bostonmick Posted November 23, 2014 Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 well I think we will agree to disagree after all this time.Fair enough. but could I ask you where would you say the cut off should be for who is allowed to carry weapons for self defence. Anyone who satisfies current legislation as regards firearms licensing legislation. To do otherwise would be totally illogical. It doesn't necessarily follow of course, that that person would in fact want to carry a handgun. Even with training it is a HUGE responsibility. obviously anyone convicted of violent crime.but what about the person who has a couple of minor type convictions.what medical reasons would bar someone. As above. it would be a hard call as in effect you would be denying a section of society the right and means to defend themselves and their family. Not necessarily true. if the other members of that family meet the criteria then they could arm themselves and protect those who are incapable for one reason or another, of protecting themselves. also what calibre of weapon would be allowed as I cant see it makes sense having loads of people with military style roaming the streets.i would be interested in this answer as I know that in the past not me but relatives have shot fox rabbits etc on the farm with a rifle.it was always enough to use a .22 and it was effective enough.however now it seems that people have to have the bigger calibre for reasons I do not understand.as it has been said the reason for having cc is not to kill but stop or injure to render the situation safe so would a small calibre be satisfactory or would you also say that anything goes.just to add I watched a documentary a few weeks ago where it spoke to police forces and it seems that any actions using tazors or pepper spray are recorded as armed by the police even if the tazor was not fired it only had to be drawn.this I would imagine would push the gun related incidents list up a bit so distorting the true figures for our little island. I have absolutely no interest in, nor intention of, being drawn into a totally irrelevant and morbid debate about calibre's and their respective merits re' terminal velocities, penetration, stopping power etc. If you are genuinely interested in such matters there is a wealth of information out there produced by people and various agencies, both military and civilian (such as the FBI) with much more knowledge than me on the subject. Tazers and mace are of course regarded as arms, as that is what they are, albeit regarded as non-lethal. The question of where do you draw the line was purely out of interest and not to debate.As for the calibre I have no interest in terminal velocities or stopping power.I asked simply to see what category you fell into.I have no wish to debate the answer.I feel you are a little unfair with regard to my Internet sourcing of info as I believe that the Internet is just as misleading as the TV and other media.also the FBI like all government bodies of all countries are slightly biased and also selective in the information they share.And it's accuracy.I am in no way saying it is the case with you but some people like what they find on the Web sites as it suits their own opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted November 23, 2014 Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 (edited) I wouldn't consider the use of a gun to prevent say a bag snatching as being appropriate. As unpleasant as bag snatching is it really doesn't merit the potential death of the perpetrator. What would be seen as a lawful and appropriate now if someone snatched a handbag. Being armed wouldn't change that. The laws are already in place on what is lawful and unlawful regarding self defence. Edited November 23, 2014 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldivalloch Posted November 23, 2014 Report Share Posted November 23, 2014 In the space of last week I spent quite a bit of time with three friends/acquaintances. The thing they have is in common is that all three are former policemen, and all were firearms officers. And they like to reminisce. None ever fired a shot in anger, and they're all very happy that they never had to. All three talk very eloquently about how they felt about carrying firearms in the line of duty, and how hard and often they thought about possibly having to kill a human being, and in what circumstances, even if it were to save life. They point out that the ramifications go beyond the person who squeezes the trigger; it affects those close to them as well. One told me that during training he had been asked to consider very seriously how his parents, wife and children would feel if they suddenly found themselves living with a man who, however justifiably, had killed another human being. They also talk about making the decision. At what point is it right to kill? And in what circumstances? And what about the risk posed to bystanders when bullets are fired in a public place? How much skill, focus, practice and training is required to carry out instantaneous risk-assessment in what may be the red-hot heat of the moment to ensure that the field of fire is utterly safe and no innocent third parties are going to be endangered? What I'm trying to point out here is that these were the concerns of extremely highly-trained individuals. And if these extremely highly-trained individuals were constantly haunted by these concerns, who would reasonably want ordinary members of the public carrying firearms for self-defence? I'm going to be absolutely brutal here, because it's late, I'm tired, and some people have used this thread to spout enough hot air to melt the polar ice-caps. My proposal for those that wish to be allowed to carry a firearm for self-defence is that they should be offered free willy-extensions on the NHS. That might go some way to stopping them fantasising about going down to the mini-market for their newspaper and six rolls with their Glock or Smith & Wesson penis-enhancements tucked in their waistbands. Individuals who actively want to carry a gun in public "for self-defence" are, in my opinion, the last people who should ever be allowed to do so. And those who would tell you that they could, in a moment of bowel-melting crisis, draw a gun and use it responsibly and safely to defend themselves and others are certainly full of something - and it's NOT courage....