Question for you US folks

[Liemann]

Hello, I've read the rules, and this Might be borderline for the political rule, if so I apologize, but I'll try asking it in as nonpolitical way as possible.
I'm from Sweden, and the only way to acquire guns here are for either hunting or sport. NOT for personal protection.

1. Do you Americans feel that guns for person protection are needed?

2. Why would anyone "need" an M4 or equivalent in their home?
It's my understanding that it's perfectly legal in the states to own assault rifles.

3. If the above statement is true (which I believe it is) where does the law draw the line? Obviously you can't own a grenade launcher for sporting purposes, but assault rifles seems fine. (biggest legal caliber, rate of fire etc)

I hope these are straight forward questions that don't anger the mods. If I did, just delete

Thank you.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

1. Do you Americans feel that guns for person protection are needed?

Yes. I appreciate having the ability of choice on this matter.

2. Why would anyone "need" an M4 or equivalent in their home?
It's my understanding that it's perfectly legal in the states to own assault rifles.

Because it makes a damn fine deterant. Ex: as a person of criminal intent, would you be more likey to press you luck and charge a homeowner with a small handgun, an M4 rifle, or big-ass shotgun.

They'll all send you to the morgue, but the latter two have a bigger psychological impact on the criminal's choice of action. And if he does charge, I'd feel the odds even more stacked in my favor when I lit him up with the rifle or shotgun.

So again I appreciate having a choice of tools whith which I gain mechanical advantage for a given confrontation.

3. If the above statement is true (which I believe it is) where does the law draw the line?

So yes they have. Explosives are a controlled item. Silencers are a controlled item (although apparently these aren't so controlled in the UK? its illegal to have a silencer without a Federal permit in the States even if its on an ari rifle), as are machine guns.

Citizens are free to own semi-automatic rifles, and why not?

 

[Ifight4Beer]

Hey I heard Japan wouldn't try to raid Hawaii in WW2 and one of the main reasons was because they knew there were an average of 2 guns per person on the Island. Americans want to be able to protect ourselves. just think about, forign invasion, personal pertection, lawnessness breaks out, ALIEN INVASION! Were ready for it all, if we are armed.

 

[Liemann]

I was just reading about the Justin Eilers shooting.. He got mad and threw some plates, and his STEP FATHER pulls out a gun and KILLS him?
I understand this happens all the time in the US but too me it's just unreal..
Why would you shoot someone for disagreeing with you? I'm not saying every one in America are crazy gun loving sociopaths, but the statistics don't lie either.

I think it's all in your head that an assault rifle is more intimidating than a 9mm handgun. They will both kill you? And also, if it's for protection why do so many people die from "i was just protecting myself" type of gunshot wounds? Don't u know where to aim? Oh, here im rambling...

 

[jerrylundergard]

1) Hell yes. If someone breaks into my house or pulls a gun on me my life is now in that guys hands. Calling the cops wont diffuse the situation fast enough. The bad guy has brandished a weapon and no cop will make it in time. My thing is I want to win a gun fight but at the very worst I want to hit that guy with some bullets so he shows up in a hospital and is tagged even if I die. Ive got a concealed weapons permit and carry a 9mm with 16 bullets. I also carry pepper spray. My size and kung fu skillz arent good enough against multiple attackers or armed ones. So Ill take care of my own sercurity. Crime rates in the US are pretty high. Especially if you live in a "diverse" city.

2) I have an AK47 with around 10 30 round magazines filled up with some nice rounds for an intruder. A rifle bullet will stop an attacker better than a handgun round. The amount of damage that the bad guy will absorb with a 7.62x39 bullet is FAR worse than what my 9mm would do to him. If the home invaders come in a group or with multiple guns I can better handle the situation with my rifle. Also, I like to hunt and my AK47 can kill any animal I will encounter.

3) Americans can get lots of goodies if we have the proper permits. Im pretty sure shoulder fired RPGs and grenades would be harder to get permits for. Fully automatic rifles here require special permits but they can be had if you follow instructions and dont have legal troubles.

