PDA

View Full Version : GUNs


ssultana
18th Oct 2004, 14:29
I didn't used to be pro gun ownership in the UK, but there have been so many stabbings, rapes and what-not around here, i would like to own a pistol if they were legal. Burglars have broken into my friends houses when they are sleeping, and robbed/ fought with them. If i had a gun i could just shoot the buggers. We've tried wasting chronic amounts of cash on helping them out of their social situation ....but crime is still rising.

Anyone else in favour of a law review?

Biggles Flies Undone
18th Oct 2004, 14:38
A troll lived in a windmill in an internet site
A website with a troll in and he wasn't playin'
He sang every morning, "How lucky I am,
Trolling in a website in all my spare time!"

Chorus:
I saw a troll!
Where?
There on the thread!
Where on the thread?
Right there!
A little troll with bells on
Well I declare!
Going post-posty post on the thread
Oh yeah

Stockpicker
18th Oct 2004, 14:42
Nope. I'm very familiar with guns - Uni Blue for rifle, top pistol shot - and very happy not to own either a rifle or a pistol. If firearms proliferated here the way they have in the US, I would emigrate rather than bring my child up in such a community.

BlueDiamond
18th Oct 2004, 14:48
You haven't been around for a while, ssultana ... thanks for that. :ok:

How's the studying going?

tony draper
18th Oct 2004, 14:49
A modicum of skill is neccessary for a successfull outcome with a pistol , get a sawed off Greener, no need to practice,just point and cut loose.
:rolleyes:

BlueDiamond
18th Oct 2004, 14:58
get a sawed off Greener,
Huh! Where I come from we were so tough we had bitten off shotguns. :uhoh:

tony draper
18th Oct 2004, 15:03
:uhoh:

http://www.jetblasters.com/vhcv8yqfrnsu/cgi-bin/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=album15&id=Draper_expecting_visitors_i

:rolleyes:

Whirlygig
18th Oct 2004, 15:11
... and from whence I come, we had sawn-off Purdeys :cool:

BFU - I've got that in my head now - thanks a lot!! but v. funny.

Cheers

Whirlygig

pigboat
18th Oct 2004, 15:24
Geez Mr. D, sawing off a Greener is a sacrilege. A Winchester or Savage now... :D

Onan the Clumsy
18th Oct 2004, 15:30
If i had a gun i could just shoot the buggers. Maybe. If they didn't take it off you and do you first :ugh:

Blacksheep
18th Oct 2004, 15:34
Better get him with the first shot Drapes, he'll be able to hide in the smoke after that...

Then again the powder burns from those things would probably be fatal, even without the lead. :)

tony draper
18th Oct 2004, 15:39
If'n they's good enough for Wild Bill they's good enough for Drapes, beside yer 1863 Colts Army makes a very efficient blunt instrument as well, yer Colt Navy slightly less so.
:cool:

Solid Rust Twotter
18th Oct 2004, 15:47
Aaahh, but yer Walker Colt would require both hands to swing her effectively.

One lusts for a Walker Colt.....*drool*.....:ok:

tony draper
18th Oct 2004, 16:04
Well yer old Walker is ok if'n ye gorra stout pony to carry it round upon.
:cool:

Incidently only 163 genuine Walker Colts are in existance now and one (ifyou can find one)will set you back over one hundred thousand dollars.

Dead_Heading
18th Oct 2004, 18:01
"If i had a gun i could just shoot the buggers."

The fact that I shoot just makes me less likely to shoot someone, as far as I'm concerned, becuase it makes me consider and respect the weapons I use/own.

6 inch holes in people don't mend. You can replace property, but you can't replace a life.

Shooting gets enough bad press as it is, without people wanting a gun for "self defence"

Lance Murdoch
18th Oct 2004, 18:07
All things considered I am against legalising gun ownership for the simple reason that many people would be killed by accident. I was introduced to guns when I was 18 and consequently have a large amount of respect for them. I was taught in a very controlled and safe environment how to use them properly (military). If gun ownership was widespread I doubt that Joe public would get this amount and quality of training.
On the other side of the coin, burglaries would go down, I believe that instances of house burglary in the US are much lower than in the UK because burglars run the real risk of being shot and there is no chance that a homeowner would be prosecuted in such circumstances. However, if burglaries went down street robbery would probably increase.
Its a very difficult question. No doubt many, including myself, would prove to be very responsible gun owners but unfortunately just as many wouldnt.

Dead_Heading
18th Oct 2004, 18:09
Gun ownership IS legal in the UK, provided the police are happy with you owning a gun, a free for all is, IMHO, asking for trouble.

Mind you, the governments method of already illegal weapons like the fully autos/handguns criminals use is by putting more legislation on shotgun/firearm cert. holders :rolleyes:

goates
18th Oct 2004, 18:46
I don't think owning guns will help with anything except increase the number of people killed, both criminals and others. We don't allow handguns in Canada and our crime rates aren't at the same level as the US.

Here's one link to a comparison between the US and Canadian crime rates involving guns.
http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/general_public/news_features/other/crimedata.asp

As I don't trust most people's skills operating a vehicle and seeing the choices they make while on the road, putting on makeup while doing 120kph for example, I would be terrified if the average person could own and carry a handgun. The police and military are trained to use them, and to know when to use them, but very few others are.

If you want to prevent break-ins, put up signs saying that your house is protected by some security system or that there is a dog in the house. These have the benefit of working whether you are home or not, and the crook can't exactly turn it around on you. If he got your gun from you, the situation has just become even worse than it already was. Not to mention that you are not supposed to store your gun loaded...

On the other hand, our government is intent on wasting hundreds of millions of dollars making everyone register their rifles and shotguns with little proof that this will cut down on crime rates. Most of these are owned by hunters and farmers who know how to handle them. I haven't seen many reports of corner stores being held up with a rifle. On the other hand all those illegal handguns are still out there.

goates

Dead_Heading
18th Oct 2004, 19:02
Problem is, that it is illegal if you put up a sign saying "beware of the dog" and a burglar is bitten by said dog (I think. We really need a legal chappy)

goates
18th Oct 2004, 19:41
I have heard of burglars winnng court cases against owners after accidently hurting themselves when breaking in. This is a problem with the legal system and the judges not throwing out frivolous cases.

How am I supposed to know that a crook will slice open his foot on the knife I left by the sink under a window after cooking dinner? A dog attacking an intruder should be handled the same way. If he hadn't tried to do something illegal, the crook would be fine.

There was a study (yep another study, gotta love 'em) done that looked at how effective security systems are. The biggest advantage found is that the crooks will see the signs and move on to easier (in their minds) targets. Same thing for putting up signs about dogs. Most crooks would rather take their chances elsewhere than find out you do/don't have a German Shepard (or French Poodle) in the house.

goates

skydriller
18th Oct 2004, 19:46
As much as I used to enjoy putting a nice group of 9mm holes in a target before the present government made it illegal, suddenly allowing everybody to have hand guns is not something I would support either.

What is needed in my opinion is simply a positive change in the law such that anyone breaking into my house, car, shed, property etc. loses all their rights to any form of protection from the law. The fact is that if my dog rips your arm off beacause you break into my house, then tough, you shouldnt have been breaking in should you!! Same if I smash you over the head with a baseball bat, take a pot shot at you with my shotgun or whatever cause you are breaking into my shed or my car etc.!!

The sad fact is that these days its the criminal that gets off scot free and homeowner who ends up being jailed or sued by the burgler - or both!!

Just my two pennies worth...

Regards, SD..

criticalmass
18th Oct 2004, 23:17
Thanks to a member of the Shooters Party in the NSW (Australia) state government, we now have laws where anyone who breaks into a home, etc leaves their civil rights at the door. Once inside the householder/legal occupants may use whatever force they consider necessary to restrain/ discourage/disable the intruder.

Obviously this is not a direct encouragement to use lethal force (a blade-weapon or firearm, for example) but it has removed the criminal's right to sue for injuries sustained due to efforts made to restrain them from committing further crime whilst on the illegally-entered premises. A little bit of balance seems to be slowly returning to the legal system.

FWIW, at the recent Federal Election, the Australian Democrats party, with a stated policy of total civilian disarmament, including all sporting and competitive shooters (their "reductio-ad-absurdum" was reducing guns in any society - no matter who owns them - automatically reduces gun-crime) was exterminated.

That's right, exterminated. Not one sitting member left. No-one. Not a single member. Gone - hopefully forever.

The Australian public are beginning to find it a little hard to swallow the politically-correct lie that all gun-owners are potential mass-killers, when they see no reduction in crimes committed with firearms after two much-publicised firearms "buy-back" schemes, both initiated by the Prime Minister, John "I Hate Guns" Howard.

Firearms should be available to those who can prove a legally-valid reason for ownership, can prove they use them on a regular basis, have passed a firearms safety course, and have no criminal convictions of a major nature or involving violence.

Firearms are just tools. A round of ammunition has no malevolent intent. It is an inert object. Likewise the firearm which discharges it. All responsibility ultimately goes back to the person who uses the firearm.

I am not in favour of firearms being available without restriction. As a long-time owner/user, I am deeply concerned with the extremes I see in the USA where state laws go from the lax to the extremely stringent.

Ascend Charlie
18th Oct 2004, 23:56
Imagine the look of joy on the burglar's face when he is prowling your house (you are not at home) and he finds your stash of guns.

Off they go in his black bag, and he is all the better prepared for his next attempt. You personally may have had the finest intentions with your guns, but now they are not in your control.

It is absolute [email protected] to say that guns don't kill - that is their sole purpose. Target shooting is just a way of honing the killing skill. How many targets are round, and how many do you see with a human silhouette? Why do gun shops need to sell armour-piercing rounds? Is there a herd of poisonous armadillos poised to attack?