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 Well I think the news from America this morning puts this thread to bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildrover77 Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 In the space of last week I spent quite a bit of time with three friends/acquaintances. The thing they have is in common is that all three are former policemen, and all were firearms officers. And they like to reminisce. None ever fired a shot in anger, and they're all very happy that they never had to. All three talk very eloquently about how they felt about carrying firearms in the line of duty, and how hard and often they thought about possibly having to kill a human being, and in what circumstances, even if it were to save life. They point out that the ramifications go beyond the person who squeezes the trigger; it affects those close to them as well. One told me that during training he had been asked to consider very seriously how his parents, wife and children would feel if they suddenly found themselves living with a man who, however justifiably, had killed another human being. They also talk about making the decision. At what point is it right to kill? And in what circumstances? And what about the risk posed to bystanders when bullets are fired in a public place? How much skill, focus, practice and training is required to carry out instantaneous risk-assessment in what may be the red-hot heat of the moment to ensure that the field of fire is utterly safe and no innocent third parties are going to be endangered? What I'm trying to point out here is that these were the concerns of extremely highly-trained individuals. And if these extremely highly-trained individuals were constantly haunted by these concerns, who would reasonably want ordinary members of the public carrying firearms for self-defence? I'm going to be absolutely brutal here, because it's late, I'm tired, and some people have used this thread to spout enough hot air to melt the polar ice-caps. My proposal for those that wish to be allowed to carry a firearm for self-defence is that they should be offered free willy-extensions on the NHS. That might go some way to stopping them fantasising about going down to the mini-market for their newspaper and six rolls with their Glock or Smith & Wesson penis-enhancements tucked in their waistbands. Individuals who actively want to carry a gun in public "for self-defence" are, in my opinion, the last people who should ever be allowed to do so. And those who would tell you that they could, in a moment of bowel-melting crisis, draw a gun and use it responsibly and safely to defend themselves and others are certainly full of something - and it's NOT courage....... I fail to see how your post ads an factual information to the debate. The pro being allowed to defend your family side has been quite reasoned the argument on the against side has been using emotion and the 'what could happen in the worst case scenario' The primary argument is should a member of the public be allowed to defend themselves or should we lie down like a dog and let criminals do what they want. The secondary debate is should we be allowed tools to defend our selves currently the answer is no as if you carry any item to use as a defensive weapon it is classed as carrying an offensive weapon. Thirdly there is the question of carrying a gun to defend yourself. I have helped on the pro side because the debate on the anti side has been so based on emotion and rhetoric but I don't see a reason for the average person in the uk to carry a gun for self defence. There are certain cirmstances where it would be necessary for certain persons, as is the case in NI. in very bad areas of the country and for certain people it maybe should be an option. more justifiable may be the right to use a firearm to defend your self at home. We do not on the whole across the country habe a high risk of suffering violent crime that would necessitate carrying firearms. The argument between trained professionals and us plebs is nonsensical, if you were in the situation of killing or being killed you would cope quite fine, it is in or genetics fight or flight. my uncle killed with a gun to defend himself from a four man gang of criminals he was a civilian, he could not have saved himself with out a gun, it did not scar him or his family for life and he left one dead and one injured in his hall. The police are not highly trained supermen. We need to work on the prohibition of pepper spray and tasers as defensive weapons and the whole premise a out carrying a weapon to defend yourself. This for most people in the uk would be proportionate in view of the risk of crime to most people. The reason these defensive weapons are classed as firearms and the general public are not allowed them is a question which we should be probing. The reason is because are right to defend our selves has been eroded. We are supposed to let life take its course and then let the highly trained professionals clean up afterwards. It would be I treating to see what would happen if the feminist lobby took up the cause after it would be the weaker sex who would benefit the lost from having a leveller. Well I think the news from America this morning puts this thread to bed. What has happened? Have more people been killed in a massacre without means to defend themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 [quote name="wildrover77" post="2684853" timestamp="1416812768 What has happened? Have more people been killed in a massacre without means to defend themselves. 12 year old boy shot dead by police in a playground because he was holding a toy gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30172433 A tragic event for all concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 12 year old boy shot dead by police in a playground because he was holding a toy gun. The 12 year old boy apparently had a toy pistol in the waistband of his trousers and when told to put his hands above his head he reached for the toy gun! Two shots later and someone has that on his conscience for life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 .I asked simply to see what category you fell into. I think I've made it clear Mick; I fall into the 'having the freedom to choose' category. Like I've said, it doesn't have to be a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildrover77 Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 The 12 year old boy apparently had a toy pistol in the waistband of his trousers and when told to put his hands above his head he reached for the toy gun! Two shots later and someone has that on his conscience for life. The police man can have a clear conscience he did nothing wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 The police man can have a clear conscience he did nothing wrong I completely agree, but he still has to live with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshwarrior Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 .it is illegal to shoot people fatally . It is perfect legal under our self defence laws of proportionality to shoot someone in self defence if it is a proportional response to their offensive act, ie your out pigeon shooting and someone points a pistol at you, and you believe your life is in danger you can shot them with your shotgun! This UK law and our Armed Forces are restricted by this as well as civilians in the UK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 The police man can have a clear conscience he did nothing