Weaponry for Home Defence in the UK

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: crazyewok

I posted similar n the previous page, fear of being shot is rare as hens teeth unless you are flowing in the dark world in the UK. Crim's sometimes even 'encourage' folk to hand themselves in when a crime is particularly bad and innocents are needlessly killed with a rented gun.
We knife each other here instead, and that is preferable to being shot in my book.
Different cultures is all, some US members just can't get it as it is so alien to their psyche.

Yeah I have a realtive in the london met that works in homocide south london area.

Gangs are real careful when it comes to using there guns. If they hit a civilian they know there will be hell to pay. It just not worth it. It can mean the difference to a gang being somewhat ignored and having the whole met come down on you like a ton of bricks. Criminals are not as stupid as people think they are.

a reply to: grainofsand

Your justice system must be pretty piss poor if killing burglars is the only way to guarantee you won't get done over by 'authority'.

No not at all, when someone trys to hurt or kill us we don't negotiate , furthermore I will not endanger myself by Inguaging (sp) in less lethal force, I let the lead work for me instead..

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: grainofsand

Your justice system must be pretty piss poor if killing burglars is the only way to guarantee you won't get done over by 'authority'.

No not at all, when someone trys to hurt or kill us we don't negotiate , furthermore I will not endanger myself by Inguaging (sp) in less lethal force, I let the lead work for me instead..

So why did you say:

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: grainofsand

I am an advocate of reasonable force.

Over here that could get you jail time and a law suit at the very least..

and...

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: nonspecific

I could get sued but no jail time.. We have a law called the Castle Doctrine..

...sounds like you are saying your justice system is best negotiated by killing the burglar dead?
Please do explain if that is not your message, I prefer to keep people alive where I can though usually.

Aye, if wildb id telling the truth (no reason to think you aren't, just the law seems so aburd I'm struggling to believe it.

In my interpretation it seems to say the law instructs you towards using deadly force over reasonable defences, which in my very poor understanding of US law (mainly based of Worlds Wldest Police videos than books to be honest), which seems to advocate murder/manslaughter over solving the issue with all parties alive at the end of it so the burglar can be sentenced and receive justice in my eyes.

I have no idea about US law and most of this is my projection so probably untrue but that sounds like judge, juror and executioner stuff to me. Where am I going wrong here as I'm obviously misinterpreting the situation/lacking in knowledge in this area?

a reply to: Anaana

I think most of us with any common sence knows it's never a good idea draw attention to one's self, especially so given the current breed of Police and there zero tolerance policys.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Anaana

I think most of us with any common sence knows it's never a good idea draw attention to one's self, especially so given the current breed of Police and there zero tolerance policys.

There s drawing attention to one's self, and drawing attention to oneself. Imagine, some high tech brainiac with the ability to develop an algorhythm that can detect a lie...in fact why imagine...just watch London Spy...prime time BBC! Someone has already imagined it for you.

Effortless.

People doing their jobs. Zero tolerance of a lack of tolerance is a reasonable compromise in my book. For the time being, until a better solution can be found.

a reply to: Anaana

Personally i think the zero tolerance policy's now enforced by our Police force does nothing more than clog our court systems with petty crimes.

IMHO Police should be going after the real criminals out there including there own brethren and other political miscreants aka rather a large proportion of our current political establishment, no to mention the bankers.

Lets see them implement the zero tolerance policies toward those lot.

a reply to: grainofsand

..sounds like you are saying your justice system is best negotiated by killing the burglar dead? Please do explain if that is not your message, I prefer to keep people alive where I can though usually.

I have no message, just explaining the law, in the past killing was a last resort, a person had to retreat if possible. In recent times the law was changed in respect to what happens in ones home.

In most states if not all if a bad guy is threatening you in your home, weather it is to kill or rape your wife lethal force is allowed for, not encouraged but allowed. There are exceptions for people who have a right to access the property such as a landlord ect..

So if a bad guy broke in and was waving a knife around I would be in my right to shoot him.. And we here, the police have the 21 foot rule, a man with a knife who is 21 feet away or less is a deadly threat. The police came up with this rule because cops were getting killed with knives at that distance, because they did not have enough time to draw there weapon as they were being rushed by a man with a knife.