A knitting needle can kill too, but how many people have been killed by somebody stabbing people from a clock tower or a car boot?

Onan the Clumsy
19th Oct 2004, 00:35
Firearms should be available to those who can prove a legally-valid reason for ownership, can prove they use them on a regular basis, have passed a firearms safety course, and have no criminal convictions of a major nature or involving violence. I agree wholeheartedly with this and think it would be a wonderful compromise between the two opposing parties.

One of the problems with the NRA is their fanatical devotions to firearms. They stress gun ownership and gun safety comes a distant second. I sometimes wonder whose side they're on.

46Driver
19th Oct 2004, 00:47
We are on the side of the US Constitution which guarantees us the right to own firearms in the 2nd Amendment. Yes, I am a card carrying member of the NRA. You can save the political debate, there is no way you will convince any of us that the 2nd Amendment says anything else.

Onan the Clumsy
19th Oct 2004, 02:04
Whatever.

the wizard of auz
19th Oct 2004, 02:41
Imagine the look of joy on the burglar's face when he is prowling your house (you are not at home) and he finds your stash of guns.

Off they go in his black bag, and he is all the better prepared for his next attempt. You personally may have had the finest intentions with your guns, but now they are not in your control.

It is absolute [email protected] to say that guns don't kill - that is their sole purpose. Target shooting is just a way of honing the killing skill. How many targets are round, and how many do you see with a human silhouette? Why do gun shops need to sell armour-piercing rounds? Is there a herd of poisonous armadillos poised to attack?

A knitting needle can kill too, but how many people have been killed by somebody stabbing people from a clock tower or a car boot?

This is the problem we have here in auz...........people that make statements like this rubbish. Fair enough, your allowed your opinion, but do some research first.
to answer in point.

the burgler should find the firearms in the police approved gunsafe, that was a condition of you getting a licence.
Its law, If you have a firearm, it will be under quite substantial lock and key.
So that should sort out the "not in your control" issue.

Its absolute crap that guns are designed to kill. (some are, no aurgument) but the ones that are, are restricted to police and military.
Most firearms are designed to place a projectile as close to the point it was aimed as possible. Its your intent with the weapon that makes it kill.
Target shooting is a legitimate sport, not a practice run for killing stuff. I shoot/have shot almost every discipline that can be shot with both long and short arms,(and excelled) and have yet to be presented with a human silhouette as a target.
the police and military use them, but for them, it is practise.
Gun shops do NOT sell AP rounds. It is illegal for them to do so.
More people die in car accidents every day in Australia than are injured and killed in firearm incidents, collectively, every year.
The people that use firearms for illegal purposes, do NOT use licenced/registered firearms.
there is a screening process to go through, before you can own/posses a firearm.
people can be killed with knitting needles, ice picks, bricks, sticks, bottles, knives, cars, ropes, wires, fire, heavy spanners, pipe, poison.......blah blah. lets ban them huh?.
I can assure you that I could kill far more people in my landcruizer in a shorter time than anyone with an automatic weapon. (anywhere unexpected is the same as from a clock tower...eg, unsuspecting pedestrian, bike rider being struck from behind). how many hit and runs do ya hear of?.......plenty.
when a drunken person drives his car through a crowd(it happens about two or three times a year), do we all cry to ban cars?.
On friday, a mentally unstable individual stabbed two people, in radom attacks, in Perth Western Australia. Are we going to, in normal kneejerk style, implement a knife control/ban law?.
I have lived with and among firarms my whole life. I have owned many many firearms, ranging from semi automatic hand guns to very large calliber and extreemly acurate rifles. my kids have been reared with them. almost 98% of the people in my town own em. Are we all raving loonies, honing our skills for when we get the urge to kill some one?.
Fire arms are tools...........thats all. It is purely the intent of the individual doing the killing that is the problem. No guns will only mean they will resort to using something else (car, stick, bottle, knitting needle).
Its an age old aurgument, usually being had by people that don't have a clue about firearms. sort of like the press reporting on aviation incidents. (light plane= Cessna. shotgun=High powered shotgun. (their all the same, and certainly far from being high powered,regardless of what the shotgun looks like or the purpose it was used for.)). :hmm: :rolleyes:
If your going to voice an opinion, Make it an educated or researched one, not a rant about something you know little to nothing about.
P.S. The statistics that will be flying around shortly, for both sides of the aurgument, have been manipulated so much as to be suspect/useless. we've seen them all before.:hmm:

West Coast
19th Oct 2004, 05:32
"They stress gun ownership and gun safety comes a distant second"


Sure like to see you somehow document that. No free shots on that.

As with 46, I am a responsible gun owner.

BlueWolf
19th Oct 2004, 06:54
Before we continue, does anybody actually give a toss what the anti-gun loonies think?

ORAC
19th Oct 2004, 07:27
Who needs a gun. Noisy things, wakes the neighbours and alerts any accomplices....

http://www.xbows.co.uk/images/Sprite%2032.jpg

BlueWolf
19th Oct 2004, 09:42
Crossbow, pah. A crossbow's just like a gun, only quieter and with less potential for Mass Destruction.

Now don't get me wrong, guns are great, but for home defence in the wee smalls, you're hard pressed to go past a good old Mattock.

Slasher on one side, hammer on the other; a truly versatile piece of kit, is your Mattock. Just the thing for beating and slicing.
:ok:

tony draper
19th Oct 2004, 09:49
As a person who likes to cover all eventualities one has a couple of Battle Axes and a Morning Star hanging on ones wall within easy reach Mr Wolf, sometimes it pays not to rely on technology overmuch.
:rolleyes:

rotaryman
19th Oct 2004, 09:49
Guns Don't Kill People!


People Kill People!:E

Ascend Charlie
19th Oct 2004, 10:40
... and people with guns can kill more people.

Hey Wiz, you apparently haven't noticed that there IS a knife control law in operation - try sending somebody under 16 into a supermarket to buy a lino cutter.

yeah, yeah, I know about guns - 15 years of using them in the military and another 6 in the police. I've seen what they can do.

So, when you are in your house, sawing up logs at 3am and you wake up to see the burglar standing at the foot of the bed, what happens next?

a. You whip out the Gat hidden under your pillow and blast him

b. You reach under the pillow but he overpowers you and takes it

c. "Pardon me, Mr Blagger, sir, would you wait while I trot downstairs and open my safe to get something to kill you?"

"Keeping a gun for security" fits in with a and b above. Keeping it in a safe, if we could guarantee that people complied, would be OK.

I have no problem with gun enthusiasts having historic weapons and such, kept safely. Recently i stayed with a mate in Georgia who had a massive safe, and it contained everything from civil war rifles, through powerful handguns, to an Uzi and other rapid-fire items. And the safe was unlocked and wide open on display.

Real safe.

You called me an anti-gun loony above, and that is fine. But it's the pro-gun loony you have to worry about.:8

bjcc
19th Oct 2004, 10:53
Guns...mmmm get rid of all of them!

In the UK, there is no need whatsoever to hold a firearm (I'll except shot guns from that for the moment). The only thing you can legaly do with a gun in this country is make holes in a piece of paper. My 7 year old daughter can do that with a not very sharpe pencil, I see no need to immitate her.

If people feel the need to do that as a hobby then they should go to a club and do it there, with weapons held in safe storage at the club. There is no need to have them in your home.

Shotguns? Well famers may have a need for them, some vermin control compnaies may do, but no one else has a need to have one in thier home.

Does having a gun in your home prevent burglaries? No. The majority of Burglaries happen while the occupier is out, so a gun being there is no deterrent at all. Even if you were in, in order for the gun to be of any use, you'd have to get it from whatever secure storage its in, load it, aim it, by which time most burglars would be heading for the door. If they do decide to fight it out with you, bear in mind they may well take it from you, and you become the victim!

Ok, so you have a gun and you shoot billy the burglar...why are you doing that? Is it the minimum force required to protect you, or your property? Porobaly not no...again the majority of burglars are kids, are not 'armed' in any way and really pose no threat. Any that do, well you are on a loser, gun or not.

Most shotguns in illegal use came from legal sources, ie they were nicked from someone with a licence to hold them. Other firearms, well some again came from theft of legaly held weapons, some are 'imported'. However, the gun doesn't care where it came from, nor does your body when its hit by a bullet from one.

The current situation in the UK is not perfect, but its better than most countries.

If the Americans want to rave about thier constitution and ammendments to it so they carry a gun round with them then fine, they then pay the price in people being killed and never mind about the victims constitutional rights....

Maxflyer
19th Oct 2004, 10:53
I can hit a playing card at six feet with an air rifle at the fun-fair. I have a green hairy gonk to prove it.:ooh:

So watch out all yuou nasty burglar people.

flapsforty
19th Oct 2004, 10:58
Maxflyer, your GP is bound by patient-practioner confidentiality.
She'll fix you up with a few shots of antibiotics and won't tell anybody about your green gonk.
Honest.

rotaryman
19th Oct 2004, 11:42
I saw a sign recently!


THESE PREMISES PROTECTED BY A SHOTGUN 3 DAYS PER WEEK!
YOU GUESS WHICH 3!!

Omark44
19th Oct 2004, 13:50
The fact that you don't wish to participate in target rifle shooting is not sufficient reason for it to be banned, how accurate is your daughter with her pencil at, say, 1000 yards?

As for keeping rifles at clubs, Oh dear! Ever heard of the IRA? Why do you think the territorial army and most rifle clubs had to do away with their on site weapons storage? By dispersing the weapons to individual homes, to be kept in secure gun safes, the chances of any terrorists making a haul is greatly reduced.

