Nick333
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 35,231
- Reaction score
- 6,566
I stand to be corrected.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How much are you willing to pay for an official Springbok shirt?
Gun Ownership
- Thread starter Geriatrix
- Start date
I stand to be corrected.
Mike Hoxbig
Honorary Master
Lol I wouldn't be acting within the law
Not sure what the law says but I'm pretty sure a lawyer could successfully argue that animals are pretty close to children for some people.
Mike Hoxbig
Honorary Master
I wouldn't even bother going down that route. The human centipede will be tame compared to what's in store for that fscker
Dog, wife, kids, whatever - they can threaten my life but not those I care about.
Cool Mike, but how are you going to stop them? Sporting equipment like a cricket bat, spices (pepper spray) or loud words?
Geriatrix
Executive Member
No you wouldn't.Lol I wouldn't be acting within the law
Nope. You would be locked away for murder(or attempt, depending on how good a shot you are
) if you killed someone to protect an animal.Interesting...
Mike Hozbig said:
With that attitude towards caring for the ones you love (and +10000 by the way), don't you think you owe it to your wife, kids, etc. to defend their lives, and yours, by any means possible?
All you need to prove is that you reasonably suspected them to have a weapon and meant to do your or your family harm, and thus you acted in self defence. It doesn't even need to a firearm. There is nothing non-lethal about a knife...
Mike Hoxbig
Honorary Master
There are other lethal alternatives. In the event that I need to exercise force, I've always felt that a licensed firearm is traceable and therefore invokes too much red tape. But from some of the comments here, I suppose that maybe things are not as bad as I thought.
There are other options, yes, but nowhere near as effective as a firearm. Most have severe drawbacks. As an example, impact weapons like a knife requires you to get way to close and personal. Most non lethal weapons like pepper spray, tasers etc have limited effectiveness. I know of a police trainer who teaches his students quite easily to work through the pain of a taser or pepper spray and continue an 'attack'. A guy on drugs may not feel the effect of pepper spray or tasers at all, I have seen this several times.
If there was a non lethal tool that was as effective as a firearm I would be the first one to test it out, but unfortunately there isn't one yet. The problem is non lethal tools always rely on pain compliance. A lot of guys can work through pain, and again, those on drugs take little notice. You need something that incapacitates a human. As it is you can have effective results in stopping an attacker through wounds to critical organs or severe blood loss.
If there was a non lethal tool that was as effective as a firearm I would be the first one to test it out, but unfortunately there isn't one yet. The problem is non lethal tools always rely on pain compliance. A lot of guys can work through pain, and again, those on drugs take little notice. You need something that incapacitates a human. As it is you can have effective results in stopping an attacker through wounds to critical organs or severe blood loss.
Hi all!
Interesting discussion you have going here. Allow me to add some cents if I may...
Not necessarily Mike - with training it is possible to think straight enough in those circumstances to not shoot unnecessarily. I know of a bloke who had that the other day and did not shoot even though he had his firearm out and pointed at his attacker. Split-second decision, yes, but safely handled due to training IMO.
AFAIK the cops are not legally required to charge you, they are only legally required to investigate. They will only charge you if the investigation points to negligence or something other than self-defence.
+1 on the cops being a bit more understanding of SD scenarios.
By the way, self-defence does not only refer to a firearm - if your life or that of another person is under immediate threat then you are allowed to use any and all means to defend those innocent lives, whether you use a car, a knife, a brick, your fists or a firearm does not matter. The legal test is whether that which you used and did was your only available option to stop an existing or imminent attack from continuing.
Interesting discussion you have going here. Allow me to add some cents if I may...
Not necessarily Mike - with training it is possible to think straight enough in those circumstances to not shoot unnecessarily. I know of a bloke who had that the other day and did not shoot even though he had his firearm out and pointed at his attacker. Split-second decision, yes, but safely handled due to training IMO.
AFAIK the cops are not legally required to charge you, they are only legally required to investigate. They will only charge you if the investigation points to negligence or something other than self-defence.
+1 on the cops being a bit more understanding of SD scenarios.
By the way, self-defence does not only refer to a firearm - if your life or that of another person is under immediate threat then you are allowed to use any and all means to defend those innocent lives, whether you use a car, a knife, a brick, your fists or a firearm does not matter. The legal test is whether that which you used and did was your only available option to stop an existing or imminent attack from continuing.
Rosaudio
First Officer
You should be allowed to own a gun but only after some intense training and theory.. like a drivers license to make sure you are fit. If you have a criminal record then automatically no license for you.
Then there should be some kind of microchip installed in your hand that connects up with the gun and will only fire if that person is holding it. Therefore if your gun is stolen then it's basically useless. And then some sort of GPS device installed in the gun so you can see exactly where it is a can get it to self destruct at the click of a button on a website online.
Me and my ideas
Then there should be some kind of microchip installed in your hand that connects up with the gun and will only fire if that person is holding it. Therefore if your gun is stolen then it's basically useless. And then some sort of GPS device installed in the gun so you can see exactly where it is a can get it to self destruct at the click of a button on a website online.
Me and my ideas
or that you were in fear of your life... the burglar was defeating the deterrent/dogs and you had no illusions about his motivations and took action upon your own property, for fear of your life.
/casedismissed
Pretty much... And like they say dead men tell no lies.
It is already tough to get a license in SA. Nobody has been any safer since the new laws came into play, because legal firearm owners are not the cause of crime in SA. You will currently be refused a license if you have a criminal record.
You should be allowed to own a gun but only after some intense training and theory.. like a drivers license to make sure you are fit. If you have a criminal record then automatically no license for you.
Then there should be some kind of microchip installed in your hand that connects up with the gun and will only fire if that person is holding it. Therefore if your gun is stolen then it's basically useless. And then some sort of GPS device installed in the gun so you can see exactly where it is a can get it to self destruct at the click of a button on a website online.
Me and my ideas