Armed Self Defence ~ Ukip .....

[paulus 26]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I know but the fact they have this term reasonable force and then debate it so often while people are getting locked up is the problem.

 

It needs to be clarified and realistically we need to be allowed to do almost anything for home defense. If someone is entering your house I don't see the issue with a homeowner killing them, they only get one chance and reasonable force might turn out to be not enough force 5 minutes later as they are bleeding to death on their own carpet.

 

I don't think we need to encourage people to have guns though, some of us have them but they'd be useless in most cases unless you have your shotgun loaded under the bed every night.

How many people have been locked up for shooting or killing an intruder though? been arrested then released with no charge doesn't count and lets be clear even if the law expressly allowed the use of firearms or any lethal force for self defence at home in the event you will still get arrested until the facts are clear

 

tony martin

 

Tony martin had an illegally held firearm so was due jail time any way and he shot the intruder as they fled the house not in the house

 

after he had been intimidated and burgled on numerous occasions by those concerned. put yourself in his position and work out would you would have done

 

what I would have done is pretty irrelevant as I'm not in his situation, but if the jury felt his actions where acceptable then he wouldn't have done time

 

the fact he had an illegal shot meant he was going to do a mandatory sentence, the fact he needed one to defend his property after he was failed by all other authorities is more shocking

 

maybe so but he shot the lad as he ran away had he shot the lad in the house maybe the outcome would have been different

 

but the lad had been in his house on numerous occasions, is it not a case of making sure he wouldn't do it again or is it a failing of the authorities that he was allowed to return and enter his property on numerous occasions

[danw 1,748]

we will never agree on the martin case mate I believe he acted unlawfully and won't change that opinion, so since I'm shooting today I'll bow out the now and agree to differ

[walshie 2,804]

No person should ever feel fearful in their own home. If you're a burly bloke and can sort it out with your fists, fair enough, but if you can't, why should you just become a victim?

 

IMO they have some things right in America.

 

 

Perhaps if these home invaders thought there was something worse waiting for them than a community service if they get caught, they'd think a bit harder.

[sussex 5,777]

Don't mess with an ice cool 87year old ....especially if she has a gun !! Although it will haunt her for the rest of her days ..

[blackmaggie 3,376]

may be something non lethal like a taser or some kind of baton round it would still drop them but how would a old dear feel if she shot someone dead she would be frightened of reprisals and no doubt feel for them and there family and I could see a rise in people getting shot in domestics or neighbour disputes because when some get the red mist they act in the heat of the moment

[paulus 26]

should be one day per year when you can shoot the person who has pissed you off the most over the previous 12 months, now wouldn't things become pleasant quickly

[Nik_B 3,790]

may be something non lethal like a taser or some kind of baton round it would still drop them but how would a old dear feel if she shot someone dead she would be frightened of reprisals and no doubt feel for them and there family and I could see a rise in people getting shot in domestics or neighbour disputes because when some get the red mist they act in the heat of the moment

 

 

Yep but Tazers & CS are banned and if you made something to fire a baton you'd probably be in serious trouble as well. I agree about what you said about reprisals, the guy I was talking about earlier has had to move out of his nice house as far as I know, a lot of pressure to put on the family.

 

Ideally you should be able to use non leathal force but it would be better if it could be something a bit better than a cricket bat

[walshie 2,804]

Don't mess with an ice cool 87year old ....especially if she has a gun !! Although it will haunt her for the rest of her days ..

 

Still got to be preferable to the possible alternatives.

[Born Hunter 17,798]

Hang on, I think this is getting a bit out of hand and risks making UKIP policy look like something it is not.

 

 

They HAVE NOT suggested a wild west policy of concealed carry permits for lethal pistols. They do however want to de-restrict non lethal self defence aids for this purpose.

 

 

They want the legalisation of firearms for home defence. Which at the very least would be a shotgun. Now based on the fact that we have these readily available already and we are already allowed to use them for home defence why then should it not be acceptable to apply for one solely for the purpose of home defence? Nothing would change, other than law abiding citizens with no interest in shooting sports now being able to obtain one to protect themselves, the same as law abiding citizens that do have an interest in shooting sports can.