Funny side note about Sweden. I lived there for 3 years and had a seafood import/export biz. Our competition repeatedly threatened us with the hellz angels/bandidos. They have shot up other competitors and ruffed up others. It sucked pretty bad having to scrounge around to get ahold of shotguns to defend our bizness/homes. All the while we were doing that illegally and woulda been sent to jail. Sometimes the law isnt just...

 

[bubba]

protection, YES!!

you would want a gun if you lived in the the area i lived in or in any US city these days.(Crime)

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

I was just reading about the Justin Eilers shooting.. He got mad and threw some plates, and his STEP FATHER pulls out a gun and KILLS him?
I understand this happens all the time in the US but too me it's just unreal..
Why would you shoot someone for disagreeing with you? I'm not saying every one in America are crazy gun loving sociopaths, but the statistics don't lie either.

I think it's all in your head that an assault rifle is more intimidating than a 9mm handgun. They will both kill you? And also, if it's for protection why do so many people die from "i was just protecting myself" type of gunshot wounds? Don't u know where to aim? Oh, here im rambling...

I read that Eilers was going berzerk or something, and was shot. Most of the self defense laws read that its from the perspective of the person attacted, (i.e. did you fear for your life) Was the step father charged or released?

And no these things don't happen all the time in America.

Assault rifles are far more intimidating that handguns. Especially from the business end. They offer much more mechanical advantage in a fight.

As to the last question, In texas at least its illegal to shoot to wound someone. You can shoot to kill, or shoot with intent to stop. But if you say i shot him in the leg to wound him, you'll be arrsted. Symantics you see, but that's the law. Its like a sword, you don't pull it unless you intend to kill....

 

[Liemann]

1) Hell yes. If someone breaks into my house or pulls a gun on me my life is now in that guys hands. Calling the cops wont diffuse the situation fast enough. The bad guy has brandished a weapon and no cop will make it in time. My thing is I want to win a gun fight but at the very worst I want to hit that guy with some bullets so he shows up in a hospital and is tagged even if I die. Ive got a concealed weapons permit and carry a 9mm with 16 bullets. I also carry pepper spray. My size and kung fu skillz arent good enough against multiple attackers or armed ones. So Ill take care of my own sercurity. Crime rates in the US are pretty high. Especially if you live in a "diverse" city.

I guess I can accept that. Especially if you have been checked into so that they don't give guns too people with a violent past.

2) I have an AK47 with around 10 30 round magazines filled up with some nice rounds for an intruder. A rifle bullet will stop an attacker better than a handgun round. The amount of damage that the bad guy will absorb with a 7.62x39 bullet is FAR worse than what my 9mm would do to him. If the home invaders come in a group or with multiple guns I can better handle the situation with my rifle. Also, I like to hunt and my AK47 can kill any animal I will encounter.

I didn't carry that much ammo in the military lol..
Well it's for protection not killing? A 9mm will do just fine imo. AK to hunt? That sounds very sketchy.. For one thing in Sweden u can't hunt with fully automatic weapons, and secondly AK47 is a military weapon, which i don't think is even possible to own personally in Sweden.

3) Americans can get lots of goodies if we have the proper permits. Im pretty sure shoulder fired RPGs and grenades would be harder to get permits for. Fully automatic rifles here require special permits but they can be had if you follow instructions and dont have legal troubles.

Well clearly these permits can't be very strict?

Funny side note about Sweden. I lived there for 3 years and had a seafood import/export biz. Our competition repeatedly threatened us with the hellz angels/bandidos. They have shot up other competitors and ruffed up others. It sucked pretty bad having to scrounge around to get ahold of shotguns to defend our bizness/homes. All the while we were doing that illegally and woulda been sent to jail. Sometimes the law isnt just...

How odd, since they are rival gangs. Either way, it's VERY rare you hear anything about them on the news. I think it used to be worse. I'm pretty young, so I can't really recall news events from mid 90s and back.

