Right or Wrong .

[scothunter 12,609]

prob not as hysterical as the parents would be if thier son or daughter was gunned down by some over zealous vigilante.

 

But it's OK for that man to be assaulted and possibly killed by accident or design by criminals. Glad we sorted out which side yer on then SH

 

lol wait a min mate.im not saying how it is perfect by any means.,butsurely you can see my point.i just think it wouuld be a dangerous path to go down mate.for the very reasons i have given.i dunno the exact statistics on the states but i imagine there are hundreds of innocent people shot every year in america by accidents or by unstable kids and adults who have access to firearms.tbh im happy we have the strict gun laws we have.after dunblane my eyes were opened that a normal member of the public could have handguns in his home.i was ignorant i thought the cops were the only ones who had access to handguns.i thought the sporting lads had to keep them at the club in an armoury.i agree with you we should be allowed to defend our homes and property against intruders.however i cannot agree with you that members of the british public being allowed to walk around with concealerd weapons is the answer.if we did that we would need to arm all cops and tbh there some of those cops i wouldnt allow them to carry a water pistol.

 

Would you agree then that we should at least be able to own a shotgun/pistol for the protection of our property and family? Assuming similar licencing laws to a FAC but also possibly a handling test also. Purely to be kept to protect against people breaking in. To say in this circumstance that the police are there to protect against intruders is utter bollocks, as they are not in our homes when we are at threat! They are there half an hour after if you are lucky!

 

well lets put it this way if a scenario where someone or some persons broke into my house and threatned me and my family and i considered the threat to be as serious where our lifes were in danger.i wouldnt think twice about pointing a shotgun at them and if they still didnt leave then yes i would pull the trigger.should i be prosecuted for my actions.i think not.should we be allowed to keep handguns in the bedside cabinet?IMO no.i dont think anyone should be allowed to keep handguns other than cops and security forces.does that make me a liberal person or a sensible person i dunno its one to ponder.

 

From what you have written, then yes.

 

It would be very difficult to justify in a court of law shooting a burgular if he has only threatened you, and has refused to leave your location. Ok, you honestly believe that he will carry the threat and harm yourself and others, BUT, pointing the weapon is already an intention.

 

That's why members of the public here in the UK will never be authorised to carry firearms.

 

never happen anyway mate,i dont own a shotgun,although i do have a cracker of an aluminium baseball bat that i would have no hesitation of cracking someones skull open if i thought my life was in danger.

[artic 595]

prob not as hysterical as the parents would be if thier son or daughter was gunned down by some over zealous vigilante.

 

But it's OK for that man to be assaulted and possibly killed by accident or design by criminals. Glad we sorted out which side yer on then SH

 

lol wait a min mate.im not saying how it is perfect by any means.,butsurely you can see my point.i just think it wouuld be a dangerous path to go down mate.for the very reasons i have given.i dunno the exact statistics on the states but i imagine there are hundreds of innocent people shot every year in america by accidents or by unstable kids and adults who have access to firearms.tbh im happy we have the strict gun laws we have.after dunblane my eyes were opened that a normal member of the public could have handguns in his home.i was ignorant i thought the cops were the only ones who had access to handguns.i thought the sporting lads had to keep them at the club in an armoury.i agree with you we should be allowed to defend our homes and property against intruders.however i cannot agree with you that members of the british public being allowed to walk around with concealerd weapons is the answer.if we did that we would need to arm all cops and tbh there some of those cops i wouldnt allow them to carry a water pistol.

 

Would you agree then that we should at least be able to own a shotgun/pistol for the protection of our property and family? Assuming similar licencing laws to a FAC but also possibly a handling test also. Purely to be kept to protect against people breaking in. To say in this circumstance that the police are there to protect against intruders is utter bollocks, as they are not in our homes when we are at threat! They are there half an hour after if you are lucky!

 

well lets put it this way if a scenario where someone or some persons broke into my house and threatned me and my family and i considered the threat to be as serious where our lifes were in danger.i wouldnt think twice about pointing a shotgun at them and if they still didnt leave then yes i would pull the trigger.should i be prosecuted for my actions.i think not.should we be allowed to keep handguns in the bedside cabinet?IMO no.i dont think anyone should be allowed to keep handguns other than cops and security forces.does that make me a liberal person or a sensible person i dunno its one to ponder.

