I still don't understand this philosiphy/attitude to dealing with a burgler - why go for an 'aimed shot' after just a verbal warning - after a verbal warning the 'perp' may not be convinced that you either have a real (and loaded) gun, or the nerve to use it. I'm pretty sure (hypothetically, again...) that I could put a 'warning shot' somewhere where it would not cause harm...surely that would be worth a go....barney57 wrote:You can or should fire AIMED SHOTS ONLY and only as many shots as is neccessary after giving a warning...
Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???
Moderator: dromia
Forum rules
Should your post be in Grumpy Old Men? This area is for general shooting related posts only please.
Should your post be in Grumpy Old Men? This area is for general shooting related posts only please.
-
Dougan
Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???
Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???
Porcupine, some good stuff in that lot.
Warning shots are for the movies, as is shooting in the hand or foot, the perp might not want to stand still. Where do you fire a warning shot in the house, or outside. Outside and you may well have reckless discharge of a firearm, brandishing a firearm etc etc, the list goes on. You have no control over lethality, once fired the bullet does what bullets do and if it hits a bone and travels around then it COULD prove fatal although the initial hit was not. That is NOT your fault, no one forced the bad person to attack you.
You are not killing anyone, that is the WRONG mental approach for armed defence with a firearm and you WILL not fire or at best WILL hesitate, either way you will lose the fight, and probably your life.. You are shooting to STOP a threat, him or her getting dead may be a by -product of the process. You have NO control over that outcome except NOT to shoot, so why have a gun then. . As for being so close that your space is compromised and your gun useless, err NO. There ARE techniques for just that and of course distance is your friend, you should not let them get danger close in the first place wherever possible.
It IS possible to sustain multiple hits and not go down, apart from poor shot placement, adrenalin, drugs, too much body fat or sheer WILL to prevail in the fight all come into it.
As for targets with smaller hit areas, I have some police targets where the joints etc are marked "for SWAT team use"....in the real world I doubt that such a shot placement would be used unless by direct order to take the person as alive as possible...and shooting someone does make it harder to do that. The good old Mozambique technique works BUT the methods in use DO vary between civvie, cop and military.
Part of the problem also is that what people train to do is vastly different from what they WILL do at the time. Standing square on on a range behind a wee shelf and taking all day to shoot at something 25 yards away witha circle on it is not defensive shooting,. Screaming for help down a phone whilst shooting one handed is daft, as is running away whilst shooting back or trying to talk down someone drawing on you. That moment has passed, talk all you want once the shooting is over.. You have to be aggressive, press the response home, take the fight to the bad guy when it all goes down. After all he is not likely to have trained or been trained as much as anyone willing to carry a fiream legally CAN be trained but he/she is almost most certainly willing to kill you..
I love this subject
.I would imagine that just the noise of a couple of well placed (to avoid ricoches) warning shots would see most burglers off. If not, does a shot have to be leathal? - one in the foot could be effective
Warning shots are for the movies, as is shooting in the hand or foot, the perp might not want to stand still. Where do you fire a warning shot in the house, or outside. Outside and you may well have reckless discharge of a firearm, brandishing a firearm etc etc, the list goes on. You have no control over lethality, once fired the bullet does what bullets do and if it hits a bone and travels around then it COULD prove fatal although the initial hit was not. That is NOT your fault, no one forced the bad person to attack you.
You are not killing anyone, that is the WRONG mental approach for armed defence with a firearm and you WILL not fire or at best WILL hesitate, either way you will lose the fight, and probably your life.. You are shooting to STOP a threat, him or her getting dead may be a by -product of the process. You have NO control over that outcome except NOT to shoot, so why have a gun then. . As for being so close that your space is compromised and your gun useless, err NO. There ARE techniques for just that and of course distance is your friend, you should not let them get danger close in the first place wherever possible.
It IS possible to sustain multiple hits and not go down, apart from poor shot placement, adrenalin, drugs, too much body fat or sheer WILL to prevail in the fight all come into it.
As for targets with smaller hit areas, I have some police targets where the joints etc are marked "for SWAT team use"....in the real world I doubt that such a shot placement would be used unless by direct order to take the person as alive as possible...and shooting someone does make it harder to do that. The good old Mozambique technique works BUT the methods in use DO vary between civvie, cop and military.