 

[Ifight4Beer]

Hey if my step dad went crazy and killed me I think I would rather him shoot me than grab a meat cleaver and go to town on me. Pluss what if the Nazies take over your goverment and want to genisi your race of people? what will your familey fight back with??

 

[Liemann]

I read that Eilers was going berzerk or something, and was shot. Most of the self defense laws read that its from the perspective of the person attacted, (i.e. did you fear for your life) Was the step father charged or released?

And no these things don't happen all the time in America.

Assault rifles are far more intimidating that handguns. Especially from the business end. They offer much more mechanical advantage in a fight.

As to the last question, In texas at least its illegal to shoot to wound someone. You can shoot to kill, or shoot with intent to stop. But if you say i shot him in the leg to wound him, you'll be arrsted. Symantics you see, but that's the law. Its like a sword, you don't pull it unless you intend to kill....

Wow, those are some f'kd up laws from my point of view. Well, Texas have lots of weird laws..Whats the difference between "wounding" and "intent too stop" ? The whole point is to for example shot in the leg to.. guess what.. stop!

I could see a scenario played out like this.. Someone tries to rob me but i pull out my gun, and he pulls out his, and i shot him in the leg, takes his gun away and later tells the cops "i shot him in the leg, nobody deserves to die" *cop goes crazy* you did what son?! Didn't shoot to kill, eh? You're under arrest!

In Sweden the self defense laws are much different.. When it comes too "Most of the self defense laws read that its from the perspective of the person attacted, (i.e. did you fear for your life)"

In case of Eilers, as far as I've read and understood he was just throwing plates. If someone told a Swedish court he feared for his life when a plate came flying he'd be charged with manslaughter so quickly.

There's also a law which states that you should not use more force than necessery. As with the Eilers example. Shooting someone in the chest when the throws dinner plates at you, would definatly be considered excessive force.

 

[Liemann]

Hey if my step dad went crazy and killed me I think I would rather him shoot me than grab a meat cleaver and go to town on me. Pluss what if the Nazies take over your goverment and want to genisi your race of people? what will your familey fight back with??

Swedes aren't afraid of their government. I'm not gonna voice any personal political opinions here as it's against the forums rules, but your question is really silly too me in that sense...

And for one thing Sweden is a "big" hunting nation, so it's not like we don't have guns. We just don't have them for our protection, cause we have nothing to be afraid of in the first place.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

Wow, those are some f'kd up laws from my point of view. Well, Texas have lots of weird laws..Whats the difference between "wounding" and "intent too stop" ? The whole point is to for example shot in the leg to.. guess what.. stop!

Its not so crazy, but on face value it could seem so.

There's different criteria for use of force, from only force necessary all the way up to deadly force. Guns are immediatly thrown into the realm of deadly force, (and rightly so) So, when it comes to a situation where deadly force is justifiable then deadly force is what you use. Interpretation is important here, I don't have my Texas Penal Code at work but I'll check when I go home, there was a case way back when where some goon shot another goon and maimed him, (blew his kneecaps off or something) and he used the reason you said. Because of this case the law was changed so that intentioanlly wounding, (maiming) someone is not a justifiable defense. Sounds a bit odd eh? and again, symantics come into play.

You would just need to reply to the cops and the grand jury, because you will be taken to court, (not counting civil suits - the scumbag's family is going to sue you for plugging their little angel) that you used deadly force to stop the attack which you felt emminently, (no escape) threatened your life, or the life of a third party, (wife, etc) In the process the guy either died or was incapacitated. (you're not going to be put away for being a not so great shot) but if you shoot the guy through the shoulder and you tell the cop I shot to wound the guy; when you goto court that will be admitted as evidence, and the Judge will review the precedent set in that case back in the 1800s about maiming, and suddenly justifiable self-defense can turn into intentional maiming of a victum, and you'll be fined, and then, THEN, the guy you shot will indeed have a great civil case in which he can now legally take all your shit, because you inflicted a life changing wound on him and have caused great pain and suffering on him and his family and your ass will reaally be in a sling, so you might as well just cap is ass right the first time and save yourself some trouble, because you shouldn't be too nice to theives, robbers, rapists, and murderes... You know what I mean?