 

From what you have written, then yes.

 

It would be very difficult to justify in a court of law shooting a burgular if he has only threatened you, and has refused to leave your location. Ok, you honestly believe that he will carry the threat and harm yourself and others, BUT, pointing the weapon is already an intention.

 

That's why members of the public here in the UK will never be authorised to carry firearms.

 

never happen anyway mate,i dont own a shotgun,although i do have a cracker of an aluminium baseball bat that i would have no hesitation of cracking someones skull open if i thought my life was in danger.

 

Fair enough, but to think of such an act because you "Thought" that your life was in danger, is still not enough to justify your actions.

 

[matt_hooks 188]

does that make me a liberal person or a sensible person i dunno its one to ponder.

 

Hmmm, interesting take on the word "liberal" there.

 

So you espouse the restriction of peoples ability to carry out perfectly safe practices, and yet you claim to be liberal?

 

Prior to Dunblane and the buggers muddle of legislation that followed it, thousands of people throughout the country quite legally kept, and used, pistols. The level of pistol crime was very low, and legally held weapons were almost never used.

 

Now I'm not saying that Dunblane wasn't tragic, but if the guy hadn't had access to pistols, he could quite easily have done as much damage with a set of kitchen knives.

 

The restriction of legal practices due to the actions of one madman is, in my opinion, nonsensical and an unwarranted limitation on liberty. Surely someone claiming to be a liberal should defend liberty, not support it being removed?

 

i never said i was liberal mate.just i think on this particular topic and my answer could be said as being liberal.would he have managed to kill all those kids and teacher with a knife.possibly,but having guns certainly made sure that the maj in that primary school class had no chance.not hear to upset anyone its just my take on the whole gun issue.i see no good ever coming from allowing any tom dick or harry to be allowed to carry guns in shoulder holsters like wanna be jack bauers.

 

Now you won't find me disagreeing with you there, but the fact is that wasn't the case in the UK.

 

Ownership of firearms has been strictly controlled for the past 40 years or so in the UK, and hence we have some of the lowest levels of gun crime in the world. I'm not saying that allowing people to carry firearms is a viable, or sensible option. However, to restrict those who safely and legally use firearms for recreational purposes is a very different matter.

 

To have handguns, and be able to store them at home, is a very different thing to sanctioning carrying them routinely.

 

British firearm law does not allow posession of weapons for personal or property defence. It seems sensible to me, that the greater the number of firearms in circulation, especially in untrained hands, the greater the risk of accidents and unlawful shootings, and I'd never suggest routinely allowing people to carry handguns or other concealed weapons.

[scothunter 12,609]

does that make me a liberal person or a sensible person i dunno its one to ponder.

 

Hmmm, interesting take on the word "liberal" there.

 

So you espouse the restriction of peoples ability to carry out perfectly safe practices, and yet you claim to be liberal?

 

Prior to Dunblane and the buggers muddle of legislation that followed it, thousands of people throughout the country quite legally kept, and used, pistols. The level of pistol crime was very low, and legally held weapons were almost never used.

 

Now I'm not saying that Dunblane wasn't tragic, but if the guy hadn't had access to pistols, he could quite easily have done as much damage with a set of kitchen knives.

 

The restriction of legal practices due to the actions of one madman is, in my opinion, nonsensical and an unwarranted limitation on liberty. Surely someone claiming to be a liberal should defend liberty, not support it being removed?

 

i never said i was liberal mate.just i think on this particular topic and my answer could be said as being liberal.would he have managed to kill all those kids and teacher with a knife.possibly,but having guns certainly made sure that the maj in that primary school class had no chance.not hear to upset anyone its just my take on the whole gun issue.i see no good ever coming from allowing any tom dick or harry to be allowed to carry guns in shoulder holsters like wanna be jack bauers.

 

Now you won't find me disagreeing with you there, but the fact is that wasn't the case in the UK.

