Your thoughts on this..

[ordnance]

No my reply was implying that your reply didn't make sense. You stated he could have said he was shooting at a fox.Was the fox rummaging through his gutters at the time? Was it hiding up a tree keeping an eye on proceedings, when all of a sudden poots shot at it and accidentally scared away some shady characters in the process? You have obviously realised what you said was daft, and in an attempt to alleviate any felt embarrassment you have backtracked and suggested it may have been a pigeon he was shooting at. He could have been shooting at an Easyjet or the moon or batman. You're suggestion would not bode well in any court. Mr poots will have to restrain himself from accepting and using your invaluable advice no doubt.

 

Grow up. My point was if mr poots reported it to the police their was no need to say he fired warning shots. He could have said if a complaint was made that he was shooting at a fox -pigeon ect DOH. If your life is that sad that it makes you feel better pointing out that i put in fox instead of something else go for it. I am sure mr poots won't be taking any advice form anyone on this forum so don't lose any sleep over it.

 

You have shown in the past that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Regarding the use of and getting a FAC for military lookalike .22 in N Ireland for over the fields. You seem to make it up as you go along. You stated that you were a gun club official if you are you would have known that. PS. what club the local trainspotting club.

Edited July 28, 2012 by ordnance

[bedwards1966]

Yes, purely on the grounds that he is a female genitalia.

He should have his firearms seized and an investigation carried out.

 

Exactly the same way if I fired my shotgun out the front window if someone was in my garden that I didn't like the look of.

 

What exactly is your issue with this? More facts could come out, but it's most likely that someone was snooping round looking to steal or vandalise something, and he fired a shot in a safe way that told them he knew they were there, and that it might be advisable to move along. What exactly should he have done in that situation, and in what way does this action make him a 'female genitalia'?

 

No. He didn't have to report it he could have just said he was shooting at a fox or something. I would assume he would have a PPW that he could of used legally if he thought he was under threat. The sensible thing to do unless in immediate threat would be to ring the police.

 

I don't know why he called the police, that's hard to understand. There should be no such thing as a warning shot in this situation, it's a shot at a pigeon/rabbit/crow/fox/rat etc - why he called the police I can't imagine.

'The sensible thing to do unless in immediate threat would be to ring the police.' Perhaps things are different where you are, but where I have lived on land by the time the police come out 4/5 times the thieves would have time to load up their vans with your goods, and be long gone. Usually they've time to sell them the next morning too, the police response is a joke. I don't know the situation this guy was in, but for many people this is the only way they can stop a person/people from stealing everything they've worked hard for.

[ordnance]

I can only assume that being a minster in the N Ireland executive he would possibly be a target for some organisations. He might of reported the intruders to get the police to check in case they where after him. But as you say more likely they where their to steel rather than harm. Why he told the police he fired a warning shot i don't know why.

Edited July 28, 2012 by ordnance

[Pastiebap]

What exactly is your issue with this? More facts could come out, but it's most likely that someone was snooping round looking to steal or vandalise something, and he fired a shot in a safe way that told them he knew they were there, and that it might be advisable to move along. What exactly should he have done in that situation, and in what way does this action make him a 'female genitalia'?

 

 

 

I don't know why he called the police, that's hard to understand. There should be no such thing as a warning shot in this situation, it's a shot at a pigeon/rabbit/crow/fox/rat etc - why he called the police I can't imagine.

'The sensible thing to do unless in immediate threat would be to ring the police.' Perhaps things are different where you are, but where I have lived on land by the time the police come out 4/5 times the thieves would have time to load up their vans with your goods, and be long gone. Usually they've time to sell them the next morning too, the police response is a joke. I don't know the situation this guy was in, but for many people this is the only way they can stop a person/people from stealing everything they've worked hard for.

 

Firstly this doesn't make him a ****, he was one of them before this incident.

 

Secondly to the point of the matter.

 

His shotgun was issued (no doubt) for vermin control and sporting purposes, therefore it should only be used for these purposes. To scare off snoopers is not an appropriate use of this firearm.

Furthermore, if that had of been Joe Public instead of some tinpot politician then the guns would've been seized, an arrest made and the press and politicians baying for blood. This smacks completely of double standards.

 

If he was that concerned his first port of call should have been to dial 999, as a "VIP" he would have received a quick response.

 

And finally never produce a firearm unless you absolutely intend to use it to eliminate a threat, it is a means of last resort, not first. I have confronted many people round my property without the need to produce my Glock.

[Cannon]

Grow up. My point was if mr poots reported it to the police their was no need to say he fired warning shots. He could have said if a complaint was made that he was shooting at a fox -pigeon ect DOH. If your life is that sad that it makes you feel better pointing out that i put in fox instead of something else go for it. I am sure mr poots won't be taking any advice form anyone on this forum so don't lose any sleep over it.

 

You have shown in the past that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Regarding the use of and getting a FAC for military lookalike .22 in N Ireland for over the fields. You seem to make it up as you go along. You stated that you were a gun club official if you are you would have known that. PS. what club the local trainspotting club.