Dead_Heading
19th Oct 2004, 14:38
AC: No valid reason to own a rifle in the UK? So deerstalkers have to kill deer with their teeth now? Foxes have to be controlled with what exactly? A shotgun is inhmane to the former, and has a very short range if used on the latter.

Although I do agree that guns should not be owned for "self defence".

simon brown
19th Oct 2004, 15:07
I'm also anti guns in society, but thoroughly enjoyed rifle and small arms shooting to such an extent I eventually got my RAF marksmans certificate. It instills a healthy respect in the damage a gun can do when you see what a 303 or an SLR round can do to a pile of 9 bricks cemented together, as for the Browning 9mm aircrew issue, youve more chance hitting your assailant by chucking the weapon at him than using it...as for the premise made earlier that guns werent made for killing its utter rubbish apart from target pistols, the gun was invented as a weapon of war which by implication means its designed to kill.

Dead_Heading
19th Oct 2004, 15:12
Could someone explain "anti guns in society?" Does this mean that you are against a free for all gun culture? Or does it mean that individuals who wish for/require a gun for their hobby or job can own one?

One reason to have your own shotgun is because each gun "fits" its user. A shotgun shoots where you look, you should never really see the gun, so it is important that the gun is the right shape to do this. Using a one size fits all gun will result in unneccersary wounding of quarry.

tony draper
19th Oct 2004, 15:13
The Browning 9mm, will do the biz if the person at the biz end has the skill Mr B, have shot a Browning Hi Power on a number of occasions and the rounds went exactly where they were pointed.
:cool:

djk
19th Oct 2004, 15:20
BlueWolf
,

Before we continue, does anybody actually give a toss what the anti-gun loonies think?

Just because some people are opposed to widespread legalisation of firearms, how does that make them a loony?

I live in Minnesota now, in the past year they've passed a conceal and carry law, so people can walk down the street with a gun in their jacket. There have been several shootings in the past week alone.

I'm surprised though there haven't been many school shootings since the school year started. I guess since the events at Columbine schools have really tightened up security.
Until only recently, you could stroll into K-Mart and buy a gun and several packs of ammunition with no questions asked.
Sheryl Crow wrote a song protesting about the general sale of guns and ammo at K-Mart stores.. K-Mart responded by refusing to stock her album but carried on selling guns :rolleyes:

Also who wants to leave a loaded gun lying around the house at night?
If someone should break into the house, what's to stop them getting hold of the gun and using it against you?

Dead_Heading
19th Oct 2004, 15:25
As previously stated, I am against just anyone being able to get hold of a gun. In my opinion, people who have to apply for a cert., be checked over and finally wait for it to be issued are far less likely to commit a crime with their firearms. In the UK, part of the process for a shotgun cert. is the police checking that you have adequate security for safe storage of your firearms. While there are inadequacies in UK gun law, as a rule I would say its one of the best systems for certification (provided you have a good regionalfirearms department).

I can't spell! Or type!

46Driver
19th Oct 2004, 15:32
K-Marts came under pressure from Rosie O'Donnel and quit carrying guns and ammo. Out of protest, I refuse to shop there anymore myself - now I go to Wal-Mart exclusively although K-Mart is half the distance.

As for guns, I grew up with guns being in the house loaded (the magazine, not the chamber) and hanging on the walls or in glass gun cabinets. That is the way of life. Certificates? Nope, your Dad taught you how to shoot - I got my first 12 gauge at the age of 12 (or was it 13?). My younger cousin (age 15) dispatched a 5 point buck last week with a semi-auto .308. Basically, you are taught 2 main rules: never to point a gun at anything you don't intend to kill and always assume the gun is loaded. Violate those, and your Dad will "discipline" you severely......

Training Risky
19th Oct 2004, 15:33
Firearms should definitely be legal to own in your own home. If a thieving scrote with intent to steal from you is cornered, he may do anything he can to escape, whether he's got control of your weapon or not. As has been said, he dropped his civil rights at the door/window when he broke in!

Thank the gods that Tony Martin disposed of at least one of the vermin out there when he had the chance - Ratboy won't be breaking into MY house any time soon.:ok:

Vfrpilotpb
19th Oct 2004, 16:08
Can we get something right here,

A Gun, is something fixed to a chassis or a ships deck,
A Shotgun is a sporting weapon
A Pistol or Rifle is called a Weapon, not a gun.


A lot of emotive crap is spoken mainly by lilly livered types when it come to talking about any sort of weapon, sure in the wrong hands any weapon will Kill or seriously injure another human being, but weapons also include a Knife, a Cricket bat, a Baseball Club a Rounders bat a Crocquet Mallet any Bow and Arrow a Crossbow a Hockey Stick, a Ball pein hammer a joiners mallet or just a lump of wood, it is the act of assault and death that is to be stopped not what is used.

We have had some very kneejerking sorts of legislation whacked out and onto the statute books in recent times, Pistols and semi Auto pistols and revolvers, and single shot pistols were banned and a lot of Tax payers money was doled out to compensate those who had to loose their Pistols, one reason was given by the nanny state, "that it would remove from our streets any gun crime" Well bugger me with a bendy birch stick what is happening in Nottingham or Manchester or Liverpool, the Yardie men in London have more guns available on any given day than the Met Police !


So come on follower's of Nanny fashion give us gun totting whoolies some sort of answer, when will the Pistols and revolvers be off the Streets,

Will it be 1 day ( or One day)
Will it be one week
Will it be one month
will it be five years
will it be NEVER


The Police and the government have no chance whatsoever to bring GUN CRIME under control,

And for all the rest of you Nellies out there making slick Tony type noises about people with Shotguns for hunting being irresponsible and lax in their own gun control and use, Grow up and go back to knitting or shopping, or being just plain boring but leave the country folk alone, we know how to look after wildlife at the same time as eating it.

Vfr

Dead_Heading
19th Oct 2004, 16:12
Well said, vfr, unfortunately, there is meant to be more legislation on the way, what with the consultation on firearms bill.

A gun as in a weapon can be called a gun, provided it has no capital letters. A Gun is the person using said gun.

simon brown
19th Oct 2004, 16:16
Dead Handling

Perhaps I should have been more specific...th epresent system of control I can live with ,the proliferation of guns as a free for all so you get shot over a parking space issue i cant live with.

If you were out walking on a Sunday morning and was occasioned by a man in tweed with a shot gun accompanied by "beaters" you wouldnt feel uncomfortable unless you were dressed as a Pheasant.

If I was in a city centre one night and a Chav waggon pulls along side whose hooded occupants are a bit "jiggy" and you saw one produce a gun you would be worried....

If you are a Copper and you pull the latter, and find a gun, he should get 10 years.If your a copper and you stop the former you ask him to produce his firearms licence down the station within 3 days....

Dead_Heading
19th Oct 2004, 16:21
SB, I agree with you totally (except that shooting of game is illegal on sundays in England and Wales). Problem with enforcing that law would be that the leftie luvvies would be able to call "discrimination" on it.:rolleyes:

simon brown
19th Oct 2004, 16:23
And without guns whether attached to boats or not, how are we going to shoot all those foxes that wont be hunted anymore?(not that most of them are being shot anyway)

Dead_Heading
19th Oct 2004, 16:25
<sarcasm>
Ah, but don't you see, we can let nature take its course..</sarcasm>

Vfrpilotpb
19th Oct 2004, 16:43
When as a boy of fourteen I was rudely and roughly woken by my father telling me we had burglars in the Country Hotel we lived in, his instructions were "get your shotgun, and stand at the window" he then went down to chase out of the Hotel said Blaggers, letting of the lead our big and nasty dog really should have been enough, but I, upon seeing the dark shapes of said blaggers running in panic as big nasty dog chased them along road gave me enough adrenilin to load up my trusty old Greener GP with a Star shell and propmtly discharged said Star Shell in the direction of the by now running like Chris Braysher(Spell) Blaggers, I think the sound of the bang, and the viewing of stars passing them above head height made the Blaggers realise they needed to do something spectacular, so being dark the saw the outline of a wall, so over they jumped, what they didn't know was that there was a drop of some fifteen ft at the other side, one made it intact one was found the day after by Farmer Giles, with a pair of crocked ankles, never had any trouble again,

But I got a Bloody good hiding of my father for firing my gun towards humans,..... when he was in the close area!

Vfr

bjcc
19th Oct 2004, 17:29
Omark 44

The IRA have enough firearms hidden away in irish bogs not to have to worry about your .22 in the local gun club. In any event, the fact that I can't be bothered to prove my manhood by putting a hole in a piece of paper shaped like a person at 1000 yards is not my reason for not thinking that anyone should be able to possess a firearm. My daughter probably doesn't care how accurate she is at 1000 yards with a pencil either, she can do enough damge fro 1000mm.

If someone can show me a GOOD reason for wanting to keep a firearm in thier home then I may change my mind, so far I have not heard one. The burglar one don't even start. If you have a firearm at home then it should be locked away securly If it is then what use is it against a burglar, who at first sign of you is off 999 times out of 1000? If its not secured then what are you going to do? Shoot billy the burglar in the back? Do that and you will be gripping the dock bar in the local Crown Court. Thats of course assuming you do wake up before the said Billy the burglar finds your insecure firearm and thinks to himself 'thats handy Harry' and makes a lot of money flogging it.

The firearms laws in the UK are strict yes, and rightly so. If the legislation as it stands keeps one firearm off the streets then its all to the good.

