you going to do? Not much, unless you can get a job as a fertiliser. On the other hand, in places like Somalia, where the opposition is basically an untrained and angry mob (meaning low accuracy and little co-ordination) I can understand not shooting first unless shot at. I'm sure it doesn't make the trooper on the ground feel good about it, though.

Now that I'm somewhat calm, I have to ask: are these lawsuits common?

[Stuart Mackey]

but I doubt it still stands as the most current law on the issue.

It does, it remains in force unless repealed..and given the subject of it, it will not be repealed unless something of equel standing or stronger is put in place..

[TheDarkling]

It does, it remains in force unless repealed..and given the subject of it, it will not be repealed unless something of equel standing or stronger is put in place..

Equal standing would be any other act and while the act hasn't been repealed I would bet legislation has been passed since that changes things (although with it being "you are allowed guns unless we say you aren't" it would seem to just take all other legislation in stride), for example I can’t see any legal case been decided by a persons religion(except in the case of a succession to the thrown)., so while it is still technically still in place I very much doubt it would be the first port of call for any judge asked to make a complicated ruling.

[Stuart Mackey]

Equal standing would be any other act and while the act hasn't been repealed I would bet legislation has been passed since that changes things (although with it being "you are allowed guns unless we say you aren't" it would seem to just take all other legislation in stride), for example I can’t see any legal case been decided by a persons religion(except in the case of a succession to the thrown)., so while it is still technically still in place I very much doubt it would be the first port of call for any judge asked to make a complicated ruling.

With respect to gun ownership, the section dealing with it, is very clear that you are allowed guns, simple as that. The rest refers to being subject to law, but that is simply regulation and does not alow for the abolition of gun ownership, otherwise it defeats itself.
The religious aspect is interesting as other legislation forbids discrimination based on religeon, but I suspect that that discriminatory element would be negated as Judges are expected to reflect modern social thought.

Any legislation on the statute book that is relivant to a case must be considerd and this bit of law also happnes to be quite fundemental to the British constituion, being the founding document that establishes constitiional government as we now know it. It cannot simply be ignored or overridden, but a Judge must try to establish the intent of Parliment within existing law.

[AdmiralTDM]

She should have emptyed the clip on the dumb ass fucker.. I would have!

wait no.. I would have emptyed the clip, poped in a fresh clip and emptyed it to!

[TheDarkling]

With respect to gun ownership, the section dealing with it, is very clear that you are allowed guns, simple as that. The rest refers to being subject to law, but that is simply regulation and does not alow for the abolition of gun ownership, otherwise it defeats itself.

The legislation says you can have gun as long as it is in accordance with the law for you to have one, it is so open to work around that it is useless anything but an outright ban works (and even an outright ban wouldn't be prevented, however house keeping would be required to tidy the Act up so as to clear any hint of contradiction.).

The religious aspect is interesting as other legislation forbids discrimination based on religeon, but I suspect that that discriminatory element would be negated as Judges are expected to reflect modern social thought.

Which was my point, other legislation has been created that alters the document and as is pointed out "you can own a weapon as long as we have no other law saying you can't" so it is hardly a guarantee on gun ownership.

Any legislation on the statute book that is relivant to a case must be considerd and this bit of law also happnes to be quite fundemental to the British constituion, being the founding document that establishes constitiional government as we now know it. It cannot simply be ignored or overridden, but a Judge must try to establish the intent of Parliment within existing law.

Again my point, I don't dispute what the document say or that it is still legal just that I doubt it gets given to much weight considering the other legislation that has been passed since (although the document doesn't prohibit such laws in the gun field so can never really come into conflict with anything) and unlike something like the US constitution Parliament could strike that part of the "bill of rights" with a simple majority vote (again not that they would ever need to).

[Eleas]

This is one of the (few) occasions where I think the US Gun Laws don't speed-fellate elephants.

[Stuart Mackey]

The legislation says you can have gun as long as it is in accordance with the law for you to have one, it is so open to work around that it is useless anything but an outright ban works (and even an outright ban wouldn't be prevented, however house keeping would be required to tidy the Act up so as to clear any hint of contradiction.).