That's what's in play. No one just pulls a gun shoots a robber and walks away. You'll end up with 6 months of legal proceedings to determine if you did everything above and beyond the call of duty to make sure you didn't dis this guy's rights. You'll be scrutinized 10 ways to Sunday and 100 times more thatn the piece of shit that broke into your house and tried to club you with a tire iron.

Its not the wild west, and even the wild west probably wasn't as wild as its made out to be truth be known.

Using the threat from the persons perspective in the Eilers case, if the step father was a skinny little guy, and Eilers, aknown professional fighter was bearing down on him, throwing shit and threating to rip his head off and shit down his throat and whatever else might or might not have been said, and if there was a history of violence by Eilers, It could certainly be argued that the guy feared for his life, because a professional fighter is going to be able to mop the floor with any regular guy and could kill him no?

From that perspective using deadly force, (weapon) might be justifiable. I don't know, I haven't seen the case or really read any particulars. But if someone is capable of killing you, and or you believe they have the where withal to do it, then deadly force may be justified the same as if a group of goons attack a single guy, because as a group they could kill you, hence deadly force comes into play. Basically the devil is in the details of cases like this. News stories touch on tag lines, so it tends to come across more sensational than reasonable.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

Here's a few statements straight out of The Texas Penal Code as of 1995, which was the last year I was a conceal Carry Permit Instructor. These are all from the sections pertaining to use of deadly force, (In Texas)

9.04 Threats as Justifiable Force:
The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified. For the purpose of this section, a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the use of deadly force and is justifiable.

This makes it legal for you to brandish a weapon if a group of goons is threatening to kill you, or someone has a weapon etc... You can say, "GTFO! I have a gun!" and you're justified, and you can't be tried for unnecessary deadly force.


9.04 Reckless injury of Innocent Third Party
Even though justified under this section, and actor using a threat of force, force or deadly force against another, and if doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this section is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.

Notes of Decesions:

1. Police Officers
even if police were justified in using deadly force against fugitive, there could be no justification where an innocent third person was killed.

From me:
Even if you hit the bad guy and bullet goes through and kills someones Grandmother, you'll be justified in plugging the bad guy and then charged with reckless manslaughter of the old lady. This even applies to police as in the note above.

9.06 Civil Remedies Unaffected
The fact that conduct is justified under this section does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is available in a civil suit.

Translation: Its open season to sue your pants off if you use deadly force, either justifiably or not.

Notes of decision on Force in general:

Whether the degree of force used was necessary or excessive, is a question which must be determined from the facts of each particular case as the law does not furnish the measure, Stanfield v. State 1875..

There's one on public duty,

9.22 Necessity

Conduct is justified if

1. the actor reasonably believes the act is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm and serious bodily injury or death.

2. the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct, and

3. a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the act does not otherwise plainly appear.

If you want more of this stuff to help you better understand the laws, (here in Texas) says so and I'll copy some more.

other sections and notes are on:

Subchapter C. Protection of Persons
9.31 Self Defense

9.32 Deadly Force in Defense of Person

9.33 Defense of Third Person

9.34 Protection of Life or Health
Among other things
This one gives Doctor the right to slice you open without being charged man slaughter.

9.41 Protection of one's own property

9.42 Dealy force to protect property

9.43 Protection of third Person's Property

9.44 Use of device to protect Property

 

[James Keith]

I was just reading about the Justin Eilers shooting.. He got mad and threw some plates, and his STEP FATHER pulls out a gun and KILLS him?
I understand this happens all the time in the US but too me it's just unreal..
Why would you shoot someone for disagreeing with you? I'm not saying every one in America are crazy gun loving sociopaths, but the statistics don't lie either.

I think it's all in your head that an assault rifle is more intimidating than a 9mm handgun. They will both kill you? And also, if it's for protection why do so many people die from "i was just protecting myself" type of gunshot wounds? Don't u know where to aim? Oh, here im rambling...