As I said, most shotguns being used illegaly are obtained from people who had them legaly, ie they have been nicked. Handguns tend to be imported, which no amount of legislation will prevent, that does not mean that we should add to that supply. Mr Avarage is not going to come accross a gun, unless you are into protection or buying selling drugs, where they are a status symbol.

Farmers may need to have shotguns, and provided they are securley kept then fine, trouble is they often are not.

Now again I'll ask, what GOOD reason has mr avarage got for needing a firearm in thier home?

simon brown
19th Oct 2004, 17:58
The following is a tale told by a friend of mine down the pub Sunday last, of why guns should not be allowed to escalate.

The Postman (his mate) just pulled up along side an empty car illegally parked next to a Letterbox. The postie got out and opened up the post box and started empying the post box when this bloke came along and asked him if he could move his van. He said he wouldnt be a second and he'llbe on his way. the bloke would'nt wait and insisted he "move his effin car now"...his became a somewhat more heated altercation, by which time the postie had returned to his van. There was a tap on the window and the next thing a gun is being pointed to his head and the bloke says " if you ever cross me again I'm gonna blow your brains out"


This guy, as it happened was a member of the criminal fraternity that was lifted by the Police 3 hours later. People seem to think it a gang on gang thing ...it is not always the case.You get some power crazed individual who couldnt give a toss and you end up with someone being shot by a drugged up piece of sh**e over some minor altercation

Vfrpilotpb
19th Oct 2004, 19:50
BJCC,

I thought we lived in a democratic society, that is why some of us want to keep guns, we use them in our democratic right to shoot wild game and ground game so we can follow our country persuits as we have done so since long before it became popular to be a treehuggin do as I say socialist.

I keep many guns, in many secure safes, I have shooting rights over many thousands of acres of land that belongs to private farmers and landowners, they make a democratic decision to have their land kept clear of vermin, pests Corvids and Foxes, we get the right to accept this request and in turn are extra helpers and eyes on such land, we enjoy what we do, when we do it in our own time and at our expense.

Much like you may get Jane and John books for your children and drive possible some sort of Trabant, and have flowered borders around your bedroom wallpaper, and watch some sort of football on the box or go with your mates bonding before the tribal match against god knows whatever mediocre team of highly paid plonkers, that sort of behavoir is or could be your choice, I would not dream of telling you not to do any of it, that is what is called a democratic decision on your part.

That is why we keep our guns in our houses, we dont need your permission !
Vfr

Dead_Heading
19th Oct 2004, 19:52
And if that was a legally held gun(which it certainly wasn't) the certificate holder would have his certificate revoked if/when the postie complained.

That was an illegal act, commited with an illegal gun.

I, like vfr, keep my weapons securely locked away, and take my responibilities to them seriously.

Look at the nutters on the road! A car is capable of killing people as easily as a gun.

Paterbrat
19th Oct 2004, 20:30
Regretfully as I see it the people who will not be reading this thread and couldn't give a monkeys' left testicle what anybody thinks, will do precisely whatever they want whenever they want wherever they want, are going to equiped with that 'gun' everybody is worried about. They will fire it at you, as the mood takes them.
There is a criminal minority whose 'rights' seem to be of great importance when aprehended, but who don't give a stuff for anybody elses rights at any other time. I think less worrying about 'guns' and a bit more worry about where society is heading might be far more to the point, than the kneejerk reactions of the more gunshy amongst us.
I applaud the remark of the contributor who was all for the suspension of all but the most basic of 'rights' when and where a criminal act has been commited.

bjcc
19th Oct 2004, 21:11
Vfr pilot

And what democratic right is that?

Actualy I agree on your assessment of football, however I don't own a trabant, nor am I a tree hugger of any discription.

You have your right to your opinon, and I have a right to mine. I couldn't care less about the countryside debate, and my reasoning is not based on it in any way. Its a simple matter of guns and people do not mix. You might keep your gun in whats considered by you to be a safe place. many others don't. Its life, accept it. Sadly those that don't get thier firearms nicked and they then end up stuck up the noses of people who spent thier time making sure your democratic rights are protected. Now last time it happened to me, I had a 12 inch lump of wood to protect myself with.

I was brought up on RAF stations, my father carried a gun more than most RAF personnel, so I am used to them. They have thier place, but as I said for general use, unless you can produce a GOOD reason to own one, I remain against them. Sadly rather than produce any reasons you have chosen to throw silly insults based on nothing.

Dead_Heading
19th Oct 2004, 21:19
He hasn't insulted you as far as I can see.

The fact is, that nowadays, in order to get our certificates and thus legally own a gun in the UK, we have to produce a good reason to won one, along with adequate security.

Here are some Reasons for owning a shotgun/rifle:

Damage caused to crops by pigeons (runs into the millions)

Deer management in order to prevent population explosion and acatastrophic damage to the environment

Rabbit control- they breed like rabbits, and damage crops etc

Foxes need to be controlled in order, once again, to prevent damage to the environment as well as damage to stock

Target shooting-a legitimate pastime. It may not be your cup of tea, but then again I dislike a lot of other sports.

bjcc
19th Oct 2004, 21:21
Yes you do, and rightly so. Unfortunalty although the security is inspected , nothing stops people from not keeping them secure

Dead_Heading
19th Oct 2004, 21:26
Yes it does-I have been told by my FEO that my guns are my responsibility, and if I am stupid enough to let one get in the wrong hands through my own careless actions, they can and probably will, revoke my certificate. That is why I always lock my guns away, and never leave them unattended, the fact that I have a duty as a certificate holder not to let my guns get into the wrong hands.

West Coast
19th Oct 2004, 21:26
BJCC

When my son is old enough and responsible enough I will teach him to shoot.
I will do so because it teaches him:

Discipline in dealing with dangerous objects. Hopefully this will translate across to driving and other activities that have potential.

Respect for same. I am a responsible gun owner. I understand others are not. I don't want him to experiment at a friends house on any type of weapon thay find in a drawer. I want him to know when they find it that its not a toy. Unless you can remove every last single weapon, which you can't this is as valid a reason as any.

Physical agility to hit what he aims at.

The great outdoors. My father opened up a whole new world when he took me hunting and fishing. I am now a much better conservationist for it. Management of wild life resources is something I never would have been exposed to if not for hunting.

The pure enjoyment of target shooting, hitting what you aim at.

Are these good enough reasons? They are for me.

Dead_Heading
19th Oct 2004, 21:29
Very nicely put if I may say so, WC.

Dead_Heading
19th Oct 2004, 21:58
Then lets leave cars to people whos jobs require them.

And DIY tools.

And, to touch a nerve and also to kind of make this relevant, lets only allow people whos jobs require them fly aircraft.

:rolleyes:

West Coast
19th Oct 2004, 22:07
Well, if the odd Brit farmer is going to off himself, better with a shotgun than done in a fashion that might endanger someone else, ie driving. If he wants to do, not having a gun handy isn't going to stop him.

Rhodie
19th Oct 2004, 22:08
If guns were outlawed,
only outlaws will have guns.

As I write this, sitting in my office at home, I have my CZ 9mm on the desk next to me. At the other end of the house, my 15 year old daughter is sleeping (well, she should be..!), but should the need arise, she knows where the safe is and how to handle the .38 Astra on the first shelf. When I go through to my bedroom, the safe will be unlocked and the 12 guage within reach.

You see, it's all really relative to where and why the need should exist. I cannot speak for a country lane in the UK, or even for the suburbs in the US of A. I can tell you however, that I live on a couple of acres in Africa.

I have electric fences (very, very potent current), razor wire fencing outside the electric fence, I have big dogs, I have 400w security lights on every corner of my house facing out, I have internal AND external security bars - and I still sleep with a weapon next to me.

Paranoid - no...

Here, you can buy an AK47 - which is illegal to own - for the equivalent of 5 Pounds. There are more AK's in Africa than in Russia methinks. The weapon supplied to every African state with half a barrel of oil, a couple of carats of diamonds, gold etc. etc. in the 'liberation' days are everywhere.

They are used daily in armoured vehicle (cash-in-transit) heists. They are used in robberies, car-jackings, hold-ups and for grocery shopping. They are not (usually) used by house burglars tho' so I still have a chance with my semi-auto...!

When I leave for the office in the morning. I will have a weapon on my belt and it will be with me all day.

Now - I am NOT saying this is the wild west, in 25 years I have drawn my weapon twice and had to use it once (against a loonatic with a broken glass bottle who had already stabbed two people - he lived, but walks with a limp now - my choice..!)

Should I go out to dinner, I know the odds are that there would be 2 or 3 persons out of 10 carrying firearms. However, no-one, not even their partners would possibly know. Weapons are not displayed, flashed around and certainly not advertised unless the person is a jerk - yes, we do have them, but generally they are soon put in order.

So, there you have it - horses for courses, or however the saying goes.

I would rather have a gun and not need it,
than need a gun and not have it...

Cheers

R

Omark44
20th Oct 2004, 00:28
A few points that you may wish to know.

The IRA have not always had easy access to weapons. Territorial army, (and in one case a regular Army), armouries were raided, successfully, in the early sixties as were some rifle clubs.

I know of no .22 rifle with a range of 1000yards, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.
The rifle clubs that I belong to are full bore and use rifles with an effective range of up to 2000 yards.

The target used by target rifle shooters, be they small bore, (.22), or full bore, (5.5mm to 7.62mm), is a black circle on a white background. Targets representing the human form are used only by police and the military, (as has already been explained to you).

The majority of the illeagally held weapons in the UK come from Eastern Europe and come via the channel tunnel.

Responsible gun owners keep their weapons locked up at home as this presents a much smaller opportunity for terrorists, (or thieves of any sort), and whereas armouries and rifle clubs are easily identified there is no reason why who, amongst the general public, keeps a gun should be general knowledge.
I load and unload my car in the garage with the door closed and no one sees what I put into or take out of my vehicle.