 

Ownership of firearms has been strictly controlled for the past 40 years or so in the UK, and hence we have some of the lowest levels of gun crime in the world. I'm not saying that allowing people to carry firearms is a viable, or sensible option. However, to restrict those who safely and legally use firearms for recreational purposes is a very different matter.

 

To have handguns, and be able to store them at home, is a very different thing to sanctioning carrying them routinely.

 

British firearm law does not allow posession of weapons for personal or property defence. It seems sensible to me, that the greater the number of firearms in circulation, especially in untrained hands, the greater the risk of accidents and unlawful shootings, and I'd never suggest routinely allowing people to carry handguns or other concealed weapons.

 

couldnt agree with you more mate .i only brought the dunblane issue up,in reply to a post someone made to me.

[Ideation 8,216]

There is the another point. People make mistakes. How many good people on here have commited a crime in the past, not a violent crime, but maybe a spot of B&E or burglary etc. I'm sure there are those on this site that made mistakes and did it when they were a kid. . . . . and i bet they are glad no one shot them dead for it.

 

Once you start allowing people to happily shoot folk coming onto their property it's a slippery slope. Now i know that this country is rapidly getting worse and falling to bits, but in my opinion allowing a form of vigilante rule where people begin to arm themselves is a good signal that the end of civilisation has truely begun.

[Ideation 8,216]

You've also just got to look at the Militia Scene in the USA to realise just how much of a bad idea it really is . . . . . . .

[JohnGalway 1,043]

I'm surprised at the emotive language you're using SH.

 

I'd wager than far, far more vigilantes use weapons like baseball bats than firearms.

 

Also, I'd like to say that a lot of target shooters here in the Republic had their sport denied to them, at considerable cost to them, when one particular narrow minded minister labeled handguns (sorry, Glocks, as ALL handguns are Glocks as we know..............) dangerous. Court actions are still ongoing.

 

Anyway, I've my own view and would vote according tot hat view if I ever get the opportunity, which I don't expect to unfortunately. So I'll leave the thread on this note:

 

Man invented the club, then clubbed his neighbour. Man invented the knife, then stabbed his neighbour. Man invented the gun, then shot his neighbour. Man invented the motor car, then ran over his neighbour. Are we seeing a common theme here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Yep! Neighbours are b*****ds alright...)

[scothunter 12,609]

I'm surprised at the emotive language you're using SH.

 

I'd wager than far, far more vigilantes use weapons like baseball bats than firearms.

 

Also, I'd like to say that a lot of target shooters here in the Republic had their sport denied to them, at considerable cost to them, when one particular narrow minded minister labeled handguns (sorry, Glocks, as ALL handguns are Glocks as we know..............) dangerous. Court actions are still ongoing.

 

Anyway, I've my own view and would vote according tot hat view if I ever get the opportunity, which I don't expect to unfortunately. So I'll leave the thread on this note:

 

Man invented the club, then clubbed his neighbour. Man invented the knife, then stabbed his neighbour. Man invented the gun, then shot his neighbour. Man invented the motor car, then ran over his neighbour. Are we seeing a common theme here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Yep! Neighbours are b*****ds alright...)

 

fair doos john,we all have our opinions and no harm in a civilised debate.

[mushroom 13,272]

I'm surprised at the emotive language you're using SH.

 

I'd wager than far, far more vigilantes use weapons like baseball bats than firearms.

 

Also, I'd like to say that a lot of target shooters here in the Republic had their sport denied to them, at considerable cost to them, when one particular narrow minded minister labeled handguns (sorry, Glocks, as ALL handguns are Glocks as we know..............) dangerous. Court actions are still ongoing.

 

Anyway, I've my own view and would vote according tot hat view if I ever get the opportunity, which I don't expect to unfortunately. So I'll leave the thread on this note:

 

Man invented the club, then clubbed his neighbour. Man invented the knife, then stabbed his neighbour. Man invented the gun, then shot his neighbour. Man invented the motor car, then ran over his neighbour. Are we seeing a common theme here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Yep! Neighbours are b*****ds alright...)

 

Fackin hate neighbours

[Attack Fell Terrier 864]

So yeah we'll be just like the Yanks. We'll (supposedly) lower most common crimes over here to raise the murder level and death by gun . The Yankee's are the last people we want to copy when it comes to guns IMO.