An assault rifle holds a lot of ammo, can be quickly reloaded, and is still very effective if someone is shooting at you from far away or behind a wall or something.

By the way everything you say comes across as knocks against the US. This thread does not belong in this forum. I have some questions for you: why do you Swedes do so much raping? Isn't it like the highest rate in the world? I'm not saying being Swedish automatically makes people rapists, but statistics don't lie. I guess your making this thread about the lack of need for self-defense says something ironic.

What does Mexico's murder rate tell you about the effectiveness of it's gun control laws by the way?

 

[Liemann]

An assault rifle holds a lot of ammo, can be quickly reloaded, and is still very effective if someone is shooting at you from far away or behind a wall or something.

By the way everything you say comes across as knocks against the US. This thread does not belong in this forum. I have some questions for you: why do you Swedes do so much raping? Isn't it like the highest rate in the world? I'm not saying being Swedish automatically makes people rapists, but statistics don't lie. I guess your making this thread about the lack of need for self-defense says something ironic.

What does Mexico's murder rate tell you about the effectiveness of it's gun control laws by the way?

Well I was more referring to the fact that having 10 mags is a bit overkill.

 

[jerrylundergard]

Well I was more referring to the fact that having 10 mags is a bit overkill.

Fortunately, your not the decider...

I lived in Sweden from 2004-2007. The bandidos and hellz angels may be rivals but they both follow the same economic model. Pay a torpedo 50,000 kroners and he will bust the shit outa who ever you want. Broken bones, long hospital stays etc. I know alot of you Swedes live in lala land cause you have no idea whats up. Those in the know understand that the yugoslavs will be visiting your restaurant for protection money and march into your bizness and let you have it and all your possesions if you dont pay up. I wont even get into the roving bands of muslim immigrant kids and the gypsys cause we both know what up in that dept...

Cops are a joke in your country. First off, you dont have any. Second off, your justice system is WAY to leniant. Whats the standard sentence for murder? 6-7 years in a swedish prison where you get private cells, personal xbox 360, private visits with your girlfriend, internet, jerkoff magazines, weightlifting, decent food, etc...

My competitors sent the torpedos out for others of our competetors. They casse out their homes and barrel in and beat the daylights out of them. The standard warning is we know where your children are/wife, if you talk this will get far uglier. Those guys talked and explained the whole situation but the investigators couldnt pin it on the torpedos cause they dont know them and couldnt pin it on the competitor cause he had a nice alliby. You guys arent known for sophisticated investigations.

We lucked out, soon as we got wind about the comming hammer we moved apts (that nite), and managed to have our biz headquarters in a discreet location they never did find. Still didnt stop them from exerting their shitty ways on their minons over at frigoscandia who then fucked with out shipments...

So, I was gonna have a shotgun (against swedish law) and smoke those shitbags. Im not going to be intimidated like that and have the life beat outa me so the other guy can have all the customers. Fortunately, I never had to use that shotty but not everyones so lucky. I just wasnt gonna have those shitbags go to some swedish club med prison for murdering me, my partner or whatever and we did nothing. Your system is truely outa whack with that shit.

AK 47s in the US are not full auto, they have been modified to make them extremely difficult to tamper with and make them full auto. One must hunt with a 5 round mag, then its just like any other semi auto. AK 47 bullets arent magic flying assault bullets. They are like any other rifle bullet, infact they are less potent than your 6.5x55...

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

I lived in Sweden from 2004-2007. The bandidos and hellz angels may be rivals but they both follow the same economic model. Pay a torpedo 50,000 kroners and he will bust the shit outa who ever you want. Broken bones, long hospital stays etc. I know alot of you Swedes live in lala land cause you have no idea whats up. Those in the know understand that the yugoslavs will be visiting your restaurant for protection money and march into your bizness and let you have it and all your possesions if you dont pay up. I wont even get into the roving bands of muslim immigrant kids and the gypsys cause we both know what up in that dept...

