Get a gun

[superlightr]

.

AJS- said:

Your point about drinking is interesting, this country is full of council estate dwelling drinking scum, all it takes is for bald Barry to have one too many and go outside with his legally owned shotgun in one hand and bottle of cider in the other for us to have a major problem. To combat that we may have to arm the standard police as well.

but you miss the thought that Bald Barry and his strongbow mates can legally get hold of a shotgun now. But we dont see bad bald barry running down the street with the 12g now do we.

as mentioned before - all of us can have a gun at home legally if we want and use it for home defence if the situation warrents it. Be nice to have a pistol but hey im happy with the 12g if thats all Im legally able to hold.

Edited by superlightr on Monday 28th May 18:09

[hairykrishna]

superlightr said:

as mentioned before - all of us can have a gun at home legally if we want and use it for home defence if the situation warrents it. Be nice to have a pistol but hey im happy with the 12g if thats all Im legally able to hold.

This. A thousand times this. As I've said a bunch of times on this thread, a shotgun is one of the best weapons anyone could desire for home defence. They are available to anyone with a shotgun certificate which is basically anyone with a gun safe and no criminal record. At the moment you can shoot someone if you feel your life is threatened.

What are the people who want the law changed proposing should be different?

[AJS-]

hairykrishna said:

What are the people who want the law changed proposing should be different?

I would like to see home defence as a legitimate reason for acquiring a shotgun, with a low to zero threshold for showing that you believe you're in danger. Secondly I would like to law around self defence to be clarified so that there is no expectation of homeowners complying with or avoiding confrontation with an intruder.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

AJS- said:

I would like to see home defence as a legitimate reason for acquiring a shotgun, with a low to zero threshold for showing that you believe you're in danger.

Great. So your next door neighbour is putting his bins out and he sees a shadowy figure lurking around your house. So being the good neighbour he goes to investigate. And you come out like an wannabe character from Pulp Fiction and blow his brains out. Genius!

[iphonedyou]

AJS- said:

I would like to see home defence as a legitimate reason for acquiring a shotgun, with a low to zero threshold for showing that you believe you're in danger. Secondly I would like to law around self defence to be clarified so that there is no expectation of homeowners complying with or avoiding confrontation with an intruder.

A low to zero threshold? Why zero? Surely that means that you need show no proof that you believed you're in danger, ergo can shoot at will? That's unworkable in the extreme - and a terrible, terrible situation to place the country in. If you extend that viewpoint to it's logical conclusion, your own children could be shot with zero justification.

I should be clear that I'm not particularly anti or pro gun. I can see merits on both sides of the debate. But at the very least, were more extensive legalisation and the likes of CCP to be introduced, I'd want bloody tight legislation. And zero justification for self defence shooting would be a laughable concept, were it not so dangerously misguided.

Edited by iphonedyou on Tuesday 29th May 08:47

[AJS-]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

AJS- said:

I would like to see home defence as a legitimate reason for acquiring a shotgun, with a low to zero threshold for showing that you believe you're in danger.

Great. So your next door neighbour is putting his bins out and he sees a shadowy figure lurking around your house. So being the good neighbour he goes to investigate. And you come out like an wannabe character from Pulp Fiction and blow his brains out. Genius!

How often have you swung a cricket bat or punched someone on that basis?

iphonedyou
The zero threshold for showing danger wasn't to do with should you actually shoot someone, but to acquire a weapon in the first place. A lot of countries, including Northern Ireland allow the purchase of handguns for self defence, but as I understand it you have to show quite a high level of risk to qualify. You are I can't get one, Ian Paisley or Martin McGuinness probably can.

[iphonedyou]

AJS- said:

How often have you swung a cricket bat or punched someone on that basis?

iphonedyou
The zero threshold for showing danger wasn't to do with should you actually shoot someone, but to acquire a weapon in the first place. A lot of countries, including Northern Ireland allow the purchase of handguns for self defence, but as I understand it you have to show quite a high level of risk to qualify. You are I can't get one, Ian Paisley or Martin McGuinness probably can.

Well between you and me, I doubt Martin McGuinness has ever abided by the law when getting hold of a handgun. Or an RPG launcher.

I see what you mean.

[hairykrishna]

AJS- said:

I would like to see home defence as a legitimate reason for acquiring a shotgun, with a low to zero threshold for showing that you believe you're in danger. Secondly I would like to law around self defence to be clarified so that there is no expectation of homeowners complying with or avoiding confrontation with an intruder.

Unlike a FAC you don't have to give a reason for acquiring a shotgun if I remember correctly. Admittedly the firearms officer who issues it might ask you anyway, and 'to shoot burglars' might get you turned down in short order.

The law on self defence is very clear - if you believe your life is in danger you can kill or seriously wound someone in self defence. I think this is fine. There's no onus to comply/avoid confrontation (although the later may be a good idea). You hear a noise, you investigate, it's a burglar. How's he going to make you comply with anything, without threatening violence, while staring down the wrong end of a 12 gauge?

A low to zero threshold is a ridiculous idea in my opinion.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

AJS- said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

AJS- said:

I would like to see home defence as a legitimate reason for acquiring a shotgun, with a low to zero threshold for showing that you believe you're in danger.