And the stats show you are more likely to die from a knife than a bullet..

Now to be clear what I have said apply only when in my home, on the street the law is a bit different depending on where you live, in some states it is the same, others not.

I carry a gun wherever I go, not out of fear but because you never know when you may be met with violence.

I carry for the same reason I wear my seat belt when I drive my car....

originally posted by: bastion
Aye, if wildb id telling the truth (no reason to think you aren't, just the law seems so aburd I'm struggling to believe it.

In my interpretation it seems to say the law instructs you towards using deadly force over reasonable defences, which in my very poor understanding of US law (mainly based of Worlds Wldest Police videos than books to be honest), which seems to advocate murder/manslaughter over solving the issue with all parties alive at the end of it so the burglar can be sentenced and receive justice in my eyes.

I have no idea about US law and most of this is my projection so probably untrue but that sounds like judge, juror and executioner stuff to me. Where am I going wrong here as I'm obviously misinterpreting the situation/lacking in knowledge in this area?

No not instructed, permitted. As for judge, juror and executioner, yes, it is an assume responsibility so you better get it right or you go to jail..

When I earned my concealed weapons license I was told you now have more power than the state of xxx, there is a very fine line when using deadly force, but when used appropriately it is permitted..

As more states went CCW our crime rates have been on the decline and continue to decline, and now states are doing away with licensing ..

a reply to: grainofsand

.sounds like you are saying your justice system is best negotiated by killing the burglar dead? Please do explain if that is not your message, I prefer to keep people alive where I can though usually.

Yes more often than not, however what is an unwanted guest, would I kill a burglar if I was sure thats all he was, no I would not, I don't ever want to kill anyone, however I would threaten him with deadly force, if he was just a burglar he would run. If not and he confronted me with violence than I would shoot him.. and if I shoot I shoot to kill, why, because the only reason to draw my weapon would be to kill, If I don't have a reason to kill I don't draw my weapon, I hope that is understood...

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: bastion
Aye, if wildb id telling the truth (no reason to think you aren't, just the law seems so aburd I'm struggling to believe it.

In my interpretation it seems to say the law instructs you towards using deadly force over reasonable defences, which in my very poor understanding of US law (mainly based of Worlds Wldest Police videos than books to be honest), which seems to advocate murder/manslaughter over solving the issue with all parties alive at the end of it so the burglar can be sentenced and receive justice in my eyes.

I have no idea about US law and most of this is my projection so probably untrue but that sounds like judge, juror and executioner stuff to me. Where am I going wrong here as I'm obviously misinterpreting the situation/lacking in knowledge in this area?

No not instructed, permitted. As for judge, juror and executioner, yes, it is an assume responsibility so you better get it right or you go to jail..

When I earned my concealed weapons license I was told you now have more power than the state of xxx, there is a very fine line when using deadly force, but when used appropriately it is permitted..

As more states went CCW our crime rates have been on the decline and continue to decline, and now states are doing away with licensing ..

Thanks for both the replies above, very informative stuff and sounds like you can be more than trusted with a weapon.

a reply to: bastion

Thanks for both the replies above, very informative stuff and sounds like you can be more than trusted with a weapon.

Thank you, any questions ask away..

Buy/build a chokunu aka repeating cross bow

I own 3 and from 15 yards it's absolutely fatal intimidating and just flat out scarry

Only thing worse to be shot at with is a gun imo

Always have a backup sword and a nice compound bow is nice if u got some distance

a reply to: KingDoey

I know of a guy that kept a fridge/freezer at the top of his staircase, you know 'just in case '.

Some people are very creative.

Hello fellow Brits and other Earthlings

I'm in the UK and being a son of an ex police officer my dad is someone who likes to keep and eye on everything. At this stage he is concerned about home safety with the threat of ISIS economical collapse etc etc. My father use to be a .22 air rifle and .22 air gun target shooter and we've been recently discussing owning shot guns, he wants four (one for him one for me and one each for my two brothers)

The reason he wants them is for a SHTF scenario but also we were thinking of taking up clay pigeon shooting just as an activity.