 

 

The second significant point is the de-restriction on pistol ownership. A more contentious issue I'll admit. Though the fact is the pistol legislation brought in after Dunblane has had no positive effect on gun crime statistics. We even still have legally held firearm massacres! Tbh I'm not sure what benefits we get through our extreme restrictions on pistol ownership? Should we just ban all firearms to be on the safe side? That'll certainly put an end to all legally held firearm crime. If we want to talk about the damage capability of firearms, I'd put a 12 shot semi auto 12 gauge right up there with the most devastating! And they're perfectly obtainable on a FAC.

 

 

Besides from logic, statistics and sense I have my philosophical view; The government has progressively taken away our civil liberties and most basic human rights for 'our own protection', we must trust them to do what we should be able to do for ourselves, like infants. Where does it end? They've already created a society that has a minority dependant on them through welfare and tax. Simply I'd prefer a liberated society with true freedom and all the shit that goes with it than a sterilised society that is allegedly safe in the hands of the controlling state.

 

[Nik_B 3,790]

The government has progressively taken away our civil liberties and most basic human rights for 'our own protection', we must trust them to do what we should be able to do for ourselves, like infants. Where does it end? They've already created a society that has a minority dependant on them through welfare and tax. Simply I'd prefer a liberated society with true freedom and all the shit that goes with it than a sterilised society that is allegedly safe in the hands of the controlling state.

 

[Born Hunter 17,798]

I believe it's also been mentioned that with a armed population, the unarmed population, perhaps the weak who don't have the confidence in themselves to use a firearm defensively, will become targets of crime. I'm not sure that will be the case;

 

If I have an elderly neighbour that is vulnerable I'll want to keep an eye on her. If indeed the weak suddenly become even more targeted, then the threat level will warrant an even greater responsibility to the strong of our society, those that carry defensive weapons. It's a damn fact I can be across that road to deal with a threat a lot faster than our police force can!

 

The whole concept of giving people back the right to defend themselves with a vastly superior power advantage encourages the strong to defend the weak, they have the capability to do it with an almost certain outcome.

 

By all means ensure strict legislation and training but give the population the right.

[Nik_B 3,790]

I believe it's also been mentioned that with a armed population, the unarmed population, perhaps the weak who don't have the confidence in themselves to use a firearm defensively, will become targets of crime. I'm not sure that will be the case;

 

If I have an elderly neighbour that is vulnerable I'll want to keep an eye on her. If indeed the weak suddenly become even more targeted, then the threat level will warrant an even greater responsibility to the strong of our society, those that carry defensive weapons. It's a damn fact I can be across that road to deal with a threat a lot faster than our police force can!

 

The whole concept of giving people back the right to defend themselves with a vastly superior power advantage encourages the strong to defend the weak, they have the capability to do it with an almost certain outcome.

 

By all means ensure strict legislation and training but give the population the right.

 

The only thing I would say though is that I wouldn't want gun ownership to become easy like in the States, simpler licensing yes but I'd move to the middle of nowhere if I thought everyone on my street had guns lol

[TOPPER 1,809]

my old man allways told me DEAD BURGLARS TELL NO LIE S cant really argue with that one

[Born Hunter 17,798]

 

The only thing I would say though is that I wouldn't want gun ownership to become easy like in the States, simpler licensing yes but I'd move to the middle of nowhere if I thought everyone on my street had guns lol

 

 

I agree entirely Nick! Have strict legislation, annual competency tests, clean record etc etc.

 

Basically, if you wouldn't with todays legislation be granted an FAC with the relevant justification, then you certainly shouldn't be granted a short firearm for any justification either.

 

It won't ever happen though, we don't have that want for liberation and self sufficiency like the yanks do. The British like being looked after by the state.

[Nik_B 3,790]

It's a funny old world where Libertarian UKIP get called fascists by erm...fascists