CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am afraid that the world of constant anti police and anti authority extremism is not my world. I had hoped, being a keen shooter, to be involved in discussions about shooting, not constantly responding to people who dissect every sentence I make, put their own interpretation on it and then have the effrontery to tell me that I am using my official capacity to further some sort of agenda. I can well understand that some people dislike certain things to do with the police, but it is the constant unceasing uninformed vitriol that amazes me. It is my profession, an honourable one and one that I am proud to have achieved success in. I do not take kindly to ill informed and totally erroneous statements being made. I do not like the fact that I constantly receive threats and hate mail, for no other reason than the fact that I am a police officer. It is very sad. It has merely confirmed my view that there are a sizeable number, albeit the tiny minority, of shooters who are thoroughly objectionable people. I have unsubscribed from CS, having been invited to join a forum that consists of pure shooters, sportsmen, who are more my cup of tea. I am not decrying you, but the constant sniping is wearying. I am sure there will be some sighs of relief...one less person to disagree with. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] If IG is still with us and has any concerns about this please let us know. Until recently I was unsure about these things myself but not now. And I have a duty to put him right g. The term we use is 'barrack room lawyer'. Someone who thinks he knows it all, but can't put it into practise. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Mercy for boy who cut bullies
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] You aren't going to get away with that, that's not what you said, you said under certain circumstances you could accept that some people had justification for a firearm for self-defence. I despair. That's hardly in my official capacity is it?? Can there be anyone else on this group who is subject to such intense scrutiny and hatred? IG -- Pardon? How is that comment anything to do with hatred? And what the heck has your "official capacity" got to do with it? Are you telling me you have one opinion at work and another when you're not? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] as I'd come to the conclusion that offering reasoned argument against IG's wilder claims was a waste of time and effort, since he simply resorts to saying he knows what's best for us, in true authoritarian style. I've given up - life's too short. Perhaps he really is the malign agent provocateur some have suggested, and not a policeman at all. Is this really the best that you can do? What wild claims? When have I ever said that I know what's best for anyone? Go on, I challenge you to come up with an example. Malign agent provocateur? Come on. What you really mean is that when someone challenges the nice cosy world that you have built up around your distorted beliefs, you don't like it. You aren't interested in shooting as a sport, are you. Be honest. IG PS In response to the allegation that I am hiding behind a cloak of anonymity, made by another subscriber.well, if the membership think that is the case, I would welcome comments, either way. I am intrigued to know what my refusal to identify myself has got to do with anything. I am sure that even the person who made that typically ill informed comment can grasp the concept that it would be a short step to discovering my address, etc. for anyone who wanted to. Or does Mr Ayoobs course not teach that the best form of self defence is not to need it at all? -- IG is genuninely a copper everyone, I can vouch for that. Ayoob and anyone else who is decent teaches the concept of being observant. I think Jeff Cooper boiled it down into some sort of warning system, i.e. most people live in condition white whereas you should live in condition yellow. Frankly there were so many colours I could never remember it. Be observant is the best advice. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Policeman dies after gun goes off accidentally
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] A New York detective has bled to death after his gun went off while he was cleaning it. How can a gun go off when its being cleaned? And if it does, how on earth can it be accidental? Negligent, yes. Acidental, no. IG Stands by to repel boarders Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Target-Mini 14 Wooden stock
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I know where there are a number, if you would care to email me. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] IG you are as socially inept as you are legally. Well well well. What a comment form someone who uses the prehistoric American police concept of justifiable use of a firearm. AOJ. My God. That died a death in the 60's! I still have an old black and white training film telling us all about this concept. Get up to date. Even Mr Ayoob doesn't use this old rubbish! What you quote has got no bearing to UK law whatsoever. Full stop. So I am afraid that you take over the legally inept mantle at once. Go stand in a corner with a traffic cone on your head. lol If self defence is a non starter for you IG, give up your baton, gas, cuffs and radio you wear out on patrol. When trouble comes for you, you'll be empty handed and alone with no prospect of salvation. Then and only then you might realise what being a victim is like and what everyone else out there suffers for needlessly, because of cowards like you I do it as a profession, unlike some of the wannabe rambos, you included, that post here. Whether you like it or not, you have no connection with law enforcement in the UK, whereas it is my job. Whatever yours is, I wouldnt presume to tell you how to do it. I very much doubt, judging from what I have read, whether you would have the moral or physical courage to walk to the corner shop without some artillery or weaponry about your person. I have the wounds and scars of numerous