As for home defence we currently own several compressed gas powered air rifles and hand guns. They won't do much damage I hear you say. I agree .. However the gas guns are more for a distraction attack which would enable myself, dad or brothers several life saving seconds to get out of a situation and find safety. Not only that but the style of hand guns look pretty real to someone who doesn't know anything about guns. Staying on the topic of air guns although they won't cause life threatening injuries I still wouldn't fancy taking 8 pellets to the face, eyes, mouth or teeth for that matter which is why this weapons wouldn't be used for self defence so to speak but more of a way of standing half a chance if attacked. The hand guns we have fire 8 pellets the once you've done those 8 you can eject the clip turn it around pop it back in the gun and you are ready to shoot another 8 pellets so in theory if I was attacked I could fire up to 16 pellets in good timing giving my attacker depending on how accurate I was a very saw face and maybe enough to disable them temporarily for me or whoever to get to safety

As for other weapons a good old fashioned firemans axe, pick axe handle would do enough to defend yourself. A friend of mine has a compound bow which is very powerful and if used in a discreet place you won't attract any unwanted attention. My friend was once firing his bow on a field when two officers arrived who were looking around the area for somebody, when they stumbled across my friend they weren't really too fussed as he was away from any built up areas and as soon as he saw the officers he had made the bow safe and made sure they could see he wasn't being an arse with it

Back onto shotguns I believe the law states you can only own a shot gun that you can only load two shells at any time. You can intact purchase a pump action shot gun but they have to be altered so that you can only load 3 shells into the gun. The ammo and gun have to be kept in separate locked storage boxes too. I believe in the UK you can also own full bore rifles

So despite the UK may seem very tight on weapons there are in fact several options we still have its just about researching and reading up on what you can legally own

originally posted by: ThePeaceMaker
Back onto shotguns I believe the law states you can only own a shot gun that you can only load two shells at any time. You can intact purchase a pump action shot gun but they have to be altered so that you can only load 3 shells into the gun. The ammo and gun have to be kept in separate locked storage boxes too. I believe in the UK you can also own full bore rifles

Shotguns are divided across s1 and s2 shotguns.

Section 2 Shotguns are what most people in the UK think about when they discuss shotguns. If it has a magazine (which needs to be physically fixed to the firearm) the capacity is restricted to 2 shells. You might see a semiauto or pump action referred to as 2+1, because you can have 2 shells in the magazine and 1 in the chamber. This type of firearm is much less restricted and the paperwork does not specify or limit how many you can possess. The storage requirements are also slightly different, though the Police tend to hold you to a higher standard than the law actually requires. If memory serves, you can't get slug on a section 2 ticket. Not an issue for clays; might be an issue for practical shotgun but you're not going to be doing that on a section 2 anyway.

Section 1 Shotguns have an unrestricted magazine capacity. In fact, they can use detachable magazines (unlike s 2 shotguns) which makes things like the Saiga 12 quite popular with some Practical Shotgun competitors. Personally I prefer my old pump action; less fancy but tough as old boots! Well, once I've fixed the extractor issue, anyway.

Full bore rifles (which also fall under section 1) are limited to single-shot only. Considering they fought two world wars with Lee Enfield bolt action rifles, this isn't as crippling as some might think. Also lever action rifles are quite popular and a tremendous amount of fun to use!

Ammunition needs to be kept in a box that is separately locked, but not necessarily separate from the firearms safe. Most people use a firearms cabinet that has an additional internal compartment with its own lock, which satisfies this requirement.

Hope that's answered some of those points without diving off into completely irrelevant detail.

I know the thread started around home defence, but don't look at it like that. Go join a club, learn to shoot, get your FAC, have fun at competitions, and support the sport. There's far more to it than a bunch of old guys drinking tea and firing off a round every 20 minutes, or posh people shooting clay discs. The Imperial meetings, Civilian Service Rifle comps, Practical Shotgun comps, the list goes on. The more support we have as a community, the greater the opportunity for challenging and changing perceptions and maybe, eventually, laws.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Right on True Brit!!! I got an old Peavey Fury who's head stock makes a nasty bludgeon. I say leave the string ends hanging out of the tuning peg after winding them so they too act like prongs. Not gunna use my MTD653 for that though. Although she does have a mean Eastern Rock Maple neck. Thats gotta hurt. No wait it does hurt, bapped my self on accident plenty of times to know.