wrong Only if he is as arrogant and blinkered as you seem to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildrover77 Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 Only if he is as arrogant and blinkered as you seem to be.most people are blinkers. I don't know how you can insinuate the police has done something wrong and should feel responsible for the death. He was doing his job. If you behave so irresponsibly in USA you should expect the worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 It is perfect legal under our self defence laws of proportionality to shoot someone in self defence if it is a proportional response to their offensive act, ie your out pigeon shooting and someone points a pistol at you, and you believe your life is in danger you can shot them with your shotgun! This UK law and our Armed Forces are restricted by this as well as civilians in the UK Why would you go shooting pigeon with a pistol.;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisjh Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 anyone who remotely thinks that handguns or relaxing our existing gun laws is the right thing to do needs to have a serious talk to themselves, it only takes 1 idiot to slip through the net just 1 and we have over the years had a few, Hang your heads in shame better still go and beg forgives from the families of these children and the others killed by idiots with guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildrover77 Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 anyone who remotely thinks that handguns or relaxing our existing gun laws is the right thing to do needs to have a serious talk to themselves, it only takes 1 idiot to slip through the net just 1 and we have over the years had a few, Hang your heads in shame better still go and beg forgives from the families of these children and the others killed by idiots with guns. anyone who remotely thinks that handguns or relaxing our existing gun laws is the right thing to do needs to have a serious talk to themselves, it only takes 1 idiot to slip through the net just 1 and we have over the years had a few, Hang your heads in shame better still go and beg forgives from the families of these children and the others killed by idiots with guns. anyone who remotely thinks that handguns or relaxing our existing gun laws is the right thing to do needs to have a serious talk to themselves, it only takes 1 idiot to slip through the net just 1 and we have over the years had a few, Hang your heads in shame better still go and beg forgives from the families of these children and the others killed by idiots with guns. That is absolute nonsense. If you believe this then you believe we need to ban all guns as other sporting weapons were used in cumbria and the other legally held weapon shootings since. I take great offence at being accused of somehow being evil because i continue to enjoy shooting pistols. I have no reason to beg forgiveness or hang my head in shame for any crime that has been omitted using any sort of weapon and to tell me i am somehow responsible is disgusting. Coming out with a statement like this is like accusing boston mick for being responsible for Cumbria due to his ownership of shotguns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshwarrior Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 Why would you go shooting pigeon with a pistol.;) Read the post or RTFQ then it will be clearer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 Read the post or RTFQ then it will be clearer. Sorry the little smiley faces were supposed to lead you to the fact it was meant as a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 For all those talking about legalising taser and mace etc as 'defensive' weapons, the trouble is then when a scumbag gets caught with one he can claim its for defence - its always for defence until someone uses it for offence! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 For all those talking about legalising taser and mace etc as 'defensive' weapons, the trouble is then when a scumbag gets caught with one he can claim its for defence - its always for defence until someone uses it for offence! There is truth in that, however it could be argued that carrying the item alone should not be reason for prosecution. If it can be proven it was carried for intent for anything other than defence then fair enough and that would have to put the onus on the Police to establish that. I am very much against carrying guns as a weapon of defence as I think there is no justifiable grounds, in the wider scale, in the UK for an individual carrying a weapon of deadly force for self protection. Carrying something like pepper spray I am more sympathetic to as I do believe a balanced justification could be reached in that respect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 on the bbc world news page with regard to the child shot in America at the bottom of the article it says that particular police force is under investigation at the moment for their use of force tactics.another instance quoted is a car chase where two officers fired over 130 shots at the vehicle.that would seem not only a little reckless but dangerous to anyone in and around the area.but as it has been pointed out the American system works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadeye18 Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 Well russia really has come a long way since the old commie era.well done to them to treat their citizens as adults that can be trusted and not little children like they do here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 anyone who remotely thinks that handguns or relaxing our existing gun laws is the right thing to do needs to have a serious talk to themselves, it only takes 1 idiot to slip through the net just 1 and we have over the years had a few, Hang your heads in shame better still go and beg forgives from the families of these children and the others killed by idiots with guns. I find that post exceedingly offensive and idiotic beyond comprehension. Are you seriously suggesting I should hang my head in shame and beg forgiveness for the acts of a mad man in Dunblane ? What have the murders in Dunblane got to do with me? By your logic, no doubt you'll be begging forgiveness from the families of the victims of Derek Bird. Unbelievable ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted November 24, 2014 Report Share Posted November 24, 2014 Well russia really has come a long way since the old commie era.well done to them to treat their citizens as adults that can be trusted and not little children like they do here. It could be argued the reason they are doing this is because they can't trust the adults, the police and politicians are often corrupt, local gangs run what passes for justice, arming the populace is a quick way of letting trouble take care of itself... 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.