encounters with violence, all in the course of protecting the rights of individuals like you, that spout a load of crap about things that they know nothing about. Like police training. You dont know what we do. I, however, do. Very easy lesson...dont talk crap about things you know nowt about. How dare you have the unmitigated temerity to call me a coward. You dont know me. I personally don't know you and am thankful for that privilege. You are a prime and classic example of why we should have gun control. You are yet another Americanophile, incapable of seeing the reality of life in the UK. Go live there. It would suit you. I have never read such a rabid anti-police load of crap anywhere. For someone to be so bitter, twisted and insecure cannot be healthy. All you do is show your hatred of the police. You contribute nothing to anything with your twisted logic and references to America. Do real shooters a favour and take up stamp collecting. Or train spotting. love and kisses IG -- Any more flaming and you will both be taking up something other than reading Cybershooters email messages. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-self defence
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're talking about bodyguards being ineffective, which if anything only bolsters the argument for the intended victim to be armed. If the Queen had had a pistol in a holster, she could have shot back. Not if she was lying on the pavement leaking blood all over. Its not just bodyguards, its the fact that, by and large, firearms are of very little use in self defence when the practicalities are thought through. I have had people try to throttle me too, and didnt need a firearm to stop them. I accept that a person who is physically smaller would have difficulty, but what about the numerous other things APART from a firearm that could be used? CS? Pepper? A rolled up newspaper? Pen? Kick in the groin? Headbutt? Carrying a firearm on the off chance that you might get mugged will never convince me. I am afraid that I have no desire to join the NRA of America. No doubt they publish excellent articles, but I find that the overwhelming majority of American shooting literature is very interesting, often amusing, but of very little relevance to the UK, whether it be on hunting, target shooting or self defence. The technical stuff is excellent, I grant you that, far better than anything we produce here. IG -- With the possible exception of CS or pepper spray none of those would have worked in the situation I was in. He was obviously a bit out of his head and the grip he had me in prevented a headbutt or a kick in the groin. Personally I think lethal force was the only way out of it, because if he was a bit drunk I doubt sprays would have worked either. And he was much heavier than I was. You are simply never going to convince me that firearms are of no use for self-defence. Save your breath. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think this point drives to the heart of the debate on gun control and the fact that you answer it with levity disappoints me. Oh dear. You dont really need me to answer this! Prince Phillip did it better than I could when he quoted the case for cricket bats being banned. BTW, lots of people are barred from driving cars, but would not be barred from possessing firearms. The point I have tried to make, with a severe lack of success, is that some restrictions are necessary, unless you want the likes of Mr Kleasen and every other psycopathic criminal on the country wandering around tooled up to the eyeballs. Who would you rather make the decision on suitability? Are you in favour of a total lack of control? Please dont answer with levity. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-self defence
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Salmon Rushdie said on US TV that he had asked for a gun and the police had refused. Who can coherently argue that people like that shouldn't have a gun for self-defence? OK, I'll take up that challenge, as you might expect G Why should someone who had 24 hr police protection need a gun for self defence? In any case, a gun would be of no use to old Salmon. The history of assassinations fails to record a single time, that I am aware of, where an assassination attempt was foiled by either the principal or his guards resorting to firearms. OK, someone will tell me differently, but allow me this. JFK. Fat lot of good the secret service and police were there. Ronald Reagan. Not a single one of the security detail were able to return fire. Only the reactions of one member saved Reagan, and that had nothing to do with firearms. A good example of the pyramid effect, where all the security jump on the assailant and only one takes any notice of the safety of the principal. Rabin, the Israeli PM. Protected by arguably the most efficient, ruthless and highly motivated bodyguards in the world, they were unable to stop him being killed. No firearms were used by any of them. The Pope. I think it was a member of the Swiss Guard who got hold of the assassin. Firearms were of no use. Prince Charles in Australia. The guy who ran at the stage, discharging a blank firer, ran past any number of armed police and security staff. No one even drew a weapon, they all just watched. It was left to the princes PPO, who was unarmed, to deal with the threat by grabbing the prince and ushering him to safety, after delivering a kick to the would be assailant. Another excellent example of the pyramid effect, btw. The whole world jumped on the assailant, only one guy looked after HRH. Good job there wasnt another assailant. Princess Anne on the Mall. OK, the PPO's walther jammed through poor maintenance, but it didnt deter the kidnap attempt. The Queen. The guy who discharged the blank firer could easily have been using a real gun. All the firearms in the world wouldn't have stopped him. Ghandi. The Norwegian Prime Minister. Robert Kennedy. Martin Luther King. The list just goes on and on. I cannot recall any incident where a VIP's life was saved by either him or a BG drawing or using a firearm. OK, you say, but we arent