Great. So your next door neighbour is putting his bins out and he sees a shadowy figure lurking around your house. So being the good neighbour he goes to investigate. And you come out like an wannabe character from Pulp Fiction and blow his brains out. Genius!

How often have you swung a cricket bat or punched someone on that basis?

Never. Because I am not a macho type confrontational person. I don't own a baseball bat. But easier access to guns will attract the kind of lowlife gansta wannabe who will be proud of the fact that they shot someone. Even if it was the milkman on an early shift!! We've already heard from some of them on this thread.

[iphonedyou]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Even if it was the milkman on an early shift!!

[Halb]

hairykrishna said:

Unlike a FAC you don't have to give a reason for acquiring a shotgun if I remember correctly. Admittedly the firearms officer who issues it might ask you anyway, and 'to shoot burglars' might get you turned down in short order.

I'm guessing 'shoot st up', would also get a negligible response.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6uto4wQY_g

[AJS-]

hairykrishna said:

The law on self defence is very clear - if you believe your life is in danger you can kill or seriously wound someone in self defence. I think this is fine. There's no onus to comply/avoid confrontation (although the later may be a good idea). You hear a noise, you investigate, it's a burglar. How's he going to make you comply with anything, without threatening violence, while staring down the wrong end of a 12 gauge?

Ok.

If someone is prepared to force entry to my house to deprive me of my possessions then I believe it's quite likely that they're prepared to do me a mischief in the process should I try to stop them doing so. Therefore, I believe my life to be in danger. So, if this is perfectly ok, why not let people equip themselves properly to do so?

[hairykrishna]

AJS- said:

Ok.

If someone is prepared to force entry to my house to deprive me of my possessions then I believe it's quite likely that they're prepared to do me a mischief in the process should I try to stop them doing so. Therefore, I believe my life to be in danger. So, if this is perfectly ok, why not let people equip themselves properly to do so?

Although I feel I'm repeating myself; we do.

From wiki;
Shotguns (Section 2 Firearms under the 1968 Act as amended) are defined in UK law as smoothbore firearms with barrels not shorter than 24 inches (60 cm) and a bore not larger than 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter, no revolving cylinder, and either no magazine or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges, plus one in the chamber; shotguns with higher capacity require a firearm certificate. Shotguns thus defined are subject to a less rigorous certification process than for the full FAC; an applicant is not required by law to make a good case for being granted a certificate, but the police may withhold a certificate if they consider that the applicant does not have satisfactory security in place, or granting it would constitute a danger to public safety or to the peace. A certificate holder may own as many shotguns as can be securely stored.


So if you feel the need get a shotgun certificate, 3 shot semi shotgun, 00 buckshot cartridges.

[Jamie VTS]

If your shotgun is locked in the gun safe, seperate too the rounds which is how I understand it has to be. How practical is it going to be to be able to arm yourself if you do actualy find yourself in the situation that could warrant the gun being used in self defence?

[hairykrishna]

Jamie VTS said:

If your shotgun is locked in the gun safe, seperate too the rounds which is how I understand it has to be. How practical is it going to be to be able to arm yourself if you do actualy find yourself in the situation that could warrant the gun being used in self defence?

Gun safe in the bedroom, bolt on the bedroom door. You can store the cartridges wherever you like - there's not even a requirement for them to be in a safe.

Any gun should be properly secured anyway. I think any law that relaxed that requirement would be a very bad idea.

[Jamie VTS]

hairykrishna said:

Gun safe in the bedroom, bolt on the bedroom door. You can store the cartridges wherever you like - there's not even a requirement for them to be in a safe.

Any gun should be properly secured anyway. I think any law that relaxed that requirement would be a very bad idea.

I think you missunderstood, I wasnt saying that the law should be relaxed, just asking how practical it would actually be to use your gun in self defence

[AJS-]

hairykrishna said:

Although I feel I'm repeating myself; we do.

From wiki;
Shotguns (Section 2 Firearms under the 1968 Act as amended) are defined in UK law as smoothbore firearms with barrels not shorter than 24 inches (60 cm) and a bore not larger than 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter, no revolving cylinder, and either no magazine or a non-detachable magazine that is not capable of holding more than two cartridges, plus one in the chamber; shotguns with higher capacity require a firearm certificate. Shotguns thus defined are subject to a less rigorous certification process than for the full FAC; an applicant is not required by law to make a good case for being granted a certificate, but the police may withhold a certificate if they consider that the applicant does not have satisfactory security in place, or granting it would constitute a danger to public safety or to the peace. A certificate holder may own as many shotguns as can be securely stored.


So if you feel the need get a shotgun certificate, 3 shot semi shotgun, 00 buckshot cartridges.

Assuming a policeman allows me to, and believes a lie about an abiding interest in shooting ducks in West Denton? And then I'm still going to have to have a good lawyer, and hope for a sensible judge (!) if it ever gets used.

I know that gun control is broadly accepted in the UK, I just wish it would be rolled back far enough that there was an active deterrent for those individuals like the ones in the article I linked earlier, who feel absolutely no fear of the law, nor any other consequences arising from harassing a family out of their home.