swipey Posted June 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Cor what a thread lol Some first post eh?! Let's say some mentalist gunman without a cert (or mate with) goes on a killing spree but the police ashume it's Ronny Blogs who rang up to say he was shooing in the area, so they don't send anyone..... Kids and women die, who points the finger where then? If they came and saw me in any form I'd be happy to chat and give my details. You never know, they might have land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swipey Posted June 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 LOL Did'nt mean to upset anyone, all i meant was when shooting near to where the public might be walkers,hikers,horse riders etc just try to be whiter than white. Alot of people disagree with what we do. Don't think PW will be inviting me to x mas knee's up lol. dare'nt post any thing now, feel like an outcast already lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveK Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) @ topic not at any individual. No animals were harmed in the posting of this. Edited June 7, 2012 by DaveK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Did'nt mean to upset anyone Did'nt mean to upset anyone I think that was exactly your intention. :rolleyes: I think that was exactly your intention. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) I used to be repetitive - now I just say things twice. I used to be repetitive - now I just say things twice. EDIT: EDIT: Edited June 7, 2012 by Dave-G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) Does that make me a repeat offender? Edited June 7, 2012 by Dave-G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbuss Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 LOL Did'nt mean to upset anyone, all i meant was when shooting near to where the public might be walkers,hikers,horse riders etc just try to be whiter than white. Alot of people disagree with what we do. Don't think PW will be inviting me to x mas knee's up lol. dare'nt post any thing now, feel like an outcast already lol. Swipey. How about starting again? Post a thread on the introductions page, tell us a little about yourself. You know, where you're from, what kind of shooting you enjoy - that kind of stuff. Then abstain from preachy threads for a week or two at least, then you might, just might get a warmer welcome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 and how do you determine an illegal firearm without physically seeing it? Not the point. If someone is doing something which is, on the face of it, legal then why investigate? Someone is shooting in a field - that very fact is not adequate reason to use police resources to go and question the person. They may well have an illegal gun but we don't randomly intrude into peoples lives in this country of the off-chance that they may being doing something illegal. We don't phone the police every time someone drives past our houses on the basis that it may be a stolen or uninsured vehicle. We don't allow the police to stop people at random and search them for no reason or question them as to what they are doing or where they are going. Why should we have a habbit of investigating shooters who are doing nothing obviously unlawful? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomhw100 Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Massive "mission creep" from the police. If you are going about your lawful business, not bothering anyone, not trespassing and not breaking any laws - why do you need to inform the police? If some timid soul is "alarmed", by the sight of someone in a field with a gun in the countryside, that's their problem not yours and they need to wise up and get out a bit more. Even if you do it, the police still have to respond if someone reports you, so it's a complete waste of time. If everyone did it every time they went out, they'd be swamped and couldn't log all the calls. In fact, it's worse than a waste of time - it's conditioning us to ever more red tape and restrictions. It's a slippery slope before it becomes mandatory. Next thing they'll be wanting to take on extra staff to administer it and charge the costs for it to SGC/FAC holders. We have more restrictions, red tape and bureaucracy to deal with as shooters in this country, than on any other nation on earth. We don't need any more Excellent post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Because after events where some nutters have gone mental with firearms and killed people , the Police everytime a call about someone with a gun gets called in have to respond. Its a major butt covering exercise. Imagine what would happen if someone reported someone shooting they assumed it to be your Tweed wearing fessie shooter and it was another mad taxi driver or whatever. Every Chief Constable is going to protect his pension. How would they assume that? Bird was reported for shooting people in the street. A person shooting birds in a field is a different matter. Bird wasn't reported for shooting, as such, he was reported for shooting people, for doing something illegal. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 JonathanL, I understand what you are saying, and partly agree with it, but I don't see how they can ever take the chance of not investigating something involving firearms. Yes on previous occasions when some nut has been out shooting people they were told that, not some bloke in a field, but it's impossible to know what will happen in the future, and to not investigate something involving firearms that then ends up as a major incident is very bad for the police image. The investigation might be to ring up someone who they think it will be and check it's them, it might be to phone the landowner and check that way, but I think that they always have to check in some way in order to cover themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanj Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Not the point. If someone is doing something which is, on the face of it, legal then why investigate? Someone is shooting in a field - that very fact is not adequate reason to use police resources to go and question the person. They may well have an illegal gun but we don't randomly intrude into peoples lives in this country of the off-chance that they may being doing something illegal. We don't phone the police every time someone drives past our houses on the basis that it may be a stolen or uninsured vehicle. We don't allow the police to stop people at random and search them for no reason or question them as to what they are doing or where they are going. Why should we have a habbit of investigating shooters who are doing nothing obviously unlawful? J. Its totally the point. BTW I am not advocating the ring in thing either ! If Joe Public calls police and says theres somebody shooting the police will (or should) investigate to determine whether its lawful. Thats the world we live in now. Obviously using your