Current British law has not put in, for all intents and putrposes, a ban, nor can it. British law has always regulated gun ownership, so i dont see where you are comeing from here.

Which was my point, other legislation has been created that alters the document and as is pointed out "you can own a weapon as long as we have no other law saying you can't" so it is hardly a guarantee on gun ownership.

Point conceeded.

Again my point, I don't dispute what the document say or that it is still legal just that I doubt it gets given to much weight considering the other legislation that has been passed since (although the document doesn't prohibit such laws in the gun field so can never really come into conflict with anything) and unlike something like the US constitution Parliament could strike that part of the "bill of rights" with a simple majority vote (again not that they would ever need to).

Well one thing is certain, the concept of Parlimentry sovereignty and 'no parliment binding its successor' leaves a lot of room for scoundrels to manouvour.

[buzz_knox]

I'm pretty sure a hollowpoint to the chest at what was point blank will end a threat pretty damn quick.

Wrong. For example, a cop in LA took a 125 grain JHP from a .357 at point blank range to the chest, which penetratred her heart. She was able to continue the fight against two attackers and won. She survived.

The basic fact is that a human being is easy to kill but incredibly hard to stop.

[buzz_knox]

This is one of the (few) occasions where I think the US Gun Laws don't speed-fellate elephants.

There are over 22,000 laws related to firearms on the books in the US. Care to explain which you favor and which you have problems with?

[Bill Door]

I'm pretty sure a hollowpoint to the chest at what was point blank will end a threat pretty damn quick.

Wrong. For example, a cop in LA took a 125 grain JHP from a .357 at point blank range to the chest, which penetratred her heart. She was able to continue the fight against two attackers and won.

Which is why self-defence teaches you to shoot til they drop I guess...

[Glocksman]

This is one of the (few) occasions where I think the US Gun Laws don't speed-fellate elephants.

Ironically enough, it's probably easier for you to obtain a legal machinegun than it is for an American.

Legal machineguns are priced to the point that only the very rich can afford them, as demand is increasing and the supply has been fixed since 1986.

Legally I qualify to purchase one, but I don't have the $5000+ to spare for a 20 year old M16.

My understanding is that if a Swede who's done his military service joins the Home Guard, he's issued either an AK4 or a 9mm subgun that he can keep at home.

The US National Guard sure as hell doesn't let you take your issue weapon home.

[buzz_knox]

Which is why self-defence teaches you to shoot til they drop I guess...[/quote]

Yup. You shoot till the threat is eliminated (which isn't the same thing as dead by the way).

[Andras]

I'm pretty sure a hollowpoint to the chest at what was point blank will end a threat pretty damn quick.

Wrong. For example, a cop in LA took a 125 grain JHP from a .357 at point blank range to the chest, which penetratred her heart. She was able to continue the fight against two attackers and won. She survived.

The basic fact is that a human being is easy to kill but incredibly hard to stop.

There is also the infamous 1986 Miami FBI shoot out in which one of the bad guys took a 9mm hollow point to the chest, and proceeded to kill, incapacitate or severely injure 6-7 FBI agents before dying.

[Vertigo1]

Golly, what a shame it would be if the guy died.

Yeah. You know what the sad part is? He'll probably end up sueing HER for shooting him.

[Uraniun235]

Golly, what a shame it would be if the guy died.

Yeah. You know what the sad part is? He'll probably end up sueing HER for shooting him.

Actually, he's homeless, so he can't afford the lawyer.

[Beowulf]

Golly, what a shame it would be if the guy died.

Yeah. You know what the sad part is? He'll probably end up sueing HER for shooting him.

Actually, he's homeless, so he can't afford the lawyer.

Wanna bet? It's called a contingency fee basis. If the guy wins, he pays, if not, then he doesn't. And a surprising number of cases have been won by plantiffs who committed crimes which ended with them getting injured, for which they sued.