You introduced the subject of your daughter's pencil stabbing abilities and I pointed out that this was not a valid comparison.

BlueWolf
20th Oct 2004, 00:44
bjcc

Now again I'll ask, what GOOD reason has mr avarage got for needing a firearm in thier home?

When precisely did it become any of your damned business who else keeps what in their home?

I would have thought that the only folk with reason to be concerned at people having weapons available in their homes would be burglars.

Being a control freak is not a good enough reason to poke your nose into anyone else's business.

bjcc
20th Oct 2004, 02:12
Blue Wolf

Its my buisness because I have had to face the consquences of someone who had guns at hime, and someone broke in and stole it. I don't care what people keep in thier homes, but when it affects me, thats a differnent matter. I and many othher Policemen have had to deal with the results of people being 'free' to keep firearms at home.

Omark44

Last time I went rifle shooting, with .22 rounds (yes I have done it, so I am in a position to comment) the box carried a warning that rounds may be lethal up to 1 mile. No one has critisised your safe keeping of your weapons, unfortunatly some arn't as careful. Its they who ruin your sport for you.


I pointed out earlier most (though not all ) illegal handguns are imported.(and by no means all come from the Eastern Europe, unless they have started to use Glocks and Brownings). The majority of shotguns, however come from former legal stocks, ie less than careful farmers & sports shooters.

Now to return to the original point, which concerned shooting burglars, unless you can show that you are defending yourself, and shooting someone is the minimum force nessesery, then you will be charged with murder or attempted murder. You can shoot the messenger (not meant to be a funny) but thats the way the UK's law stands. Its where Tony Martin went wrong, and a few others besides.

You may not like it, but the majority of the UK's population seem to be quite happy with the restrcitions on gun ownership after Hungerford, albeit he as I recall did not legaly possess the guns involved. By putting restrictions in place it makes it more difficult for another nutter to get hold of them.

West Coast
20th Oct 2004, 03:44
"Its my buisness because I have had to face the consquences of someone who had guns at hime, and someone broke in and stole it"

If that attitude is allowed to prevail its only a matter of time before cross bows are illegal. After all of those are confiscated, all kitchen knives over a certain length will be gone. Surely they have been stolen somewhere and used in a crime. Its a slippery slope to take away guns using your reasoning. I suspect it wouldn't stop at guns alone, it would quickly roll downhill to anything that could harm another if its stolen or even used by its rightful owner in an unlawful manner.

Northern Chique
20th Oct 2004, 05:48
I enjoy having the right to have access to various recreational and professional persuits. This includes access to firearms within set laws in each state or territory of Australia.

Ive seen arguments for and against. Ive seen stupid descisions in addition to well thought out descisions made in courts, and Ive seen the result of the improper use of a fire arm against human, animal and property.

With regard to the suicide by gun comments, I think you will find statistically speaking there are many more rural folks who choose to take their lives by a variety of other means... in parts of Aus, it is usually by hanging or overdosing on prescription medication. It is a very sad state of affairs when a person reaches this descision to end their lives. The implication of the pain and desolation they feel should far outweigh the method of self destruction. The really sad part is, many wake up again, in perminant rehab, various states of vegetation and result in becomming a percieved burden on their families and friends... It is not the tool, its the act that should be assessed.

I fully agree one should be able to protect ones family and property, but also should be aware of the facts present with each choice. Ive also seen the family guard dog tear into the face of a child, producing horrific injuries.

My theory is if you make a choice, make it an informed one. I grew up with guns, I can shoot, but I dont own one. My skill (or lack thereof) was for the perpose of controlling vermin and euthanising livestock and wild animals. (dammed if I am getting close enough to a half blind and sick red Kangaroo to slit its throat.) We never had a problem with folks who were given permission to come and take care of a few pigs every now and again. What did spoil it for all and sundry was the unfortunate descision by louts to come uninvited onto the property, shoot the hell out of the water tanks (you try bucket and pump watering 16000 sheep, 2000 cattle and numerous wild goats and kangaroos on 126 000 Hectares until the tanks are replaced). On the subsequent musters as their paddock waters ran out, the numbers of livestock killed during the week long spree mounted.

3 properties were in the same boat... now what loonatic in their right mind gave these nutters a gun licence? Thats right, the same folks that allowed the folks on the farm to control our vermin. They also brought enough explosive to recreate the Woofe Creek Crater in the middle of the Darling River. That was their method of fishing by the way.

This incident shows the good and bad in human nature. One side is to protect and prevent suffering, the other is pure lunacy.

The end result was those boys were convicted for firearms offenses. Far worse than jail would have greeted those boys if theyd returned. I have found that of the two extremes, the wish to protect is far more wide spread than the wish to do harm. I still wont have a firearm in town though. I think pure anger, given a rape a few years back should far outweigh the potential for a firearm wound... besides, Id have to attempt to fix it....

BlueWolf
20th Oct 2004, 07:11
So it is apparent that the problem, then, is not one of private ownership of firearms, but of lack of police resourcing in dealing with breaches of firearms law.

If, as in New Zealand, British gun owners are required to keep their firearms in approved safes, and if, as in New Zealand, the Police in Britain do actually inspect these safes, the problem of firearms being stolen becomes minimised.

If Police are unable to carry out such inspections because of lack of concern or resources, criticism should be directed at those who regulate and resource the Police, ie Government, and not at the law-abiding gun owner.

But removing firearms from the ownership and keeping of people who obey both the letter and the intent of the law (my own safe exceeds the required standard) will not make a shred of difference to the accessibility of firearms within the criminal world. Criminals ignore the law; that's what makes them criminals, y'know?

Adding more and more restrictions and regulations to those who already obey the law, will have no effect on those who do not. This is a blunt simple truth which the cloth-brained in society seem to have great difficulty understanding.

Actually enforcing existing law may have some effect; though criminals have many other avenues by which to obtain illicit firearms than purely stealing them from careless legitimate owners.

As to the question of "Burglars: To Shoot or Not To Shoot?" I'll take my chances with a jury rather than see myself or my family harmed, or my property stolen, for that matter. Such is my choice.
There is a case proceeding here right now, of a farmer who shot at - and hit one of - three intruders who he disturbed attempting to steal his quad bike in the middle of the night.
The case is being prosecuted by the Police, who don't appear to believe that this man had the right to defend himself or his property, despite the fact that the three were themselves armed with a rifle, and his farm was 45 minutes from the nearest Police Station, which wasn't manned at night.
I shall keep you posted as to what the jury feel is just.

Vfrpilotpb
20th Oct 2004, 09:02
BJCC,

Now that you have shown your true colours(Blue Serge) it adds up why you feel that I have made some insult towards you personally, AS DH wrote, I have not made any personal comment about you only your sad attitude, which now we know you are a Policemen explains why you are against guns, sadly you are a servent of the Public, you chose your employment as a career, the fact is you and many other in your work want to sterilise the environment for that makes your job much easier to do.

The Police line on guns is based on unfounded facts not proven, I know nearly three hundred farmers and landowners, not one of them has ever committed suicide they all own guns and take part in active shoots. When my guns were checked for my license the man in blue who came to examine my security opened his speech by telling me he didn't like people with guns, I took exception to that for he didn't know me therefore how could he dislike me? sadly however that points to a Police service that is intollerent of members of the Shooting public,

You would find 100% support from all sectors of the public, if you all started solving these crimes commited by illegal handguns, but you dont and you put massive power into areas that the public see and translate as a total waste of time, I am appalled at the amount of man hours and finacial resourse's that the Police pour into "Motoring Crime".

I for one would accept speeding motorists everyday if you lot got rid of town centre gun crime and knife assaults, but all we need to do is watch and read your reply to this to post, see that you really cant solve crime that needs you to think a little harder and get out of the comfotable saloon cars and Range Rovers that seem to be on every road today with normally two bobbies wearing glasses that would do better on "Kojack"

Whilst you are complaining about guns, it is not a statutory requirement to have a steel multi lock gun safe, a recomendation yes but not law, so perfect the laws first then you may get somewhere!

Vfr

Blacksheep
20th Oct 2004, 09:41
Before I left UK and had to dispose of my rifles they were kept in a steel safe cemented into the house. The bolts were in another safe concreted into another room and the ammunition was in yet a third, along with my wife's jewellery (she never really liked having the rifles in the house, but she did like having somewhere to keep her valuables). There were no keys, just combination locks. The safes were concealed. Why keep them at home? The rules at the time required it, the Police didn't like the idea of club armouries concentrating large numbers of firearms in one place back then. I don't know if the rules have changed since the ban on pistols.

I like shooting, the concentration required to get 36 rounds of .308 Winchester into the V from three different distances ranging from 300 to 1200 yards in varying wind and light conditions, using 'iron' sights is the ultimate relaxation, almost a 'zen' experience. We aren't nutters and no-one who hasn't tried it can understand.

Yet I still think there isn't enough control of lethal weapons. I would be happy to endure harder procedures if it would keep lethal weapons out of the hands of nutters. Target rifles don't make very good concealed weapons anyway.

While we\'re on the subject, what about this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3758624.stm) then? Guns and nutters just don\'t mix. Even in the military... :(

Speed Twelve
20th Oct 2004, 11:18
As has been mentioned, I find it unfathomable that morons who go on housebreaking sprees should be allowed any legal rights or protection. Tony Martin should have got a medal, etc....

The problem in the UK is the terrifying slide towards an even more PC namby-pamby nappy-wearing society. Burglars sueing because they injured themselves breaking a window. Kids at school in Carlisle being forced to wear safety goggles if they wish to play conkers... I mean, FFS! Much of this is press manipulation, of course....