example of Derek Bird then this would require a top of the tree, priority A response when compared to a report of some bloke shooting birds in a field. Then again I doubt this is the sort of report plod get either cos lets face it the sort of bod who'd ring up under the second example isnt really going to state the facts now are they ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) LOL Did'nt mean to upset anyone, all i meant was when shooting near to where the public might be walkers,hikers,horse riders etc just try to be whiter than white. Alot of people disagree with what we do. Don't think PW will be inviting me to x mas knee's up lol. dare'nt post any thing now, feel like an outcast already lol. Take the advice of Blunderbuss below: Swipey. How about starting again? Post a thread on the introductions page, tell us a little about yourself. You know, where you're from, what kind of shooting you enjoy - that kind of stuff. Then abstain from preachy threads for a week or two at least, then you might, just might get a warmer welcome! And by the way, when quoting posts you don't need to do it in two posts. Just click 'quote' then type your message at the bottom, after where it says [\quote] - otherwise people think your incapable or that your trying to boost your post count. Edited June 7, 2012 by bedwards1966 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 JonathanL, I understand what you are saying, and partly agree with it, but I don't see how they can ever take the chance of not investigating something involving firearms. Yes on previous occasions when some nut has been out shooting people they were told that, not some bloke in a field, but it's impossible to know what will happen in the future, and to not investigate something involving firearms that then ends up as a major incident is very bad for the police image. The investigation might be to ring up someone who they think it will be and check it's them, it might be to phone the landowner and check that way, but I think that they always have to check in some way in order to cover themselves. No, sorry mate but you're wrong. The police can't go around using up valuable resources and, more importantly, taking liberties with peoples right to fair and equitable treatment merely to 'cover themselves' or to promote their 'image'. If that is a valid justification then it's a justification for doing absolutely anything at all. Besides which, in none of the examples you give would it make any difference. If someone is on the rampage then how will phoning the landowner solve the situation? How will ringing up the person they think it is be of help; 'oh yes, it's me, I'm shooting bunnies and am not on a murderous rampage - honest' There is a massively higher chance of them missing a real incident due to chasing around the countryside after shooters who aren't doing anything illegal or dangerous than there is of preventing a shooting rampage. Like I said, none of the very, very few shooting rampages we've had in this country were the result of the police not responding to a call on the grounds that they thought it was a legitimate shooter. On both occasions they responded to reports of a person actually shooting at people. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Logic Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 Its totally the point. BTW I am not advocating the ring in thing either ! If Joe Public calls police and says theres somebody shooting the police will (or should) investigate to determine whether its lawful. Thats the world we live in now. Obviously using your example of Derek Bird then this would require a top of the tree, priority A response when compared to a report of some bloke shooting birds in a field. Then again I doubt this is the sort of report plod get either cos lets face it the sort of bod who'd ring up under the second example isnt really going to state the facts now are they ! It's the COUNTRY we live in now. Make sure you get that straight. Only in this pathetic little nation do the police get called for someone shooting in a field in the middle of nowhere. In America, I was out blasting away with an assault rifle in a field. Plenty of people heard us, I know because they talked to us about it later. Nobody worries - some guys are having fun shooting. What's the big deal? Over there, there isn't one. The Police response to a little old lady who calls up saying there's a man in a field with a gun should be to let it go unless there is a genuine threat to anyone. That can be ascertained very easily without ARVs, handcuffs and the usual overreaction. I am carrying out a lawful activity, and as such I will not call the police before I go, with the exception of when I am shooting on land which could be deemed public (playing fields and the like). Even then, it's an **** covering exercise because it has never, not once, prevented plod from being despatched. They don't have my reference number and they don't know I called. It's a COMPLETE waste of time, and an encroachment on my freedom, and I WILL NOT play ball. We as shooters need to be proud of what we do. Hiding away never helps anyone, it merely confirms the suspicion of some that we have a need to hide away because what we do is BAD. It's not bad, and so I won't hide it. I won't keep quiet about shooting when talking to people either. I have not failed to win over those I talk to, to the view that it's perfectly safe, legal and for many, a fun activity. I have not had so much success about the killing of animals, but meat eaters with a conscience admit they have no argument but could not pull the trigger, and vegetarians agree to disagree. Nobody I speak to thinks we need to be persecuted however. Nobody thinks we should lose freedom or have to ask nicely. It's solely a media/government/police obsession. Could it be that the Powers That Be are still worried about armed revolution (see causes for 1920s firearms acts)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 If Joe Public calls police and says theres somebody shooting the police will (or should) investigate to determine whether its lawful. If I ring them every time a car goes past my house then should they make an effort to track down, stop and question the driver to make sure that he has a licence, is insured and isn't driving a stolen car? Clearly the police would not do anything of the sort unless there is something about the call that gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that the driver is indeed doing something unlawful. If the report was one of a person who I knew to have just consumed six pints or someone who was driving excessively dangerously then that is a different matter. I see no difference with firearms. If a person hears gunshots in the countryside, or sees someone shooting at birds, then what possible reason is there for the police to investigate? There is not the slightest suspicion of any illegal activity. All that is happening is that the police are getting a report of someone going about their lawful business. Exactly the same as they would if I decided to ring them to tell them that I'd just seen a car go past my house. Lets be frank here; the vast, vast majority of people who report gunshots in the countryside are not acting out of a sense of community spirit when they phone the police about it. They are acting because they don't like people having guns or killing fluffy animals. Most of them know damn fine that there is nothing illegal going on at all and do it simply because they know the police will repsond. It is wasting police time by any other name but they know that because it's firearms related no one will dare tell them off for it. If they did it for any other reason they would risk being charged for it. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bedwards1966 Posted June 7, 2012 Report Share Posted June 7, 2012 JonathanL, like I said, I partly agree with what you are saying, they probably shouldn't go out to every call they get about shooting. But as I've said, I can't see that they will ever not respond. Cars are a common sight, most people have one, they are viewed as tools/transport and not as weapons. Guns are viewed very differently, and if ever there is any chance, however small, of something happening (such as a shooting) with guns then the police will want to be seen to have investigated. Nothing gets people going more than people with guns. It might not be needed, but looking at it as I think the police would see it they will always want to be seen to cover themselves. I know of a case where there was a shoot on near a school (probably about 2-300 yards away) and the police were called about men in a field with guns. By your reasoning, as they were doing their lawful activity the police need not have investigated. But can you imagine how it would look for the police if it had been something very different and someone/kids got shot? Or just how would it be if the person phoning in had been told 'yes, thank-you, but as it's a group of men in a field with shotguns they're probably shooting game, don't worry yourself as your kids will be safe and it's almost certainly all legal'. I don't see how the police could ever risk being seen that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 As a serving officer who has worked on response, firearms and the helicopter I feel I'm in a good position to reply to this one. First off I would like to say to the people who really just don't have a clue about the police and what they do to stop posting their opinions as gospel. Secondly I never phone the police when I go shooting but I live in a rural area of a very rural county there are loads of shoots near to me. Someone walking around here with a gun commonplace. Thirdly the only report of shots fired that I have been to have been in pubs and clubs and are clearly criminal use of firearms. We do receive reports of people shooting and sometimes police are sent but usually it's a very low key response. The only exception to this would be when the caller is a farmer, landowner or gamekeeper who says people are on his land shooting , lamping or coursing. I have only once gone to reports of shooters the countryside in the helicopter and I cancelled before we got there as I heard more details come in. Finally if you think it's worthwhile ringing in and letting the control room know where your shooting then do so. It could be of benefit if your shooting in a more urban area. Please note these comments are based on real life police experience and not from watching reruns of cop shows on Dave! Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fo5ter Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 A few years back I was called to a house that was complaining about "loud shooting first thing in the morning every Sunday and bullets hitting the house" I went and spoke to the elderly lady who had rung it in ( this was her 5th call btw) she had no idea what I was talking about. When I prompted her about it she said "oh that? Has somebody complained?" Speaking to the lady it was clear that she suffered some form of dementia and that she actually had nothing against the shooting... Enter the husband... "what are you doing about it? It's that farm behind, do they have a license? I think it's disgusting, they should all be locked up, I'm writing to my MP about this!" When I told him they were clay shooting he got even more irate! : "that's disgraceful! They should lose their license for playing silly little games! I'm writing to the chief constable about this!" I pointed out that "silly little game" was an Olympic sport and we went our separate ways. It was clear to me that this despicable man was using his wife's dementia to get her to complain every week and no doubt prompted her to make up the bit about "bullets hitting the house" needless to say I put in a vulnerable person report and had a history marker placed on the address. When I went round to the farm to introduce myself and give them a heads up I made a new friend, gained a new permission and joined their every other Sunday clay shoot Because of this they ring in every time we shoot, because we know that our elderly friend does the same. This is the only time I ring up to announce I'm shooting - with good reason I think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swipey Posted June 8, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Take the advice of Blunderbuss below: And by the way, when quoting posts you don't need to do it in two posts. Just click 'quote' then type your message at the bottom, after where it says [\quote] - otherwise people think your incapable or that your trying to boost your post count. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedeerman Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fo5ter Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Take the advice of Blunderbuss below: And by the way, when quoting posts you don't need to do it in two posts. Just click 'quote' then type your message at the bottom, after where it says [\quote] - otherwise people think your incapable or that your trying to boost your post count. QED! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted June 8, 2012 Report Share Posted June 8, 2012 Lets be frank here; the vast, vast majority of people who report gunshots in the countryside are not acting out of a sense of community spirit when they phone the police about it. They are acting because they don't like people having guns or killing fluffy animals. Most of them know damn fine that there is nothing illegal going on at all and do it simply because they know the police will repsond. It is wasting police time by any other name but they know that because it's firearms related no one will dare tell them off for it. If they did it for any other reason they would risk being charged for it. JonathanL - never thought the day would arrive, but I believe you are on the money with that observation. :good: 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.