Part of the problem also is that what people train to do is vastly different from what they WILL do at the time. Standing square on on a range behind a wee shelf and taking all day to shoot at something 25 yards away witha circle on it is not defensive shooting,. Screaming for help down a phone whilst shooting one handed is daft, as is running away whilst shooting back or trying to talk down someone drawing on you. That moment has passed, talk all you want once the shooting is over.. You have to be aggressive, press the response home, take the fight to the bad guy when it all goes down. After all he is not likely to have trained or been trained as much as anyone willing to carry a fiream legally CAN be trained but he/she is almost most certainly willing to kill you..
I love this subject
Political Correctness is the language of lies, written by the corrupt , spoken by the inept!
Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???
As for warning shots or perps believing that the gun is real.....your call.
Political Correctness is the language of lies, written by the corrupt , spoken by the inept!
-
Porcupine
Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???
Further to the subject of shot placement, sustaining multiple gunshot wounds etc:
The human body, as fragile as it is, is surprisingly resilient. In a defensive situation you want to survive as unharmed as possible and the two main ways this will happen is if your attacker runs away or if he falls down on the ground. Assuming that he is not simply scared into running away, you need to put your attacker on the ground. With a firearm there are four main ways this can happen:
1) Psychologically - The pain and shock of being shot may cause your attacker to mentally lock (or give) up and fall down. This is not uncommon, sometimes people go over as if hit by a freight train from only a grazing wound. But neither is it uncommon for people to remain standing and functioning after even multiple gunshots. Often people do not notice they have been shot, or report only that it felt like they had been punched - painful, but not enough to stop them. Some will suffer excruciating pain but fight through it anyway, and still others will be numb from drink or drugs. This kind of effect is most common when passive individuals are shot e.g. a cop is writing a ticket when out of nowhere he gets shot in the shoulder. When people are aware they are being shot at their fight or flight response, if nothing else, is usually enough to override the effect at least for a time.
2) Mechanically - If the pelvis is shattered your attacker will fall down because he has no skeleton to hold him up - it's physically impossible. Equally he may fall down if his ankle, knee etc are shattered (though it is possible he could remain standing on one leg). This may be well and good if he is armed with a knife, bat, ligature etc, but it will not do if he is armed with a gun since he can still shoot back from the floor.
3) Cardiovascularly (!) - If the heart is destroyed then incapacitation will occur almost immediately and death a few seconds later. Nicks or minor damage to the heart will be slower and it may take tens of seconds for incapacitation to occur. Major damage to the lungs or throat can also incapacitate almost immediately with death following in tens of seconds or perhaps significantly longer (lung shots can potentially be survived for some time).
4) Cerebrally - If the brain stem is destroyed then it is instant game over. If the upper brain is destroyed then motor function may continue for a few moments. Glancing shots or minor penetration may not even kill - especially given the resistance of the skull to gunshots.
Killing, from a practical point of view, may not be all that difficult. But stopping is another matter. It doesn't help you if your attacker dies five minutes or three weeks after he has killed or maimed you. It may not matter how many times you hit an attacker or how big or fast the bullet is, unless it does sufficient damage to very specific areas of the body there's no reason he will necessarily fall down. So one area that deserves a lot of attention is shot placement and learning to shoot accurately - and to do so quickly and under a variety of non-ideal conditions.
Suppose you come downstairs to investigate that bump in the night and find two intruders rifling through some drawers. You ought to be using verbal warnings e.g. 'get back,' 'stay away,' 'don't come any closer,' etc. If you did shoot them straight out then you'd be on extremely shaky legal ground and of course possibly killed some people when you might not have had to. If they run off, great, but if they come at you then you are on much firmer ground in shooting them.
But suppose rather than discovering placid intruders you find yourself the would-be victim of a smash and grab. You hear a tremendous crash, you grab your 12 gauge from the corner and pie out onto the landing to investigate - coming off the top of the stairs towards you are two masked men with claw hammers. In this situation you would be quite right to give no warning but simply shoot them. They are not just potential threats but actual and immediate threats. If you should happen to go to trial (which would be extraordinary if, as described, there were multiple armed attackers) and the prosecution asked, as they surely would, whether you gave a warning your answer would be that you had no time to give a warning because your life was in immediate danger. So, you should be able to justify why no warning was given, but there is no requirement to warn - or in states where there is some sort of requirement, it is only required 'when feasible' which it is clearly not when you are in immediate danger.