Gun crime is becoming endemic on the streets of the UK. We need more armed police response units to provide a deterrent. Chavmobile seen in Birmingham with armed gang members, take it out. They were a threat to the public, take them out. Cuts out the middleman, taxpayers having to pay for remand, trials, prison etc....

Oh, and as someone with a fair amount of firearms experience having been a military small-arms range authoriser I fully support those who keep firearms for sporting or work purposes. However, the intention of defending your home with a firearm and the reality of pointing it at another human being and actually pulling the trigger is something else. Large numbers of citizens in the US are shot with their own weapon in their homes having been unable to let a burglar 'have it' when the moment of truth came... If you're going to keep the thing loaded by your bedside you'd better be prepared to use it.

And Rhodie, if I lived where you live, I'd have the biggest semi-auto hand cannon I could buy...

ST

bjcc
20th Oct 2004, 11:28
Vfrpilot

No, I was a Police Officer, which are by the way Crown, not public Servents. You obviously don't know many police officers, as I think you will find there is a majority who are in favour of being armed.

Yes I do object to firearms, I have given reasons why, it revloves round staying alive, and not as you say a desrire to 'sanitise' my working enviroment. Even if that was the wish, I can't see how you would object to that unless you would wish to see dead police officers.

I have no objection to people holding firearms, provided they have a good reason for having one. Some of those given I don't see as good reason, others I can go along with. Irrespective of my wishes, the law is as it is on the subect, and while the granting of a firearms licence or shotgun certificate requires reasons to be given, it does not garentree the safe storage of weapons. I accept there are inspections, but its not stopping shotguns and some other types of firearm being stolen. Guns that are stolen usualy end up being used in crime.

To say that you would accept people speeding if handgun crime in city centres is sorted out is not helpful. And to claim that Police can't solve it because they can't think is again not helpful, and shows you know very few police. In any event many stops for motoring offences result in searches and finding of firearms.

Just as you felt insulted by the officer inspecting your storage, as he didn't know you, you don't know me, and I find your genralisations insulting.

The orginal subject of this topic was using firearms to shoot a burglar. Well yours would be of very little use locked away as you say in its safe. Thats where firearms at home should be, and are thus no use in 'defence' of property.

Mike Jenvey has helpfully put the stats for firearms offences on this topic, and they are low. The reason they are so low? Well because the legislation on the subject is so dreconinian. Keep it that way!

Speed Twelve

I agree with much of what you say....However Tony Martin was convicted because he shot the burglar in the back. Thats hardly defence. Also some of his comments before the incident were that he would shoot anyone breaking into his home. Thus the moral of the story is have a better excuse and don't gob off about it before the act!

419
20th Oct 2004, 12:04
However Tony Martin was convicted because he shot the burglar in the back

Apart from that, Wasn't the shotgun he used, an illegal pump action weapon, which he had no right to have in the first place.

Vfrpilotpb
20th Oct 2004, 12:22
419,

I think it was a pump action that Tony Martin used, but they arent illegal just so long as they have been altered to take only three shells, I seem to remember that shotgun was not on his license.


I also feel the suggestion that the burglar was shot in his back was slightly wrong it was his side just under his armpit, but shot him he did.

I firmly believe that IF any person goes out with the intention of breaking into property in order to steal and deprive the rightfull owner of his goods or money, then that person or persons have forfeitted the right to claim their normal everyday human rights, and as has been said in a few of the earlier posts, MY family and MY property takes first priorty in my life anyone wanting to steal or damage my goods or family or children had better be able to run at faster than 1200ft per second, and no matter what the PC laws state in the UK my family come first!
Vfr

Solid Rust Twotter
20th Oct 2004, 12:24
I live less than 40 miles from Rhodie.

The authorities here are doing nothing about crime except to pass more laws. This will not control crime if they're not policed. The law abiding firearm owner is regarded as a soft target by the govt precisely because he is law abiding and is therefore confounded with harsher and more restrictive legislation at every turn. The problem is not the law abiding firearm owners but rather those working outside the system, over who the system has no control. Making it almost impossible to obtain a legal firearm within the system is not going to make things safer as the those who choose to ignore the law are going to continue getting illegal firearms and robbing banks, convenience stores and the private citizenry at gunpoint and more often than not, with loss of life. Those who work outside the system are completely unaffected by any new legislation that is passed to disarm the law abiding.

Two cases spring to mind of dictatorships disarming citizens before revealing themselves as such. Do the names Schickelgruber and Mugabe sound familiar?

Vfrpilotpb
20th Oct 2004, 13:50
BJCC,

Now dont take this as a personal attack on you, but in your first pargraph you mention a large percentage of Police officers all want to be armed, sadly the inteligence of the normal Police man would not fit the known picture of the armed response units, we have only a very small amount of Police fully armed on our streets, and yet we seem to have a more than normal amount of innocents and mistaken identities being shot and killed or seriously injured by the very people who should have really top minds and logic plus inteligence, so if you wanted to arm all the plods on the street , please advertise it well, then us lot the public who only pay the bills for all this type of activity can stay indoors. Sorry BJ your suggestion frightens the crap out of me and will no doubt alarm many more.

I still say that the Police want to "Sanitise" their working environment, it makes sense to do that if possible for it removes all those little things that can make a bad day for them, hence that is why I feel you have your pedantic outlook on people like me and others who have shotguns and other sporting weapons, effectivly the message from the Police has brainwashed you into thinking that way, that is not a slight on you or your ability .

Sadly I will say again, I dont mind a speeding driver, if your ex pals could get rid of all the GUN crime and KNIFE crime at the expense of traffic violations then many people would accept that trade off, Now this is not aimed at you, but quiet frankly your comment about stop and search finding and confiscating many firearms does not hold water, if it was so, we would hear it daily on the squark box and Auntie Tony and Aunty David would never stop crowing about it, they would be wetting themselves with glee.

Not one genralisation was aimed at you, if you have taken offence well all I can say is " If the Cap fits"

Your comments about my guns being of no use in defending my home for they are locked away, yes they are locked away, for guns loaded tend to go off and will remove whatever they hit within a forty yard range, as I stated at he end of my last thread anyone foolish enough to challange or attack my family would feel the full weight of my defence, it could be a pot of hot water, or a cricket bat, or swift kick in the crotch from a size nine, what would the lawmakers do about that I sure some outrageous person who is attached to the law making machine would then try to outlaw size nines or hot water,

Sadly I have first hand experience of family grief caused by scrotes, it took the Police 45 minutes to travel 2.5 miles to respond to my mothers call for help to stop two grown men from attacking my father, who was hospitalised for two weeks afterwards, the culprits had gone, leaving my battered father on the floor, the authorities would do nothing, is that the sort of Police force that we have to accept, with holyier than thou comments comming from people like you, whilst I accept this was not the fault of any one policeman, their innept and cavilier attitude towards all classes of the public is what is making the public loose respect for the rule of law in our country.

Vfr

Dead_Heading
20th Oct 2004, 15:07
A pump action/ semi auto can be on a shotgun cert if it only holds two shots in the mag, one up the spout, and also has a fixed stock-not a combat shotgun type folding.

Any more than this and it becomes a class 1 firearm, which you can still own on an FAC, although I think it still has to have a welded stock.

Vfrpilotpb
20th Oct 2004, 16:30
DH,

You are spot on, I just looked it up in my home office Firearms anual.

Vfr

bjcc
20th Oct 2004, 17:44
Vfrpilot,

'known inteligence of the armed response units'?

Would you care to explanin what you mean?

I'll reserve comment on that, until such time as you do so....

I do not want to arm police, in fact I am against it, and refused to do a firearms course. I had no interest in carrying a gun, nor most of the time any need. Leaving aside the problem of having to convince a jury that .5 of a seconds decision did not, as the prosecution alledge take 5 hours. (I'll explain that if you like later)

I can think of very few mistaken police shootings. Yes they happen, and thats with people who are trained in the use of firearms, phycologicly tested. More than the avarage firearms cert holder is.

I and most police officers can think for themselves, I certainly don't come to my decisions by way of culture or influence from my policeing days. I do it from experience. A sad fact of life for you, shotguns used ilegaly normaly come from the result of theft from someone who had the gun legaly. Those are perfectly usable to criminals, albeit with the barrell sawn off... I am told it hurst just as much when you are shot with one of those as with a 'legal weapon'.

No, finds of firearms does not often make the news, not any more. I'll remeind you of a member of the IRA stopped some years ago for a traffic offence and a couple of M16's found in the boot. An 80's 'pop' star to my certain knowlage was arrested in Clapham for possession of a firearm, again found as the result of being stopped for a traffic offence. That did not make the news...

I can't and wont try to make excuses for your mothers local police..I have no idea what happened. Although I can tell similar stories of many public organisations.

The law as it stands says you can't shoot just kill or injure someone. You have to justify it. Thats legislation thats exisited since 1869, and probably replaced similar legislation from before that. None of what I have said is anything 'new' or PC or anything else. Yep, I can understand your point about people who break into other peoples houses should lose thier rights. However they don't, and are entitled to the same protection as you and your family. I don't say I agree with it, its just the way it is. Yes, they are breaking the law, but so is someone speeding, or nicking a pen from work, or shop lifting, would you suggest that they could be shot if caught in the act?

Paterbrat
20th Oct 2004, 18:19
Here here Blue Wolf once again the criminal element simply disregards the legislation which is attempting to redress the situation. The penalties for firearm crime should be draconian! That is a message which should be being sent and isn't.