really concerned about that, a determined assassin isn't bothered about his own safety and therefore wouldnt be deterred by the presence of firearms. Yes, very true. So are we thinking more in terms of, say, a house burglar? Look at the typical situation which seems to be the most feared. Try to ignore the American mentality here, just look at things as they are here. You are awakened by a noise downstairs. You get your pistol or whatever you prefer from the bedside cabinet, and go to investigate. Thereby breaching one of the first rules of fireams use in real lifenever advance on the known location of a gunman or suspected gunman. OK, so we have ignored this basic principle, and go on to investigate the noise. Tiptoe down the stairs and we see a shadowy figure that has breached our security and is rifling through the draws in the kitchen. Now what do we do. The house is in darkness, the only light is the torch that the intruder has and a faint glow from the street lights outside. Do we shoot him dead there and then? No, of course not. That would not be reasonable...would it? Perhaps just shoot him in th eleg or th earm? Do me a favour! We issue a challenge'stand still, I have a gundo not move, etc.' Unfortunately, the burglar is either deaf, drunk or full of drugs. He doesnt put his hands up, but tries to climb out of the window. Or walks towards you, his hands in the air, or doesn't do what he is told to do, whatever. Or there is another one that you havent seen due to the perceptual distortion of being in a stressed out condition. What do you then do? Where do you get the training to react properly? The professionals cant even do it! In my opinion, tempered by many years of experience, both as an armed and unarmed officer, the use of a firearm as defence against sudden or unexpected attack is of very little value. It is impossible to assess, react, draw and fire an accurately placed shot if the assailant is attacking you with even a knife from less than 27 feet away. Considerably more for most people, and triple that at least in the dark. If that person is using a firearm, then there is even less chance of success. If they come from behind, as muggers often do, then you have no chance. A knife pressed against your ribs is going to deter any sudden movement from you, and we then have a stolen firearm to add to the crime report and insurance claim. The quickest draw is to have the gun in the hand prior to the need for drawing arising. To follow that to its logical conclusion, you would have to walk around with the gun in your hand. Can y
CS: Field-.458
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am concerned that our friend in blue, IG, is becoming slightly jumpy. I didn't imply, old chum, that 458 Win Mag (picky!) is a viable self-defence round - unless it was for shooting a burglar's getaway vehicle, 'cos I dare say it would penetrate an engine block - I just threw a "gunny" reference into my posting to lighten things up a bit! And before you suggest I'm a "gun nut" who talks of nothing else, our pub conversation also covered the Le Mans 24 Hours, building house extensions, and the merits of emigration... Merely made the point that if our American correspondent had his way, the ol' .458 would be just a dangerous toy, cos it would be useless for self defence! I'm a little dissapointed to see that you talked of other things, tho. Not worth going out! BTW, I must point out that we don't have WPC's any more. We are all PC's. There are no women officers, merely constables. Cant recall the last time I saw a constable wearing a skirt. Those were the days. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Field-.458
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] There's a gunsmith in Austria who makes revolvers in .458 Winchester Magnum, there was a review in Internationales Waffen Magazin. Presumably he makes them for novelty value. I personally wouldn't fancy shooting top loaded .458's out of a revolver! (Wouldnt mind watching someone else do it tho) I bet he doesnt sell many! Can anyone think of a use for a .458 win mag revolver? IG -- Well, it would seem a good candidate for a slightly longer barrel, going by the picturesG. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Emperor's New Clothes
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] And BTW your snide response to our American correspondent who emphasised his freedom to carry defensive weapons was out of place: many people whose business takes them to our inner cities would be glad to be able to defend themselves against criminals emboldened by the anti-gun policies of our rulers, instead of feeling intimidated and powerless. Anthony Harrison I make no apologies for being unpleasant to an American who tries to impose his values on my country. He tries to tell us that firearms are only of any use for self defence. That if they cant be used for this they might as well be banned because they are just dangerous toys otherwise. Presumably you agree with him. I don't. I notice that no one else but me seems to take offence at this comment. Is that because the Americans and their way of life is held in such awesomely high esteem that they are beyond criticism? Is it because everytime an American correspondent speaks, because he or she carries guns on a daily basis they are then an expert and we should all bow down because we are not worthy? I actually frequently go into inner city areas in the course of my work. I am not armed, not even with a baton or CS. I don't feel threatened or intimidated, nor do I feel that I am naked without a firearm to protect myself. Nor do most of the people who live there. IG -- But it's an important point he is making. Like it or not, most firearms are designed to kill, or at least cause serious injury. Personally that never bothered me one jot because most people own them for killing something, whether it be vermin or deer or whatever, but that completely goes over the top of the head of your average urbanite - it doesn't even occur to them that people owning things designed for killing is a good thing. To them killing animals is a nasty, cruel thing. However, the argument that you should be able to own something designed to cause serious injury in case someone breaks in and tries to do you in does resonate with people who live in urban and surburban areas. They also usually don't mind target shooting, but if it's the choice between our sport and some nutter gunning them down in the street then they couldn't give a toss about our sport, and that's what the antis boil it down to. That's why the self-defence argument is so important, and it's 99% of the reason why Americans have less gun laws than we do, without a shadow of a doubt. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Field-.458