Equally, outside of the home, if someone is acting in a way that makes you uncomfortable - leering, being verbally aggressive, or to some extent threatening, pushing and shoving, walking quickly towards you etc - you can't legally just shoot them. Again, you would need to tell them to stay back etc and only when you are actually attacked such that you fear crippling injury (or sexual assault) can you use lethal force. You may of course be justified in using less-lethal force in the meantime. But if a threat presents itself immediately e.g. you are sitting at lights and suddenly your car door is pulled open and a man brandishing a knife appears - you are on solid legal ground when you shoot him without warning because your life is actually in danger.
As for aimed shots, it depends what you mean by aimed. Firing blindly around a corner at an attacker is probably a bad idea since 1) It's not very effective and 2) you're much more likely to send bullets god knows where - and if those bullets kill some innocent person you have to live with that and are probably going to jail or at least getting sued for every last penny you have. But firing directed shots without using your sights is often the only practical thing you can do. How could you possibly use your sights if your attacker is within arms reach? There's literally no room to get a full extension so as to see your sights. Even if your attacker is further away, there may be no time. It's less likely in home defence situations since you will have your gun drawn and at a low ready or even looking down the sights, but in an outside-the-home encounter where you need to draw as well as shoot there's a time between getting the gun out of the holster and getting the gun out to full extension that you may not be able to afford.
Depending on the situation you may have to shoot from the hip, from a compressed grip (butt of the gun on your chest), or from a partial extension. From the first two, you will not see your sights at all. From the last of these you will see your sights but you won't have a sight picture. You would use these firstly because you don't have time to get a full extension and proper sight picture, but also because a full extension puts your hands and gun closer to your attacker. When he is close, keeping the gun near to your body may be preferable.
You are quite right about fleeing intruders or would-be attackers though. The exception being if they are armed with firearms - a fleeing gunman can and often will still fire behind him as he runs so you are likely to be justified in continuing to shoot. But other than that there is no justification which is why Tony Martin and the Hussain brothers went to prison.
The human body, as fragile as it is, is surprisingly resilient. In a defensive situation you want to survive as unharmed as possible and the two main ways this will happen is if your attacker runs away or if he falls down on the ground. Assuming that he is not simply scared into running away, you need to put your attacker on the ground. With a firearm there are four main ways this can happen:
1) Psychologically - The pain and shock of being shot may cause your attacker to mentally lock (or give) up and fall down. This is not uncommon, sometimes people go over as if hit by a freight train from only a grazing wound. But neither is it uncommon for people to remain standing and functioning after even multiple gunshots. Often people do not notice they have been shot, or report only that it felt like they had been punched - painful, but not enough to stop them. Some will suffer excruciating pain but fight through it anyway, and still others will be numb from drink or drugs. This kind of effect is most common when passive individuals are shot e.g. a cop is writing a ticket when out of nowhere he gets shot in the shoulder. When people are aware they are being shot at their fight or flight response, if nothing else, is usually enough to override the effect at least for a time.
2) Mechanically - If the pelvis is shattered your attacker will fall down because he has no skeleton to hold him up - it's physically impossible. Equally he may fall down if his ankle, knee etc are shattered (though it is possible he could remain standing on one leg). This may be well and good if he is armed with a knife, bat, ligature etc, but it will not do if he is armed with a gun since he can still shoot back from the floor.
3) Cardiovascularly (!) - If the heart is destroyed then incapacitation will occur almost immediately and death a few seconds later. Nicks or minor damage to the heart will be slower and it may take tens of seconds for incapacitation to occur. Major damage to the lungs or throat can also incapacitate almost immediately with death following in tens of seconds or perhaps significantly longer (lung shots can potentially be survived for some time).
4) Cerebrally - If the brain stem is destroyed then it is instant game over. If the upper brain is destroyed then motor function may continue for a few moments. Glancing shots or minor penetration may not even kill - especially given the resistance of the skull to gunshots.
