which shotgun shell is best 4 drone hunt

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Olas
I'm not playing lawyer, I live on the other side of the world and was under the impression that you could legally shoot any trespasser. I have a mental image of grandpa on a rocking chair with a shotgun on his lap - probably stereotyped, probably innacurate, but the as an Englishman you probably think I drink tea and play cricket, right?


Understood, and I apologize for being abrupt. In the United States you cannot use deadly force unless you are in direct fear of your life, and or feel your life is being threatened. The only exception to this rule is the state of Texas which allows under certain conditions, deadly force to be used in the defense of retaining possession of property. And that has severe limitations.

For example, if you are 6 months behind on your car payments. And you've received certified or registered mail informing your vehicle will be repossessed if you don't remit by a certain date. Then the date comes and goes, and you don't pay, and you shoot and kill the repo man when he shows up with his tow truck, with his name and company painted on the side........ That will not stand up in court, and you'll most likely go to jail for murder.

All I've been saying in this whole thread, is you simply cannot do whatever the he!! you please with firearms. As always there are laws, along with consequences if you violate them, period. People always try to make unrealistic comparisons, in order to justify the use of firearms. You cannot take the massacre by a mad man that happened at Virginia Tech, and compare it to some 12 year old aggravating you by flying his toy drone over your back yard on a Sunday afternoon, when you're in a bad mood. One obviously requires the use of weapons, the other does not.

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: whip
Why is it ok to shoot a drone down?

I see a lot of name calling and hand wringing, but nobody answered the question........

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
You are obviously delusional.


Your total and complete misunderstanding on the subject of firearms law does not make make me "delusional". It merely makes you ignorant, as you've proven.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: whip
I see a lot of name calling and hand wringing, but nobody answered the question........


It's not, or ever has been. If someone can show me a law currently in place that clearly states otherwise, I'll be more than happy to stand corrected.

 

[Olas]

Billt460

You don't need to apologise to me mate, I thought we were just throwing ideas around..

Now this isn't a law,but in my country it's a precedent - you can do what you want on your own land,the only proviso is that you must display signage if there is potential for injury

As examples it's perfectly ok to erect electric fences, barb wire or any other security features at may cause harm around your residence if you put signs up saying "Warning - Barb Wire - Risk of Injury" or wording to that effect. However if you don't use signs and someone gets injured, you effectively assaulted them.

This came about in the late 70s/early 80s when business owners and warehouse owners started using cement to fix shards of broken glass over windowsills, rooves and other flat surfaces to stop break-ins. Numerous crooks bled to death mid robbery and a law demanding signage was introduced. Since then, all you have to do is make it known.

So if you put up a sign on your fence (as a US citizen within US boundary) that says
" private airspace - drones will be shot down "
And then you do it, where would you stand?

 

[tom slick]

For a small drone infestation a Saiga 12 with Dragon's Breath would do the trick


For a larger infestation you'd need CIWS

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Olas
So if you put up a sign on your fence (as a US citizen within US boundary) that says
" private airspace - drones will be shot down "
And then you do it, where would you stand?


The sign itself means nothing, if your actions depicted by the sign violate already existing laws, that forbid the discharge of firearms inside a city limit. For example, I can put up a sign that says, "Trespassers Will Be SHOT!" However, if I kill someone for just setting foot on my land, the sign isn't worth what it's printed on. The person did not pose an immediate threat to my life, by just infringing on my property line. That gives me zero right to kill him.

If the sign says, "Keep Out Electric Fence, Do Not Touch!".... And you touch it, not much will happen to you. An electric fence is not considered lethal force. At least most private ones. It is a deterrent. Some models around prison's can be. But that's a different set of circumstances all together.

Signs are meant to inform. Not give the right of the property owner to make and enforce their own set of laws that directly contradict existing ones.

 

[billt460]

A better example of this is a, "Beware Of Dog!" sign. While it's a good idea to have one in place, to warn people you own a large, unfriendly dog, that doesn't like strangers. The sign itself does not absolve you from prosecution if your dog bites someone. Especially a youngster. In most all dog bite cases not involving criminal activity, the court WILL NEVER rule in favor of the dog owner.

It is up to the owner to do everything humanly possible to physically prevent the dog from attacking anyone. Just posting a sign does not absolve the owner from prosecution from a biting incident.

I have a backyard in ground pool. I had to meet certain criteria in order to obtain a permit to build and fill it. Just meeting that criteria, (5' concrete block wall surrounding it with a locking gate of equal height), does not absolve me from a law suit should a kid gain access to my yard, and drown in the process. I could still face a large wrongful death civil suit should that happen. Would meeting the criteria help in defending myself in a said suit? Most likely, but it's no guarantee.

 

[bubbatime]

Originally Posted By: Olas
I live on the other side of the world and was under the impression that you could legally shoot any trespasser. I have a mental image of grandpa on a rocking chair with a shotgun on his lap - probably stereotyped, probably innacurate, but the as an Englishman you probably think I drink tea and play cricket, right?


No about the tea and cricket, but surely you eat haggis and crumpets, no?

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: bubbatime


No about the tea and cricket, but surely you eat haggis and crumpets, no?


I love crumpets! Especially with peanut butter..
haggis isn't food, it's closer to industrial waste.