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Last night I enjoyed a couple of pints with a chum of mine, discussing such things as shooting the Winchester 458 Magnum; .. What earthly use is a .458 Win Mag (presumably thats what you mean) got to do with self defence? I assume that you agree with our American correspondent who tells us that if its not for self defence, its a dangerous toy? However, if you are going to talk about using it for the reason it was designed, i.e. hunting dangerous game in Africa, then include me in the conversation. IG -- There's a gunsmith in Austria who makes revolvers in .458 Winchester Magnum, there was a review in Internationales Waffen Magazin. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-self defence
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can just about wear the argument that there MIGHT be some people who could make out a case for carrying a firearm for protection. I am not too sure what the circumstances might be, but if that was the case, I would consider that various things would need to be applied. A degree of competence would have to be established, otherwise it would be absolutely pointless having a firearm for this reason in the first place. Anyone who has carried in real life situations knows that there are practical difficulties in using any sort of weapon for self defence. Regular checks on competence would be applied. The threat would have to be specific.i.e. not just 'I like the idea' or 'I dont really feel safe when I decide that I want to walk through Toxteth in my KKK outfit.' If the threat went away, then the reason for self defence would no longer exist so the person could get rid. The possession of a firearm for self defence would not give the owner of it the 00 prefix. Any use would be subject to the full examination by the law as it stands at the present time. I will never ever be convinced by anyone that a general right to carry firearms for self defence should ever be allowed in this country. IG -- My theory as presented to various politicians goes something like this: In New York City and some other areas of New York that the NYC licensing dept is responsible for there are about 10 million people and 20,000 pistol permits on issue. From my research our gun laws were based on theirs, rather than the other way around, and their application form makes a Form 101 look simple. Anyway, take it from me their controls are pretty tough. Now of those permits, the vast majority are "target" or "premises" permits, I can't recall the exact number of carry permits but I think it was around 3,000. You're about 20-30 times more likely to be a victim of armed crime in NYC, so let's assume there is a perfect correlation between that chance and your "good reason" for needing a license. That would mean that at UK crime levels about 100 people would have reason for a license. Multiply that by the difference in population (a factor of about 5.7) and you get a total of 570 people in Great Britain who would have "good reason" for a handgun for self-defence using the criteria the NYC licensing dept. uses. There are 50 force areas in GB, so that means about a dozen licenses per force area on issue, although in reality the Met is so huge it would certainly be less than ten in the other 49. How on Earth can it be argued that having a dozen people per force area carrying guns in public is some major threat to public safety? How can the police say they can't adequately supervise these people? They can't, and the whole argument that no-one should be allowed a gun for self-defence in this country is total nonsense. You only have to look at what ALF and the IRA have done to people in Great Britain to realise it. Salmon Rushdie said on US TV that he had asked for a gun and the police had refused. Who can coherently argue that people like that shouldn't have a gun for self-defence? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-drugs
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] These things are *directly* the result of proscription and absolutely *nothing* to do either with the pharmacological affect of the drugs nor of the rave culture. That no-one in mainstream politics or the Civil Service appears to be able to extract any meaningful lesson from Prohibition in the US leaves me gobsmacked. Naivety in the extreme. Have you ever seen the results of drug taking? I suppose the 47 people that have died as a result of Heroin overdoses this year in one small town near where I live are the result of proscription? Are you seriously, with a straight face, trying to tell me that these deaths would have been avoided if heroin was legally available to them? That the deaths have nothing to do with the pharmacological effect of the stuff? That they would have continued to lead useful and fulfilling lives if they had got the stuff at a shop as opposed to a dealer? Are you on drugs or what! IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Emperor's New Clothes