Killing, from a practical point of view, may not be all that difficult. But stopping is another matter. It doesn't help you if your attacker dies five minutes or three weeks after he has killed or maimed you. It may not matter how many times you hit an attacker or how big or fast the bullet is, unless it does sufficient damage to very specific areas of the body there's no reason he will necessarily fall down. So one area that deserves a lot of attention is shot placement and learning to shoot accurately - and to do so quickly and under a variety of non-ideal conditions.
There is no blanket legal requirement to give a warning. Police officers are required to give a warning before shooting a fleeing suspect where practical - but there is no requirement (for police or civilians) to give a warning when shooting in self-defence or defence of another. Of course it is preferable, legally and for many other reasons, to give a warning but this very much depends on the situation. In some states there is statute law which says a warning must be given where feasible so in these states it is of extra importance but obviously not always necessary.barney57 wrote:You can or should fire AIMED SHOTS ONLY and only as many shots as is neccessary after giving a warning...
If the perp turns and runs or drops any weapon that he/she might be carrying once you have given a warning,,,,then the threat is no more,,,,that means if that happens you cant shoot him/her legally...
SO BEWARE!!
Suppose you come downstairs to investigate that bump in the night and find two intruders rifling through some drawers. You ought to be using verbal warnings e.g. 'get back,' 'stay away,' 'don't come any closer,' etc. If you did shoot them straight out then you'd be on extremely shaky legal ground and of course possibly killed some people when you might not have had to. If they run off, great, but if they come at you then you are on much firmer ground in shooting them.
But suppose rather than discovering placid intruders you find yourself the would-be victim of a smash and grab. You hear a tremendous crash, you grab your 12 gauge from the corner and pie out onto the landing to investigate - coming off the top of the stairs towards you are two masked men with claw hammers. In this situation you would be quite right to give no warning but simply shoot them. They are not just potential threats but actual and immediate threats. If you should happen to go to trial (which would be extraordinary if, as described, there were multiple armed attackers) and the prosecution asked, as they surely would, whether you gave a warning your answer would be that you had no time to give a warning because your life was in immediate danger. So, you should be able to justify why no warning was given, but there is no requirement to warn - or in states where there is some sort of requirement, it is only required 'when feasible' which it is clearly not when you are in immediate danger.
Equally, outside of the home, if someone is acting in a way that makes you uncomfortable - leering, being verbally aggressive, or to some extent threatening, pushing and shoving, walking quickly towards you etc - you can't legally just shoot them. Again, you would need to tell them to stay back etc and only when you are actually attacked such that you fear crippling injury (or sexual assault) can you use lethal force. You may of course be justified in using less-lethal force in the meantime. But if a threat presents itself immediately e.g. you are sitting at lights and suddenly your car door is pulled open and a man brandishing a knife appears - you are on solid legal ground when you shoot him without warning because your life is actually in danger.
As for aimed shots, it depends what you mean by aimed. Firing blindly around a corner at an attacker is probably a bad idea since 1) It's not very effective and 2) you're much more likely to send bullets god knows where - and if those bullets kill some innocent person you have to live with that and are probably going to jail or at least getting sued for every last penny you have. But firing directed shots without using your sights is often the only practical thing you can do. How could you possibly use your sights if your attacker is within arms reach? There's literally no room to get a full extension so as to see your sights. Even if your attacker is further away, there may be no time. It's less likely in home defence situations since you will have your gun drawn and at a low ready or even looking down the sights, but in an outside-the-home encounter where you need to draw as well as shoot there's a time between getting the gun out of the holster and getting the gun out to full extension that you may not be able to afford.
Depending on the situation you may have to shoot from the hip, from a compressed grip (butt of the gun on your chest), or from a partial extension. From the first two, you will not see your sights at all. From the last of these you will see your sights but you won't have a sight picture. You would use these firstly because you don't have time to get a full extension and proper sight picture, but also because a full extension puts your hands and gun closer to your attacker. When he is close, keeping the gun near to your body may be preferable.
You are quite right about fleeing intruders or would-be attackers though. The exception being if they are armed with firearms - a fleeing gunman can and often will still fire behind him as he runs so you are likely to be justified in continuing to shoot. But other than that there is no justification which is why Tony Martin and the Hussain brothers went to prison.
-
Porcupine
Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???