With regard to police response, the double shooting of the two women the other day saw an unauthorised individual action by an enterprising officer which finaly cleared the teams to finaly move in, and the medics to finaly attent to the victims. I only hope he has escaped being disciplined for his 'impetuous' action.

bjcc
20th Oct 2004, 18:56
Paterbrat

That particular incident is an example of Health and Safety and the firearms maffia in the police gone mad. The idea was to 'mass' armed police from all over TVP. Then move in.

Yes a DS did the sensible thing (and proves my point Vfrpilot, about Poice thinking for themselves) and went had a look....end result, ambulances etc were cleared into the scene. Althoughn all a bit late.....

The original idea was silly, but probably made to protect police officers lives, so understandable (there being no part of a police officers conditions of service saying that he is expected to die for the job)

Vfrpilotpb
20th Oct 2004, 20:11
Bjcc,

You are correct in what you say in your last post, No one should ever expect to die in the execution of their paid employment, even Soldiers are not expected to ( well at least I think they have changed their attitude),

I really dont want to let this seem like a personel arguement between us two, but up here in Lancashire in the last three years the Lancs Constab have suffered from three(3) suicides (with I believe weapons from their armoury) of officers who to quote you are "Firearms Trained", we had in our local town a set of "Firearm Officers" finish a job and set of for their canteen, leaving guess what, a Full bag of HKs and Gs on the pavement which was gratefully picked up by one of the local scrotes who was watching them, a Glock pistol was found on the motorway some weeks after, that is what I mean by inteligence, these people are not focused or switched on enough to be entrusted with such powerful weapons, and yet they are all still employed as Firearms officers,, quite simply WHY

I fully understand what you mean about the .5 sec taking 5 hours, only my .5 secs stretched to 3 days, Yes I have been exactly where most Firearms officers have not been so possibly I am way out in front as far as thinking and responsibility is concerned,

I have had wagons drivers arrested because they have refused to admit to hitting parked vehicles, but with a little sluething of my own I have found nearby tape recordings that actually showed what happened, drivers quickly released, but un-intelligent plod now a Sergent, it goes on and on and it is this that is my big cause of concern for the inteligence or lack of, that I am referring to.

Vfrpilotpb

bjcc
20th Oct 2004, 21:11
Vfrpilot

Well, I can't speak for Lancs Police, I have had no experience of them. My daughter lives in Leyland, so I do go there a fair bit, but I have never seen them in 'action' so as to speak.

Whatever your experence of them, all I can say is there is good and bad in everything.

Can I suggest you write to thier Chief Constable and ask for an explanation...

In the meantime, please don't tar us all with the same brush. I didn't carry a gun, for most of the time I didn't carry a trounchon either, and for 8 years of that I worked in inner city areas. Crime is not as bad as is made out by the press, and certainly not bad enough to justify sleeping with a gun under the pillow.

Blacksheep
21st Oct 2004, 08:12
Hey bjcc
In any event many stops for motoring offences result in searches and finding of firearms.
Yes, and you should have seen the look on the face of the constable who stopped me in a lay-by near Reading many years ago and asked to look in my boot. Apart from the large ammunition box containing my spotting scope, cleaning kit, sights and shooting records there was one L41 Target Rifle, one SLR and a Stirling sub-machine gun. Then I pulled a Browning 9mm from my pocket. Poor chap temporarily lost the power of speech. :p

I was an RAF Strike Command TR team member at the time, on the way to the annual inter-services 'skill-at-arms' meeting at Bisley.

tony draper
21st Oct 2004, 08:23
This is interesting, the guvmint is apparently taking the credit for poor markmanship and knife fighting skills in our yoof, the crime figure appear to show a increase in gun crime but fewer deaths by shooting, more knives being carried but less stabbings.

Vfrpilotpb
21st Oct 2004, 11:03
According to todays(21/10/04) newspapers a chap has been stabbed to death in his own house whilst trying to stop a burglar, his wife and sleeping children were upstairs at the time, his wife came down stairs to find him bleeding to death and the blagger(s) just leaving the house.

Is this what our government mean when they say they are beating crime.

I hope this gentleman who is now dead rests in eternal peace, for his exit was anything But!

It really is time for some serious acceptance of proper sentencing and life really should mean LIFE,

Vfr

tony draper
21st Oct 2004, 11:04
Yeh but how long does a 5 year sentence actually mean,18 months? then released into the care of twenty social workers?
Make it twenty it might have four times the deterent effect.

Vfrpilotpb
21st Oct 2004, 11:16
Just a sample of my thoughts,

Housebreaking 20 years without parole
Robbery 20 years without parole
Mugging 15 years without parole
Violent Rape Full life unto death in Custody
Murder " " " " " " if not Hanged
Manslaughter term conditional upon individual case Ie accidental lowest term, negligence longest term
Corporate Manslaughter 10 years no parole
Fraud of public 20 years no parole
Terorrist Full life No parole( no Easter agreements)
Treason against State Death
Carrying any illegal weapon 20yrs no parole
Paedaphile Actual Castration and Life in prison

Anything less than this sort of penalty and I would feel unsafe, as I do now!

Vfr

simon brown
21st Oct 2004, 11:39
Its like Motorists and cyclists

Motorists can't get way with anything as they are accountable and can be bought to book.

Cyclists can do what they want as they are untracable and unaccountable and the laws for transgression are minimal.

Last year I went to visit an RAF station to do a site survey with a colleague, when we were stopped at security having forwarded our details he was asked whether he had any cartridges with him and not the firearm itself, and I was asked about whether my pilots licence was still current and when I last flew........He has a shot gun and and is on record as storing it in a safe at home. They searched the vehicle anyway.

So legitimate gun control in this country is tight and long may it remain so.

Terrorists and Major drug dealers should be shot dead by firing squad due to the the effects thay are having on society.

Dead terrorists cannot be used a political pawn or as exchanges in hostage situations.

VFE

I do hope you dont mean carrying an illegal firearm may extend to accidently letting your permit expire.....so 20 years for being stopped for a faulty indicatior whilst on the way to a clay pigeon shoot is a bit excessive....

If your a gangland member an are stopped in your pimpmobile and the Police find a weapon, they should be, summarily kneecapped so they know what its like to be onthe receiving end of a weapon and then given 10 years no remmission

Vfrpilotpb
21st Oct 2004, 12:24
Simon,

I dont think an oversight of licence running out would be in my book of Statutory punishment, only if you were really involved with firearms you would have reregistered in plenty of time for such an occurence not to happen, My semi serious Statutory punishments are meant for the lying thieving Scrotes that seem to have one half of governement funds working to protect them cos their daddy woz a bad boy and always in the nick, whilst the other half of the Government funds are trying to put them away.

Seem to be a totally illogical contradiction of resource's and funds, which are all drawn from the Giant Pisspot in the sky that is called the Tax payer/rates payer, we have police arresting, and PC social workers employed by the same government bodies to stop them being put in jail,

Its almost like me knowing I am a free man, and my wife reminding me that she is in charge!

Vfr

simon brown
21st Oct 2004, 12:33
VFE

I say we let the little ba$***ds run across a field whilst we take pot shots at em. Let the social workers do their bit once they get to the other side ( a marvellous incentive to hone one marksmens skills me thinks)

Biggles Flies Undone
21st Oct 2004, 12:39
Ssultana makes a contentious lead post and then leaves everybody to argue.

Was I right or was I right?

And who else used to do the same thing a year or two ago?

itchybum
21st Oct 2004, 12:52
Who cares.....

Here's my 2 cents worth....

vfr pilot pb says:A Pistol or rifle is called a Weapon, not a gun. Pistols and semi Auto pistols .... single shot pistols were banned ... to loose (sic) their Pistols Confused??????

What about a .22 target rifle. Is that a weapon also? If it's got rifling, it's a rifle. Otherwise you'll have to start re-naming a lot of regiments with titles like "1st Battalion, The Canterbury Highland Weapons".

Paterbrat
21st Oct 2004, 12:56
Eagle eyes from a Sopwith Camel 1500' over the trenches under heavy Mauser fire, gad but your good Sqadron Leader Biggles well spotted Sir.

I see that actualy people in the armed services both Uk and US are beginning to question the 'action, possible death' scenario more and more these days. I was fascinated to here the desperate phone call to mum by one of the mutineering drivers in Iraq indignantly declaiming that she was being held against her will. I trust she will have time to reflect on her former career decisions in Ft Leavenworth, if it is still in use that is.

Vfrpilotpb
21st Oct 2004, 12:59
Itchym

By the time Hoon the Goon has finished with the UK Armed Services we will have one regiment, it will be called,

The Army( 2nd reserveUS) based at Fort Worth in good ole Texas.

Vfr

Biggles Flies Undone
21st Oct 2004, 13:05
I do my best, chaps. Tally Ho!

I haven't bothered reading anything between my first and second posts because this is a subject that will never find a general consensus of opinion (to stay with the WW 1 theme - we're talking entrenched positions).

Maybe we should just start a 'catch all' thread. How about a title like: "Should foxes be hunted with guns - and what if they are gay and fighting the BBC in Iraq?" :p

itchybum
21st Oct 2004, 13:12
Nice try. But as everyone knows homosexuality, that twisted perversion, only exists amongst mankind, not the animal kingdom, despite what the mincers will try to tell you.

Why not chase the fox with hounds then when you catch up to it, blow it away with your favourite gun. (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as16-e.htm) More humane and the fox still gets it in the end, everyone's a winner! Note the wood "furniture", a nice touch I think.

tony draper
21st Oct 2004, 13:21
"It has a Three Prong Flash Hider", well that certainly sounds a bit gay and pervy to me.
:rolleyes:

Biggles Flies Undone
21st Oct 2004, 15:15
Nice try itchbum, but no cigar http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/finger.gif I've seen two male Labradors at it hammer & tongs.