I say the poster recommending getting good with a 26 inch stick is on the money. Surprisingly versatile and hard to defeat.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Just to clarify the use of some terms, including "section"/"s1" etc.

In the UK, firearms are classified based on which section of the Firearms Act 1968 applies to them.

The key ones are Section 1 (those rifles, handguns, and shotguns that can be owned by standard boring civilians), Section 2 (shotguns with restricted capacity; the kind you'd normally use for clays, driven game, etc), and Section 5 (all the fun stuff that civilians aren't going to get their hands on).

There are some other sections that can come into play but that will only cloud the issue at the moment.

When you apply for a Firearms Certificate, you apply based on the section - so I have a S 1 FAC that covers rifles, unrestricted shotguns, and handguns, and a S 2 FAC that covers capacity-restricted shotguns. Sometimes the FAC will be referred to as a "ticket".

With S 1 FACs, you apply for "slots". Each slot represents a firearm and has to have a nominated caliber. So, you might apply for 2 slots for .22RF rifles, 1 slot for a 5.56/.223 rifle, 1 slot for a shotgun, and 1 slot for a .357 long barrel revolver.

You might notice I said "handgun" in this list. This is correct. Handguns aren't exactly banned, but there are minimum barrel length and minimum overall length requirements that effectively ruled out most handguns. Some still meet the criteria and can be owned on a S 1 ticket.

Section 1 includes handguns that meet minimum barrel length and minimum overall length requirements. Imagine a really long barreled revolver with a metal rod sticking out the back of the grip. Not pretty at all!

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Anaana

Personally i think the zero tolerance policy's now enforced by our Police force does nothing more than clog our court systems with petty crimes.

IMHO Police should be going after the real criminals out there including there own brethren and other political miscreants aka rather a large proportion of our current political establishment, no to mention the bankers.

Lets see them implement the zero tolerance policies toward those lot.

I don't disagree with you at all, there are a lot of Shoulds, Woulds and Coulds though. Petty crimes, and criminals, minor acts of social deviancy, receive the most focus of attention because of their visibility. The Police, themselves, initiate very few of those arrests and charges, they are publically, or "victim" driven. The Police merely respond to complaints. At my place of work, this year, I have had to call the Police out only twice, most instances, unless I think that there is the possibility of risk to others, I can do my own "policing". I am in a security role, that is what I am paid for. Other stakeholders at my place of work are less tolerant, and will call the Police out to remove someone whom they feel might be threatening before even engaging with that person. Police time, locally to me, is consistently wasted on controlling anti-social behaviour. The costs, resources, of this nannying means that the Police has very little left for chasing major crimes and fundamentally, the Police are still dependent on reporting. White collar crimes, major fraud are usually uncovered by other government and bureaucratic agencies, such the tax office, or banks. The powers required to investigate such crimes are beyond the remit of the police and require additional support, resources and agencies. The British Police are a non-politicised force, that considerably limits their ability to initiate any high level investigation without facing blockages from elsewhere in the civil service.

It all goes back to, for those of us who may or may not commit crimes of an anti-social nature, to be mindful of our neighbours, etc. Keep on good terms and be a reasonably useful member of your immediate community, and "they" are unlikely to ever report you. The Police can only do what they have been instructed to, and for as long as we hold to the convention of Human Rights, the power to resist and complain lies with "us", and the burden of proof with "them".

a reply to: EvillerBob
Cheers Bob that info was quite helpful. As I've stated we (my family) haven't purchased any shotguns at the minute it's something we are looking into over the next few months my dad still has to clear room in the loft for the gun cabinets.
When we get them they arnt just going to sit there for home defence me and my dad are trying to organise joining a club and actually using them for sport

So with what you said I can own a Saiga 12 in the UK?

As for keeping the gun my dad being ex police it's quite up to date with the laws and what needs to be kept where etc. But the info you posted has been helpful and I'll start looking up about s1 and s2 guns, my dad has the brains where as I'm still learning