Another thing I'd mention, and particularly relevant to what Dougan was saying, is that in this country murders are pretty rare. Every year people are killed and maimed in home invasions, robberies, muggings, random attacks, sexual assaults, etc. And that shouldn't be discounted, but none the less - we have a lot less murders than a lot of countries like the USA. On the other hand, we do have a lot more violent crime. You're less likely to get shot in a carjacking, but more likely to get beaten up. For that reason, in this country I'd focus more on less-lethal approaches than on the lethal. That's not to say that having a gun (or knife) and knowing how to use it is pointless - and certainly one is quite rightly justified in using lethal force to defend one's self against multiple unarmed attackers. I might take my chances (and legally speaking would be expected to) toe to toe with a single drunk, but a choice between taking a severe beating at the hands of several grown men and defending myself with a gun is a no-brainer. Beatings are no joke - people get paralyzed amongst other things, and people die.
Point is though, you need options. Not every situation calls for a firearm. Tasers, pepper spray, batons, kubatons, saps and similar less lethal tool are great things to have available. Or, given that right now in the UK these things are not an option outside of the home unless you are prepared to break the law, knowing how to use everday objects you may have on your person to defend yourself like a solid pen, torch, or umbrella etc, as well as your bare hands, is a very good idea.
Point is though, you need options. Not every situation calls for a firearm. Tasers, pepper spray, batons, kubatons, saps and similar less lethal tool are great things to have available. Or, given that right now in the UK these things are not an option outside of the home unless you are prepared to break the law, knowing how to use everday objects you may have on your person to defend yourself like a solid pen, torch, or umbrella etc, as well as your bare hands, is a very good idea.
Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???
A very well written reply there Porcupine and well worth moving to self defence maybe? It sounds like you have researched this well or speak with the benefit of some significant training.
-
barney57
Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???
Look guys I do this day in day out,, I'm tested on it,,on a regular basis,,,,I have weapon handling tests, check zero every month, and have to pass shooting tests,,,,its all to do with the Inherent right to self defence....and I do fear some of you are lioving in a dream world and in what you see in the movies,,,and if that offends some then I make no apology,,,,
As I said before you must Give a warning,,,,,unless giving a warning wastes time and wouldnt work anyway,,,the scenario for that would be if the perp had a gun or knife to a persons head/throat....that I think is pretty obvious,,,,if the perp drops the weapon once you have given the warning,or when he realises that you have a gun,then the immediate threat has gone, if he or she runs away then again the immediate threat has gone, however if the perp has already turned and fired but missed, and you firmly honestly and truly believe he will turn and fire again then you may fire,,,but in what ever case you must only fire aimed shots (and makesure you have adequate back stops/clear area in case you hit an innocent bystander) and you must only fire as many shots as it required,,so if you drop him in one shot thats it...if he runs and does not turn to fire, jumps in a car and speeds off,,,,and or drops the weapon in that process, you cannot legally fire and shoot him,,,because the threat is no more...
Try not to over analyse this,,,and forget the if's and but's and all this warning shot bollacks,,,ignore the advice if you like,,,your life, your sentence...but whatever you do, should you ever be unfortunate enough to find your selves in such a situation, hopefully you never will,,,but if you do just make sure that you act within the rules, act accordingly and remember it has to be Lawfull, Justifiable, neccessary and reasonable in the circumstances......as I have said many times before...outside of that and I'm afraid your on your own,,,,,just remember that 9 O'clock jury,,,and this is not the U S of A!!!
As I said before you must Give a warning,,,,,unless giving a warning wastes time and wouldnt work anyway,,,the scenario for that would be if the perp had a gun or knife to a persons head/throat....that I think is pretty obvious,,,,if the perp drops the weapon once you have given the warning,or when he realises that you have a gun,then the immediate threat has gone, if he or she runs away then again the immediate threat has gone, however if the perp has already turned and fired but missed, and you firmly honestly and truly believe he will turn and fire again then you may fire,,,but in what ever case you must only fire aimed shots (and makesure you have adequate back stops/clear area in case you hit an innocent bystander) and you must only fire as many shots as it required,,so if you drop him in one shot thats it...if he runs and does not turn to fire, jumps in a car and speeds off,,,,and or drops the weapon in that process, you cannot legally fire and shoot him,,,because the threat is no more...
