Spara Dritto Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) Umm sorry, but if I'm at a clay ground and place my gun on a rack, if anyone steals it, the entire blame should be directed at the thief, not me. Just because its a gun, its still my property. Are you suggesting I wheel clamp my car just in case someone steals it from Tesco's and runs someone over? They are both as dangerous in the wrong hands. What is it with people who blame the person upholding the law, for the actions of someone breaking it? You are bordering on being a Daily Mail reader with such ****. Should we all blame McAvoy guns for not having surface to surface missiles defending their "armoury"? There is no such thing as secure if someone really wants to steal something. Of course we dont blame McAvoy for what happened. They locked the door so all is well. But what use is a locked door if someone can open it? The same goes for a rack outside of a clay ground tea room. There is no such thing as secure. Sure you get the opportunist, but god damn, is that going to spoil my enjoyment of shooting and make me ultra paranoid in case it gets stolen? Perhaps, but only for the financial loss i would incurr personally. If someone did steal a gun from me and used it to hurt someone (god forbid), I would not feel responsible for that at all. Why should I? They are the criminals, not me. My apologies if you were not feeding the anti gun lobby a tidbit, but I think perhaps you were. You sir, are a complete fool. It's your sole responsibility to ensure the gun in question doesn't get into the wrong hands. For you to say you are within your right to leave your gun on the rack unattended while going in for a tea is diabolical. For your information, a male left his shotgun on the back seat of his locked car, while getting petrol, the car was broken into, the gun nicked. He is currently serving a lengthy jail sentence and now has a criminal record. He will never be able to own a shotgun or firearm again. I'm in the right frame of mind to copy what you've said above and send it to your local FAO. He/she should seriously re-consider you as a responsible shotgun certificate holder. Edited January 14, 2012 by Beretta Italy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spara Dritto Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 I stand to be corrected, it wasn't petrol it was shopping after a shoot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notsosureshot Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) I know about the incident in question regarding the petrol station theft. It was my understanding that the gun was in plain sight, in a petrol station, in broad daylight. A clay shooting club is not an entirely public place and in many cases access is restricted to members only. Not all clay grounds are somewhere you can just turn up and shoot. As long as a gun owner has taken all reasonable steps to ensure the security of the gun, which includes removing the forend when appropriate, they have complied with their respnsibility. When it is at home, its in the cabinet, if its in the car the forend is removed and carried. It does take common sense, but your suggestion that anyone who leaves shotguns in a rack should lose their certificate is just silly. Its situational. You lock and alarm your car, yet you do not feel it necessary to wheel clamp it every single time you leave it somewhere. With a shotgun, you secure as the situation permits, staying within the law of course. This can include a combination of measures which are appropriate at the time. I would agree that anyone who wonders off to the toilets or some such a few yards away, leaving a complete gun in the middle of a public place, is an idiot. Having said that, in a place where there are plenty of members around, you remove the forend and rack your gun because it is impractical to walk 2 or 3 miles back to the car to store it before hand, then at what point does it become stupid to do so? *edit: I never leave my gun in the car at all if I am not present. Forend removed regardless. My main worry being accidental theft of a gun by a car thief. You're too quick to judge and anyone that has shot with me will know I'm not a fool when it comes to safety/security. In fact, if you bother to read my recent thread regarding permission boundaries, you'd know this for certain. Shame you had to resort to personal insults to try and make your point. PS. There was also a petrol station incident actually. Edited January 14, 2012 by notsosureshot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spara Dritto Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 I will leave you to it, you do what you want sir. For the record, it wasn't a personal insult calling you a fool, it was an observation of your attitude towards firearms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
955i Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 While it is concerning that the gun has gone missing, it is comforting to know that the press are trying to avoid anything similar happening by publishing the guys name and street address so any Tom **** or Harry will know where there is likely to be a cabinet with other guns in if they fancy a bit of burglary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notsosureshot Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) I will leave you to it, you do what you want sir. For the record, it wasn't a personal insult calling you a fool, it was an observation of your attitude towards firearms. In your original post you appeared to generalise by suggesting anyone who uses a rack is an idiot who doesnt deserve a certificate. By your rationale, pretty much every person at the local clay shoot today should have their guns taken away, literally hundreds of people of all ages and experience. Why are racks even legal if people are not supposed to use them? What would you define as "unattended"? There are so many flaws in what you suggested. It does not mean I have the wrong attitude towards firearms, it just means that not everything is as black and white as you tried to make out. Someone argues a point, you call them a fool and make rash judgements on their attitude. I am one of the most cautious people you'd ever meet when it comes to firearms. What you said just adds fuel to the fire that gun users are irresponsible and when I see one of our own suggesting that hundreds, potentially thousands of shooters are irresponsible idiots, it doesnt do anyone any favours at all. A firearm/shotgun owner must take reasonable steps to protect their guns. Nobody would argue that point. However, the case of the chap going shopping was clearly negligence as he chose to shop knowing full well he had a gun in the car. I would agree that such an act is unacceptable. I disagree however, that the use of racks automatically makes someone irresponsible and unattended, well, could be interpreted in many different ways. There is not a one size fits all approach to this. This is why we have a legal system, to decide if someone is negligent in their actions or not in the event of a theft of a firearm or shotgun. The way you approached it, you encourage legislation against gun racks and potentially further legislation to define "unattended". Imagine the implications of a court ruling that "unattended" actually meant being out of physical contact with your gun. Think about that for a second. Common sense must prevail. We all have our individual views on the subject, but we know that if something does happen, we will be held to account on our approach. Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say but it is not I who have a negative attitude towards firearms here. Im sure you did not bother to read my recent post on suitability of air rifle vs. .410 for pest control on a small permission, but anyone who really didnt care would never ask such a question. Sorry to the OP for this somewhat of a hijack. Edited January 14, 2012 by notsosureshot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spara Dritto Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) In your original post you appeared to generalise by suggesting anyone who uses a rack is an idiot who doesnt deserve a certificate. By your rationale, pretty much every person at the local clay shoot today should have their guns taken away, literally hundreds of people of all ages and experience. Why are racks even legal if people are not supposed to use them? What would you define as "unattended"? There are so many flaws in what you suggested. It does not mean I have the wrong attitude towards firearms, it just means that not everything is as black and white as you tried to make out. Someone argues a point, you call them a fool and make rash judgements on their attitude. I am one of the most cautious people you'd ever meet when it comes to firearms. What you said just adds fuel to the fire that gun users are irresponsible and when I see one of our own suggesting that hundreds, potentially thousands of shooters are irresponsible idiots, it doesnt do anyone any favours at all. A firearm/shotgun owner must take reasonable steps to protect their guns. Nobody would argue that point. However, the case of the chap going shopping was clearly negligence as he chose to shop knowing full well he had a gun in the car. I would agree that such an act is unacceptable. I disagree however, that the use of racks automatically makes someone irresponsible and unattended, well, could be interpreted in many different ways. There is not a one size fits all approach to this. This is why we have a legal system, to decide if someone is negligent in their actions or not in the event of a theft of a firearm or shotgun. The way you approached it, you encourage legislation against gun racks and potentially further legislation to define "unattended". Imagine the implications of a court ruling that "unattended" actually meant being out of physical contact with your gun. Think about that for a second. Common sense must prevail. We all have our individual views on the subject, but we know that if something does happen, we will be held to account on our approach. Anyway, I've said what I wanted to say but it is not I who have a negative attitude towards firearms here. Im sure you did not bother to read my recent post on suitability of air rifle vs. .410 for pest control on a small permission, but anyone who really didnt care would never ask such a question. Sorry to the OP for this somewhat of a hijack. No I haven't taken the time to read all your posts because, to be quite honest, It's not of any interest to me. I'm not saying don't use racks that are outside the club house as long as you are sitting next to them (the ones down the sporting lane are different matter as you are next to them) but I will continue to disagree that, and I quote " if I'm at a clay ground and place my gun on a rack, if anyone steals it, the entire blame should be directed at the thief!" I’m sorry sir, some how I don’t think that would stand up in a court of law, what you can expect though, is a jail sentence and criminal record. In my opinion it's as bad, moreover worse then that chap leaving the gun in the car, at least the car was locked.. You wouldn't leave your wallet on a table and walk away from it? To you it apparently doesn’t matter as if it gets stolen it’s the thiefts fault.. Really it's mostly the gun owners responsibility, there is no arguing that point and there never will be. Those racks are for you to put your gun on when sitting outside next to them... I am no longer continuing this debate as I feel we have a completely different level of respect for our certificates. To add, if your common sense only extends as far as to say, “I am happy to leave it out side while I walk away and leave it unattended for a cup of tea, because I’m plain and simply too lazy to walk to the car and lock it away out of sight” I'm very surprised. Lets leave it there, have a nice day. Edited January 14, 2012 by Beretta Italy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notsosureshot Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 I think you are missing my points somewhat but nevermind. There are too many aspects of this which would need to be clarified in order to consider this any form of debate and I dont have time to start explaining the legal concepts I am using as the basis for my argument. Frankly it is outside the scope of this forum but an interesting topic nonetheless. I'm sure we can all agree that it is the owners responsibility to secure their guns as far as is reasonably possible/practical to do so. Outside of that, it is the responsibility of the courts to decide if the owner was criminally negligent in the event of a theft. Negligence is a very complex area of law, anyone who has studied law will know that Using a rack in a private members club and then popping off to the toilet. Certainly an interesting argument for negligence but certainly there would be a strong argument for the defence! I will indeed study the case of the car theft further once I find a case reference, unless someone has one handy? Have a great day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo90 Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 The last transfer form i had to send i walked in to teh station and asked them to send it via their internal mail system My FEO have a delay anyway I sold a gun , the buyer was miles away but had a local friend, i "sold" the gun to the friend who paid for it and i entered it onto friends certificate. he then saw his mate a couple of weeks later and put it onto the buyers certificate . I then got a phone call at work ( i just happened to be at work and they rang work as they state they call places of work mon-fri as most people are at work, i work shifts and it was by pure accident i answered the phone) asking if i still had the baikal semi auto.....i explained i sold it. she then asked well its turned up miles away on someone else's certificate.......and why didn't i tell them I pointed out i had done and that they had had the transfer form over a week......they admitted they did have a 2 week back log......which i thought made teh rush to notify them a bit pointless......my force wont accept emails but my mate who lives in london thats their prefered Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.