Or were they just trying to be Politically Correct?

Hmmmm.... another one to add to the list.

itchybum
21st Oct 2004, 16:34
That must've been a sight, hey??? Your lucky day I guess.....

Biggles Flies Undone
21st Oct 2004, 16:55
Well, I guess it was lucky for the one on top......

A bit like life in general, really.

tony draper
21st Oct 2004, 17:24
Well they are Canadian after all.
:rolleyes:

JB Mods
21st Oct 2004, 18:50
Itchybum, you're entitled to your views, but too much time and effort has already been spent explaining JB and its philosophy to you.
You're unbalancing the signal to noise ratio.

Your bigoted bullsh!t is not welcome here.
Neither are you.
Goodbye.http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smilies/animated/wave.gif

bjcc
22nd Oct 2004, 01:51
Vfrpilot,

Interesting list of sentences...

By the way, Robbery & Mugging are the same offence....Why the different sentence?

BlueWolf
22nd Oct 2004, 07:27
Maybe we're focussing on the wrong bit of the argument here. Maybe this whole business isn't about whether ordinary people should or shouldn't have firearms, or whether they should or shouldn't have them in their homes.

Maybe the crux of the matter is whether or not ordinary people should or shouldn't be allowed to take whatever action may appear to be necessary in order to protect themselves, and their families, and their homes and possessions, and who knows, maybe even extend such protection to their neighbours, against the real or perceived threat posed by unwelcome and illegal intruders into their homes.

Perhaps, firearms aside for a moment (just a wee short one), society would be a safer place if we began from a standpoint that anyone entering a property not theirs, for the purposes or with the intention of committing a crime, be it of violence, property, or otherwise, leaves their rights to safety, self-defence, and fair treatment under the same laws they are deliberately breaking, at the border or boundary of that property.

Coupled with a legally enshrined right of the property owner to defend and protect himself and his own (or herself and her own, and after all, what jury is going to convict a woman who knifes a rapist), this may provide adequate and effective deterrent against those with criminal intentions.

For those who are not deterred, robust sentencing such as that suggested by
vfrpilotpb may constitute a further line of deterence.

In practice, such an approach will obviously have to give the property owner the benefit of the doubt insofar as whatever "necessary action" may be required. So if the criminal or would-be criminal gets pushed down the stairs, or clubbed with a bat/chair leg/frozen ham, or stabbed with a kitchen knife, or shot (wee short moment over), then more fool him; he had no right to be there, and no rights while he was there.

Whether he was shot in the back, or the foot, or the gonads, or while attempting to scale the back fence on the way out, would be irrelevant.

Once he was over the fence (top of the fence equals lawyer country), he would no longer be fair game.

Since we have determined that he has no right to self-defence whilst committing his crime, or whilst illegally on or in a property for the purposes of committing a crime, if he is armed, with any sort of deadly or potentially deadly weapon, we must assume that his intention is murder, and treat him accordingly.

Some, undoubtedly, will argue that criminals faced with such a conundrum will reason that they may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb, and go about their business resolved and equipped for murderous intent; perhaps some of them may. But others will not, and others still will be killed or maimed for their trouble.
And as has been proven throughout human history, when faced with tyrants and criminals of any kind, victory does not come about by lying down and whimpering.
It is a hard truth of being a husband, a father, a homeowner, a provider and protector, that when your family goes to sleep at night, you must keep half an ear open. It is possible that you may be called to stand between your loved ones, and someone who intends them harm. In so doing, you may suffer hurt. That is the blunt reality. It is also what you are there for.
If mankind did not need Men, nature would not have provided them. Think about this.

If more Men would rise to the requirement that goes with their gender, instead of bleating about the possibility of getting hurt, or whinging that "criminals have rights too", I feel societies the world over would be better places.

I'm truly sorry for the guy who got stabbed in his own home, and for his grieving family.
But he was doing what he should have been doing, and what he was there to do.
Knowing that that was his responsibility, he could have prepared himself better; perhaps through fitness, technique, awareness, determination, and even armament, and certainly, through politics, by using his democratic right to insist that society allow him the rights and the weapons to enable him to execute his duty to the best of his ability.

Not everyone who goes to war comes home. This does not mean that we do not fight wars when to fight is the right thing to do. The same applies here.
If you're worried that an intruder may take your weapon from you and use it against you, get yourself organised so that he can't. It's your responsibility to make sure that he doesn't. That responsibility does not rest with the government, or the police, or social workers, or the media, or a body of opinion on the internet. It's yours, and it doesn't go away just because you're scared. To have courage means to do what needs to be done, despite the fact that you're scared.

A few more courageous men in the world will mean that we have fewer criminals, and more sensible laws, and less need for debates such as this one.
And our societies will be safer places for our families to grow up in.

Paterbrat
22nd Oct 2004, 11:53
Once again Blue Wolf I whole heartedly concurr however it has always been the few at the gate who are prepared to take the stand, and the flock who huddle inside to be protected.

simon brown
22nd Oct 2004, 12:49
Bluewolf

A nicely put together post and one a agree with 100%

Unfortunately those men in the legal profession ie the Govt and legislature would happily go to war elsewhere in the world and at the same time, whilst egged on by their peers, deny you and me the rights to pummel a burglar with a baseball bat whilst protecting our families and property...

SB

bjcc
22nd Oct 2004, 14:49
Blue wolf

You are (rightly) allowed to defend yourself and your property (I am refering to the UK here, as I have no idea about the rest of the world)

However you are only allowed to use the minimum force nessesary. You always use the word defencd a fair amount in your post.

If someone is running away and you shoot/stab/hit over the head with a bat them, then you are not defending yourself, you are either attacking or taking retrebution (Whether that should be allowed is a differant subject, and one we would probably agree on) In any event what you say does not take into account errors. For istance, police find your window open, enter your house to search for possible burglar and you shoot said police....Now you may find that acceptable, I don't.

What you are suggesting is that you should be judge jury and executioner. I can see where you are coming from, and to an extent agree, but lawmakers don't.

The fact remains you can defend your property, but you have to justify what force you use and show it was not excessive. Provided it wasn't then thats fine. However if you go over the top, then expect to be prosecuted.

patdavies
22nd Oct 2004, 15:31
bjcc

That is fine if you are knowledgeable and experienced enough to define 'reasonable force'.

However, for the majority of people, and I would hazard a guess here too, if some scrote comes into my house in the middle of the night with intent to steal or worse, then he is going to get hit with the nearest available blunt object until he doesn't get up. he stays down until somebody arrives to put handcuffs on him. Now I don't know how much force it actually takes to crack a human skull ( and God forbid that I should ever need to find out). so it will be a case of as hard as possible to be on the (my) safe side.

BTW, I was once told by a criminal lawyer (that is he specialised in criminal cases, not that he was a criminal;) ) that if arrested for defending me and mine the mantra is "I was in fear for my life" and say absolutely nothing else before speaking to a solictor.

Vfrpilotpb
22nd Oct 2004, 17:17
BJCC

I did, I defended, I pleaded not Guilty, and 12 of my peers agreed that I did not , so 7 Scrotes who lied thru their teeth cost me 30k to defend myself, and nothing happened to them either,

great how our laws works, init guv! the true Villian in the case is always the CPS, initials stand for many things non nice.

Vfr

bjcc
22nd Oct 2004, 18:47
Patdavies

Your lawyer gave you good advice. And you have summed up the problem in the rest of your post.

There is provision in law to support what you say, something along the lines of it is not always possible to gauge exactly what level of force is required.

So what you say is taken into account. However, problem is where does defence become attack or retribution? Fine, Billy the Bruglar is facing you with a knife, no one is going to argue that clouting him with a chair is probably very reasonable. If however, there is no weapon, Billy is aged about 12 and running away, then there really is no way that shooting him in the back could be seen as reasonable force to defend your property.

It seems that everyone thinks that burglary happens in the middle of the night, mostly it does not, it happens during the day, when people are out and when there is less chance of being seen, and therefore less risk of being caught. Again most burglars are young, unarmed in any way (Burglary while armed is a seperate offence and very much more serious) and have it on thier toes at the first sign of trouble.

There are exceptions, such as the chap mentioned the other day. But thats very rare (think about it, if it was happenening every day, it would not be newsworthy and you'd not see it on the national news)

Vfr

I know nothing about what happened to you, and while I agree with your low opinon of the CPS thats because they will usualy only proccede with 'dead certs'. For police to have charged you and the CPS to proccede there must have been some evidence to support a charge. The fact that it cost you 30,000, and therefore I presume you were not awarded costs, means the judge also probably thought that there was sufficent evidence to support the allagation. That does not mean everyone thought you were guilty, just that the evidence should be tested before a jury. Thats what seems to have happened. They obviously found in your favour.

All I would say, is that you were judged by 12 people, who had access to the facts. What you have been advocating is anyone being judge, jury and executioner probably without access to all the facts.

BlueWolf
23rd Oct 2004, 08:03
Our man in the Far North was found not guilty by a jury of his peers on the charge of shooting and injuring with reckless disregard. Since he shot and injured, the jury presumably decided he did not display reckless disregard.

On the lesser charge of discharging a firearm without reasonable cause and endangering the safety of others, the jury was unable to reach a verdict; they were discharged and he will face a retrial in March.

Difficult to see how they could find not guilty on the greater charge but be split on the lesser. Time will tell as to whether a second jury from the same farming community are any more decisive.

Come the trial, the farmer concerned will have waited two and a half years for a final verdict. Justice delayed is justice denied?