 

I don't agree with punishing responsible people who shoot for sport, but every other person walking around the streets with a shooter on their hip isn't the answer to lowering crime in this country IMO.

[mushroom 13,272]

So yeah we'll be just like the Yanks. We'll (supposedly) lower most common crimes over here to raise the murder level and death by gun . The Yankee's are the last people we want to copy when it comes to guns IMO.

 

I don't agree with punishing responsible people who shoot for sport, but every other person walking around the streets with a shooter on their hip isn't the answer to lowering crime in this country IMO.

 

I just hate the fact that I cannae buy an automatic assault rifle for personal protection..... well not legaly anyway

[gnasher16 30,531]

Must admit ive no real strong opinions either way but from reading this thread so far im inclined to agree with just about everything scothunter has said ....

Just putting myself in that position if someone came into my house im not sure id have the arsehole to point a gun at him and shoot him as death is a bit of a strong price to pay for pinching the tv or stereo etc.....but id have no issues with doing them round the canister with a baseball bat !

 

I just dont like this " lets follow the yanks " mentality....any nation that can call a game thats played with the hands and an egg football you gotta be a little bit dubious about

I wouldnt like to see anyone other than ol bill with guns on our streets or even in our homes for the most part.

Edited January 14, 2011 by gnasher16

[Born Hunter 17,820]

Must admit ive no real strong opinions either way but from reading this thread so far im inclined to agree with just about everything scothunter has said ....

Just putting myself in that position if someone came into my house im not sure id have the arsehole to point a gun at him and shoot him as death is a bit of a strong price to pay for pinching the tv or stereo etc.....but id have no issues with doing them round the canister with a baseball bat !

 

I just dont like this " lets follow the yanks " mentality....any nation that can call a game thats played with the hands and an egg football you gotta be a little bit dubious about

I wouldnt like to see anyone other than ol bill with guns on our streets or even in our homes for the most part.

 

Very much agree. However I still believe I should have the right to defend my property and family with lethal force if I feel neccessary. The police currently advice we lock ourselves in a room when being burgled and then phone the police! Its a f*****g joke! Going downstairs to deal with thieving scum armed with a tool of any description for defence (not offence) is absolutely against the law. Now, how many of these scum shites carry a tool (crow bar, hammer etc) when burgling? I would say most, and are willing to use them. Which is why I believe responsible members of the public should be able to walk downstairs with a shotgun and confront the thieves. At the same time make armed burglery a minimum of a life sentence.

 

The law completely fails those its in place to protect in this situation. We are prisoners in our own homes in this country.

 

I hope to god I am never put in such a position, not because I fear for my property but because I WILL NOT sit by and let my life be pissed on by scum. I will confront them in a legal manor. But I certainly wouldnt feel anywhere near safe with the law the way it is. This isnt macho talk because I imagine 95% or people would react the same, its our natural instinct as humans.

 

One final point, it would finally give us a fair means to deal with dog thieves, who I place firmly just behind pedophiles, rapists and psychopaths...

[lanesra 3,994]

kinda like the death sentence in countrys that still practice it.it does not stop murders or crime.

I your right mate , but as Albert Pierrpoint once pointed out "Any one i dealt with NEVER RE~OFFENDED" , Look how many times in this country people who commit bad crimes are released to commit WORSE CRIMES, you have some points about guns i agree with 100% , but the legal system is designed to benefit the criminal not the victim, some crimes you read about sicken you then you read the scum that done it was on early release or paroled just think the system is a joke , though it aint a laughin matter when it helps destroy families by its softly softly approach .

[scothunter 12,609]

is it really an offence to confront a burglar with a bat or something similar.i was always led to believe that you could use resonable force if you were attacked in your home.i know if you chased them out the door and caught them i the street and laid into them,then you would more than likely be prosecuted as the courts would deem that as you were not in danger you went after them.i may be wrong mate its just what i always thought was the law.

i think if you were attacked and you tattoed them with a bat,i would imagine the courts would be pretty leiniant with you under those circumstances.