 

[2cool]

Originally Posted By: Olas
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Olas
If its ok to shoot a person who comes onto your property............


It's NOT OK to shoot someone just because they, "came on your property". You can't kill someone in cold blood for trespassing. Unless that person poses a direct and immediate threat to your life or family. You do and you'll find yourself in jail for a long time. Too many people playing lawyers here.

And what's with all this nonsense over drones, "looking into windows" anyway? Does anyone personally know anyone this actually happened to? And I'm not talking about reading about it in the National Enquirer or Star.



I'm not playing lawyer, I live on the other side of the world and was under the impression that you could legally shoot any trespasser. I have a mental image of grandpa on a rocking chair with a shotgun on his lap - probably stereotyped, probably innacurate, but the as an Englishman you probably think I drink tea and play cricket, right?


Hi Olas! Which part is inaccurate? The tea or the cricket? Just pullin' your chain, buddy. I visited your country for a few days back in the 80's when I was stationed in Germany. Had a good time, very nice people, even drove a rental car. Now THAT was difficult!!!! We have guns, and at last estimate, we have around 25K Federal, State, and Local firearms laws/ordinances. We are not a necessarily "armed to the teeth" people. Many of us (me included) have more than one gun; which would distort the number of guns/per person average. I know that the majority of people I know don't own one.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
You are obviously delusional.


Your total and complete misunderstanding on the subject of firearms law does not make make me "delusional". It merely makes you ignorant, as you've proven.
Always respond with a hater line. It beats a law degree hands down. The armed serviceman at that station will NOT be charged.

 

[Olas]

Originally Posted By: 2cool
Originally Posted By: Olas
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Olas
If its ok to shoot a person who comes onto your property............


It's NOT OK to shoot someone just because they, "came on your property". You can't kill someone in cold blood for trespassing. Unless that person poses a direct and immediate threat to your life or family. You do and you'll find yourself in jail for a long time. Too many people playing lawyers here.

And what's with all this nonsense over drones, "looking into windows" anyway? Does anyone personally know anyone this actually happened to? And I'm not talking about reading about it in the National Enquirer or Star.



I'm not playing lawyer, I live on the other side of the world and was under the impression that you could legally shoot any trespasser. I have a mental image of grandpa on a rocking chair with a shotgun on his lap - probably stereotyped, probably innacurate, but the as an Englishman you probably think I drink tea and play cricket, right?


Hi Olas! Which part is inaccurate? The tea or the cricket? Just pullin' your chain, buddy. I visited your country for a few days back in the 80's when I was stationed in Germany. Had a good time, very nice people, even drove a rental car. Now THAT was difficult!!!! We have guns, and at last estimate, we have around 25K Federal, State, and Local firearms laws/ordinances. We are not a necessarily "armed to the teeth" people. Many of us (me included) have more than one gun; which would distort the number of guns/per person average. I know that the majority of people I know don't own one.


As it happens, I drink tea like some People drink coffee. Yorkshire tea bags make the best brew in all of the world! And when I was a kid I played cricket for my town but I'm too old for it now..

I know you're not armed to the teeth as a people. But some of your people are armed to the teeth! I've had S1 and S2 firearms licenses in the past, FYI S1 is CF & RF, S2 is smooth bore. At the moment I don't have anything, I'd like an S5 license but that will never happen.
In contrast, I believe there are states where you can buy whatever you want without any licensing.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
The armed serviceman at that station will NOT be charged.


If he's charged or not is meaningless. That is the point you are so obviously missing. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEGALLY ARMED! We have police departments in this country, who require even off duty cops to carry weapons at all times. Yet we have a military that does the exact opposite. This all proves the direct result of what happens when modern, so called "Millennial's" are taught WHAT to think, instead of HOW to think.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
The armed serviceman at that station will NOT be charged.


If he's charged or not is meaningless. That is the point you are so obviously missing. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEGALLY ARMED! We have police departments in this country, who require even off duty cops to carry weapons at all times. Yet we have a military that does the exact opposite. This all proves the direct result of what happens when modern, so called "Millennial's" are taught WHAT to think, instead of HOW to think.
It's always better to be "legally dead", right?

 

[HerrStig]

And there's NO way a jury would convict the serviceman of "Illegal self defense", which, of course, is the rational for not charging him.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
It's always better to be "legally dead", right?


No. Again you miss the point. It's better to be "legally armed".

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
And there's NO way a jury would convict the serviceman of "Illegal self defense", which, of course, is the rational for not charging him.


Forget the "rational". This is where you keeping tripping over yourself. The law itself is STUPID, period. And it should never have been in play in the first place. You're trying to argue the best way around it. Again, it goes back to being taught WHAT to think, instead of HOW to think. People in this country are foolish enough to allow themselves to be "educated" into thinking a trained Marine "needs" protection. That's insane.

He is the best trained individual to protect not only himself, but all others around him. It all reverts back to this stupid insanity that, "guns only belong on the battle field". More socialistic, liberal nonsense that todays Millennial's swallow hook, line, and sinker without flinching. Because of that, needless deaths occurred at both Ft. Hood, as well as Chattanooga. This type of thing will continue as long as the stupid mindset that allowed it to happen does.