Try not to over analyse this,,,and forget the if's and but's and all this warning shot bollacks,,,ignore the advice if you like,,,your life, your sentence...but whatever you do, should you ever be unfortunate enough to find your selves in such a situation, hopefully you never will,,,but if you do just make sure that you act within the rules, act accordingly and remember it has to be Lawfull, Justifiable, neccessary and reasonable in the circumstances......as I have said many times before...outside of that and I'm afraid your on your own,,,,,just remember that 9 O'clock jury,,,and this is not the U S of A!!!
Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???
Porcupine and Barney: good points both. The whole subject is a legal minefiled. As I said before and the do's and dont's vary widely depending on your rules of engagement, law system etc etc etc. Moral of the story is that you MUST know your law system and RIGHTS before even thinking about a gun for self defence (or any other weapon for that matter). Even in the USA the rules vary from state to state and getting it wrong can have serious reprcussions. The best way to avoid the situation is not to get into it in the first place, not always possible of course but looking like a victim is a sure fire way of being a victim.
Whilst the right to carry that we used to have will ever come back is virtually non existent, occupiers MUST be allowed to use whatever means available to defend their property. Forget this, it's only property p1sh, it is YOUR property bought with your money or whatever so what right does any scumbag have to break in and take it with the full protection of the law as the situation now stands. Quite simply if we were allowed to shoot and kill burglars then how many dead burglars would there be..it would be THEIR choice to commit the crime and take their chances...more to the point, at least there is no re-offending or slaps on the wrist from do good judges.
Of course having the right to choose to be an armed citizen or a defenceless subject is a luxury we do not have..we are rendered defenceless by law and no amount of political bullshoit is going to change that in our lifetimes.
Whilst the right to carry that we used to have will ever come back is virtually non existent, occupiers MUST be allowed to use whatever means available to defend their property. Forget this, it's only property p1sh, it is YOUR property bought with your money or whatever so what right does any scumbag have to break in and take it with the full protection of the law as the situation now stands. Quite simply if we were allowed to shoot and kill burglars then how many dead burglars would there be..it would be THEIR choice to commit the crime and take their chances...more to the point, at least there is no re-offending or slaps on the wrist from do good judges.
Of course having the right to choose to be an armed citizen or a defenceless subject is a luxury we do not have..we are rendered defenceless by law and no amount of political bullshoit is going to change that in our lifetimes.
Political Correctness is the language of lies, written by the corrupt , spoken by the inept!
-
Blackstuff
- Full-Bore UK Supporter
- Posts: 7841
- Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 1:01 pm
- Contact:
Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???
Slight derailment but i'm presuming if you ever were to get in an awful situation like this it would be best not to say anything to the arresting Police until you have been briefed by a solicitor? As in;
However, do we actually have a right NOT to say anything, given that the UK Police caution (if thats what its called), has "You do not have to say anything. But if you do not mention now something which you later use in your defence, the court may decide that your failure to mention it now strengthens the case against you. A record will be made of anything you say and it may be given in evidence if you are brought to trial."?? Does "not mentioning something" mean something to the arresting officers, or when you're being questioned at the station?! :?
As opposed to the US miranda caution of "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you." Pretty straight forward - don't say anything to us until you have spoken to your lawyer
However, do we actually have a right NOT to say anything, given that the UK Police caution (if thats what its called), has "You do not have to say anything. But if you do not mention now something which you later use in your defence, the court may decide that your failure to mention it now strengthens the case against you. A record will be made of anything you say and it may be given in evidence if you are brought to trial."?? Does "not mentioning something" mean something to the arresting officers, or when you're being questioned at the station?! :?
As opposed to the US miranda caution of "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you." Pretty straight forward - don't say anything to us until you have spoken to your lawyer
DVC
-
Steve
Re: Ken Clarke to clarify self defense law ???
I remember something an American said once about self defence in the home.
He always maintained that theres nothing more terrifying than having an 12g shotgun pointed at you.Even when loaded with birdshot they can do a terrific amount of damage at closer ranges and should be enough to persuade your attacker/intruder to give up.
He always maintained that theres nothing more terrifying than having an 12g shotgun pointed at you.Even when loaded with birdshot they can do a terrific amount of damage at closer ranges and should be enough to persuade your attacker/intruder to give up.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests