I am sad to report this.  Winston Churchill must be punching the inside of his coffin.

http://www.ukpreppersguide.co.uk/best-paintball-gun-for-self-defence

To think that the descendants of Sir Francis Drake, Marlborough, Wellington, and Churchill have been voluntarily reduced to this  point is something all of us should ponder.

The Brits sunk to this this point by the ballot.  They voted on it, either directly or indirectly.

tag.

The monarchy has nothing to do with UK gun laws either.

Its just SpamualAdams1776 being his usual idiot self.  He has no concept of what a Constitutional Monarchy is, but his SOP is to jump with both feet into any thread where Britain or the UK is mentioned with a load of ill-informed, ignorant guff.

In terms of the OP's post, I don't really see that UK citizens are being advised to get paintball guns for self defence.  It's just a small UK prepping website that is offering some suggested ideas.  There are probably thousands of them on the web with some good and ht-so-good ideas.

In terms of UK preppers, each to their own, of course.   The best course of action is to quietly get on with whatever you see as appropriate preparation for the eventualities that concern you, and not announce it for all to see.

I apologize if I mischaracterized your original article in any way.  I think the full article speaks for itself, and in volumes.  My intention was to alert those in the US to what might befall them.

I do think you are doing good work, and more power to you.  

Wasn't there a case in the UK a couple of years ago, at most, where an old man shot a home invader with a firearm, and found himself up on charges?

I believe this account (from a rather leftist, anti-gun site) contains the facts of the matter:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer).

Interesting that the homeowner incurred a life sentence, while the (living) assailant got off with a few years.  Not saying that such could not have occurred in the US in certain parts, but I don't think the original verdict was just, nor would I think so had the same verdict been handed-down in some benighted jurisdiction in the US..

To pull out some of the salient points from your link, and add a little context:

Tony Martin was a farmer who had been burgled a number of times.

He armed himself with a shotgun and expecting the burglars to return waited for them to show up before ambushing them and shooting them in the back as the fled.

He killed one of them (Fred Barras) and injured the other (Brendon Fearon).   Not many tears were shed for either of them as they were both shit-heads.

On 23 August 1999, Martin was charged with the murder of Barras, the attempted murder of Fearon, "wounding with intent to cause injury" to Fearon, and "possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life". Martin did not hold a valid Shotgun Certificate (licence), let alone the more restrictive Firearms Certificate he would have needed to possess the high-capacity pump-action Winchester shotgun.

On 19 April 2000 Martin was jailed for life, with the condition that he serve a minimum of 9 years, alter reduced by the then Lord Chief Justice to 8 years.

Martin appealed on the grounds that he was paranoid at the time because he had been burgled previously on a number of occasions and he basically had acted out of fear.   This was accepted by the courts and his conviction was reduced to one of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, and his sentence reduced to 5 years.

Throughout the whole process there had been a public outcry over Martin's case with manny people supporting him.  However, under the law he had been found guilty of three charges and had to be sentenced.  This was a very unpopular move (happened under the Blair Years when the nanny state was at it's height) and the Govt was forced to address the public anger by releasing Martin early, having served a little over 3 years.

Brendon Fearon, the shit-head burglar who survived has continued to be rather unwelcome plague on British society:

On 10 January 2000 Fearon and Bark admitted to conspiring to burgle Martin's farmhouse. Fearon was sentenced to three years in prison and Bark to 30 months (with an additional 12 months arising from previous offences). Fearon was released on 10 August 2001.

Fearon was again jailed for 18 months on 6 February 2003 for dealing heroin. Controversy was again provoked, in July 2003 when Fearon left Ranby prison after serving less than a third of his 18-month sentence.  The head of the Prison Service got his arse chewed by the then Home Secretary for allowing the early release.

On 2 September 2003 Fearon was arrested for taking a Toyota Land Cruiser without the owner's consent.On 9 November 2003, he was found guilty of driving the vehicle without insurance and recalled to prison to serve the remainder of the preceding sentence.

In August 2005 Fearon was arrested with Dean Thompson, accused of drawing out £11,000 from a bank machine using stolen cash cards. Fearon was bailed to appear before magistrates in October 2005 - not sure of outcome.

etc

Fearon's string of criminal activities has continued and he has been in constant trouble with the law, including death threats to Tony Martin.


Martin remains a free man, is in many ways has been hailed a public hero (despite a somewhat dubious association with hardline political groups of ill repute) and has written books bout his experience.

Thank you for the clarification.  In parts of the US, things might have been a little less hard on him, since mere possession of a pump shotgun would not be considered an offense.

In some other parts of the US, the cops would have privately congratulated him on ridding society on a predator, taken their photos and dispositions, and gone about their way.

I fail to see how justice is better served, under the UK system, than here in the US, although I admit there are many anti-firearms District Attorneys who would persecute.prosecute a similar case to the ends of the Earth.  Most would not.