 

Listen bucko, the report on the incident is what we have to go by. Simple. So what would you have suggested poots done? Called the police to explain that he had been on his own land partaking in the legal activity of vermin control, when suddenly he fired at some form of vermin and in the process he also managed to scare off some undesirables? You seem to be suggesting that it's ok to tell lies. I wouldn't like to think you'd be suggesting a politician tell lies to cover their own back? Now think about what you are going to type next, rather than throwing your fingers at the keyboard in a fit of childish stupidity, and hoping that the end result will look like you have demonstrated a morsel of intelligence.

[guest1957]

If we want to preserve our sport firearms should be as far removed from the idea of 'self defence' as polar bears and chillies are from each other. Society will not tolerate if any other way.

[Cannon]

If we want to preserve our sport firearms should be as far removed from the idea of 'self defence' as polar bears and chillies are from each other. Society will not tolerate if any other way.

 

Unfortunately this is true around this part of the world, but all you have to do is look at the mentality across the water in America. Millions of shooters enjoy using firearms on a daily basis for target shooting, hunting etc. They also have peace of mind knowing if anybody threatens their life, they can legally protect themselves using a firearm without having to worry about any repercussions. Our sport will never have the same interest as what it does elsewhere in the world, because of the mentality of society. We are preserving what little we have actually explored of the world of shooting. Instead of worrying about preserving our oppressive shooting laws, shooters should be rocking the boat to see just what changes/progress can be made to not only better our knowledge of shooting sports, but also to encourage wider participation from society. Not likely to happen though

[Fisheruk]

Why not just use a blank. Still scare the ****** off and no harm.

[ordnance]

Listen bucko, the report on the incident is what we have to go by. Simple. So what would you have suggested poots done? Called the police to explain that he had been on his own land partaking in the legal activity of vermin control, when suddenly he fired at some form of vermin and in the process he also managed to scare off some undesirables? You seem to be suggesting that it's ok to tell lies. I wouldn't like to think you'd be suggesting a politician tell lies to cover their own back? Now think about what you are going to type next, rather than throwing your fingers at the keyboard in a fit of childish stupidity, and hoping that the end result will look like you have demonstrated a morsel of intelligence.

Suggest that a politician tell lies. Most politicians in stormont have made a career out of lying. If a lot of them told the truth about their past they would be in jail.

Edited July 29, 2012 by ordnance

[Zapp]

Pack the squabbling in please.

[bedwards1966]

What exactly is your issue with this? More facts could come out, but it's most likely that someone was snooping round looking to steal or vandalise something, and he fired a shot in a safe way that told them he knew they were there, and that it might be advisable to move along. What exactly should he have done in that situation, and in what way does this action make him a 'female genitalia'?

 

 

 

I don't know why he called the police, that's hard to understand. There should be no such thing as a warning shot in this situation, it's a shot at a pigeon/rabbit/crow/fox/rat etc - why he called the police I can't imagine.

'The sensible thing to do unless in immediate threat would be to ring the police.' Perhaps things are different where you are, but where I have lived on land by the time the police come out 4/5 times the thieves would have time to load up their vans with your goods, and be long gone. Usually they've time to sell them the next morning too, the police response is a joke. I don't know the situation this guy was in, but for many people this is the only way they can stop a person/people from stealing everything they've worked hard for.

 

 

Firstly this doesn't make him a ****, he was one of them before this incident.

 

Secondly to the point of the matter.

 

His shotgun was issued (no doubt) for vermin control and sporting purposes, therefore it should only be used for these purposes. To scare off snoopers is not an appropriate use of this firearm.

OK, he may have been using his firearm for something it's not conditioned for, rather like me shooting a fox with a .308 that's only conditioned for deer. While not strictly legal, is it a major problem? Would it be OK with you if he'd used a blank firer instead, and remained legal?

Furthermore, if that had of been Joe Public instead of some tinpot politician then the guns would've been seized, an arrest made and the press and politicians baying for blood. This smacks completely of double standards.

This may be very true, and I certainly don't feel that double standards are appropriate. However, just because a 'normal' person would struggle to get away with it and keep their guns, does not mean that it's wrong to do what he did.

 

If he was that concerned his first port of call should have been to dial 999, as a "VIP" he would have received a quick response.

Yes, he might have received a very quick response. But still nowhere near as quick at dealing with it as his method was. Certainly for us normal folk, the police option does not exist for any immediate threat, even if they make an effort as they would in this case. On paper it's the correct approach, but in reality it simply may not be possible.

 

And finally never produce a firearm unless you absolutely intend to use it to eliminate a threat, it is a means of last resort, not first. I have confronted many people round my property without the need to produce my Glock.

Well he produced a firearm and used it in a safe manor to eliminate the threat, which was no doubt his intention, and it worked. If said threat then shot/attacked him, he'd be no worse off, but would actually be prepared to deal with it if needed.

You might have confronted people on your property without taking a gun (I have too), but that does not automatically make it the best approach. Firstly, one person out in the dark against what might be several men (and sometimes dogs) carries a substantial risk, and that's before you take into account who he is. It was probably someone snooping round for something to steal, but it might have been someone with a grudge. If it's the latter, confronting them is potentially suicidal, and calling the police too slow. A warning shot might have been the only option, not a last resort.

 

Wow, I never thought I might be on the same side as a politician! What's the world coming to?

[tightchokes]

fair play to him for doing it, dont see what the problem is

[Dave-G]

His actions may possibly set up some kind of precedent - hopefully.