Cops are a joke in your country. First off, you dont have any. Second off, your justice system is WAY to leniant. Whats the standard sentence for murder? 6-7 years in a swedish prison where you get private cells, personal xbox 360, private visits with your girlfriend, internet, jerkoff magazines, weightlifting, decent food, etc...

My competitors sent the torpedos out for others of our competetors. They casse out their homes and barrel in and beat the daylights out of them. The standard warning is we know where your children are/wife, if you talk this will get far uglier. Those guys talked and explained the whole situation but the investigators couldnt pin it on the torpedos cause they dont know them and couldnt pin it on the competitor cause he had a nice alliby. You guys arent known for sophisticated investigations.

We lucked out, soon as we got wind about the comming hammer we moved apts (that nite), and managed to have our biz headquarters in a discreet location they never did find. Still didnt stop them from exerting their shitty ways on their minons over at frigoscandia who then fucked with out shipments...

So, I was gonna have a shotgun (against swedish law) and smoke those shitbags. Im not going to be intimidated like that and have the life beat outa me so the other guy can have all the customers. Fortunately, I never had to use that shotty but not everyones so lucky. I just wasnt gonna have those shitbags go to some swedish club med prison for murdering me, my partner or whatever and we did nothing. Your system is truely outa whack with that shit.

I liked this story! It reminds me of a plot in a 70s Movie! Ha ha!!! Thanks for posting it!

 

[OrangePJsII**]

Wow, that law in Texas on shooting to wound is kinda silly IMO. I know personally, I would shoot to kill in my own home but out on the street, if I was being held at gun point and could get away, I'd simply shoot to wound and have the guy/gal serve their time.

 

[YeahBee]

Swede here, hunter, gun owner.

In favor of more liberal gun laws, I can get a handgun but it is hard, I would love one jsut for fun, don't really see myself having the need for guns for home defense

As for the US, it may be crass but there are more cases of people using legal guns in defense then people using legal guns to kill others or injure themselves. the crooks overh ere have guns aswell so completely banning guns wouldn't matter, and it is not like they are using bolt action rifles anyway.

What I don't like thou is this step on my property you die mentality that seem to exists among certain americans. Cops as civilians should only be allowed to shoot/kill if there is a real danger, guy running away with your DVD-player is not a legit target. Like that Horn fella, he went out of his way to kill those men, they may have been scumbags but that doesn't matter

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

What I don't like thou is this step on my property you die mentality that seem to exists among certain americans. Cops as civilians should only be allowed to shoot/kill if there is a real danger, guy running away with your DVD-player is not a legit target. Like that Horn fella, he went out of his way to kill those men, they may have been scumbags but that doesn't matter

Ah, there's some case history behind that law. Way back in the day, (1800s wild west days) people shot people over theft of property like cows. Cows were a big part of some poor ass farmer's livelihood, and it was a cpaital offense to steal them, (still is I think) That was one justification, another decision determined that you couldn't say put aprice tag on the property without first knowing the situation of the owner. Right, so a $200.00 Tv may be a small or very big deal to some folks depending on their income.

From what I recall again, cause I don't have the Texas code in front of me, you can use deadly force to protect your property if you reasonbly believe you can't get it back any other way, (which will be determined in court when they haul you in for shooting someone) same for a third person's property too.

But it doesn't always go the shooter's way. A lot of people go to jail over this sort of stuff cause quite a few things must take place to prove that reasonableness, you had to catch them, chase them, threaten them, offer to let them drop the stuff, etc etc etc.

Now, if this takes place at night, you're justified in plugging them on the spot, same as Criminal mischief at night, because the assumption is you can't see if the criminal has a weapon at night, or its much harder to know right, so they assume the criminal at night is a criminal armed.

Lesson behind a lot of this is, if you shoot someone justified or not, you'll get hauled in, and have to goto court, and through a lot of legal wrangling to get out, and in spite of guilt or innocence you'll get sued, and sued and sued.

and if your a criminal, well you have to consider whether or not you just shouldn't have been there, when the victum starts drill'n bullets into your ass.