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] So the answer to your question is yes, I'd be "happy" for this guy to own guns, if I was secure in the knowledge that he was hugely outnumbered by ordinary - but armed - citizens, a situation that used to obtain in this country pre-WW1 but which is now reversed, since while it appears easy for thugs to buy an off-ticket machine gun the rest of us are approaching complete disarmament. You might be happy. I personally wouldn't be. Everyone runs away with the idea that, because they have firearms for self defence in America, then we should have them here as well. What a complete load of rubbish. You can quote all the studies you like, all the figures you want and relate examples until they bury me, there are basic unarguable differences between the USA and the UK. 1.The Americans probably need firearms for self defence, owing to the fact that firearms are so freely available and that criminals habitually carry them under circumstances whereby they wouldn't here. We dont require firearms for self defence. 2.The Americans have, in general, been brought up in a world where firearms are commonplace. Their TV and films revolve around firearms...good guys v. bad guys, etc. Their cops are permanently armed. Security guards are all armed. College police are armed. Everyone is armed because everyone is armed! National heroes such as John Wayne achieved their status by portraying characters from gun slinging days that didnt actually exist. The 2nd amendment is fiercely defended. (By a united NRA, I might add, unlike the fragmented state our shooting is in). To sum up, fireaarms are a way of life in the states. They are not here, except for a VERY small number of people. 3.Whatever the popular myth is, people are not being slaughtered in their beds in the UK due to lack of firearms for self defence. The majority of firearms related offences are committed by warring drug and crime related factions against each other. The right to own firearms for self defence is m erely going to escalate that, as those members of the gangs that have not been convicted are going to have a freely avaiable supply of firearms, money won't matter. And before you cry out that they have that now...Yes.they may carry firearms illegally.BUT they can be sent to prison for it if or when caught. If there were no controls or there was the right to carry for self defence, there would be no sanctions applicable. 4.Because the overwhelming majority, probably 99%, of people living in the UK have no previous experience of the defensive use of firearms, or ANY use of firearms come to that, arming the public would be a total disaster. If you think the streets are bad now, which you obviously do, imagine them with armed members of the public doing their vigilante thing. Not a pretty thought. 5.Probably the most important thing...people here in the UK would not wish to have the right to carry firearms for self defence! A handful of shooters might, but if it ever (which it won't) became an issue, what do you honestly think would be the outcome? (as opposed to what you would LIKE to be the outcome) 6.You seem to think that the public can be trusted to exercise common sense and responsibility. Take off the rose tinted glasses and consider what has been ignored from my previous posts re. football matches, road rage, etc. Are you honestly trying to tell me that the public can be trusted to behave responsbily? Come on, do me a favour. Finally, Anthony, tell me what your stance actually is on gun control? Are you in favour of restrictions? If so, what? If you are in favour of total freedom, fair enough, but say so. IG -- My view is between these extremes, both have good points but the reality is that I think IG is wrong to the extent that it cannot be credibly argued that absolutely no-one in GB should be allowed a firearm for self-defence. Yes, if it was freely allowed there would be a lot of accidents and mistakes because we don't have a gun owning culture anymore and yes, if you boil it down purely to need then most people don't need guns for self-defence. But without question, some do, and some would be better off with them, and that is why some people should be allowed to have them. I can sit here and reel off loads of court cases in which people had guns illegally for self-defence and got very light sentences or were let off. In essence the court was agreeing they did have a good reason for having the gun. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Find the three keys (two for firearm, one for ammunition) which are kept in different locations; Unlock the secure storage where firearm and ammunition are stored (as per FAC requirement). Insert action and load ammunition. Why did I just know that people would jump on this example and start tearing it to bits because they didnt understand what it was about or what the point was in quoting it? Sigh. Oh well, at least its reassuring to know that everyone keeps ther firearms as per their certificates. Not that I would have expected any other. IG -- I've always found the security condition intriguing, because on the one hand some poor guy in Essex gets his certificates revoked for telling his aged mother where the keys to the cabinets are, and on the other there are 10,000 people walking around in Northern Ireland with loaded guns on them, with the same security conditions on their FACs. Of course, those firearms are "in use", so they don't have to be kept locked up. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Are you going to honestly say that British folks on this list have as much ability to defend themselves as I do? If you want me to, I will. Do you want me to? Or do you want an honest answer? Why? IT's the most important reason for owning firearms. If you give up the right to use firearms as defensive weapons then they are just dangerous toys - why not ban them? No.its the most important reason for owning firearms in America. (it probably isn't actually, but who am I to start telling someone from another country .. etc) We don't have the right to use them, so we can't give up something that we haven't got. Interesting to note an American who tells us that firearms are dangerous toys if not owned for self defence. Might want to tell that one to, say, Charlton Heston ? In contrast, I am able to carry lockback knives at all times. I am able to carry pepper spray at all times. I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun. I really pity you . I would not want to live in a place where it was necessary to carry such an array of weaponry. If you do want to live in such a place, then best of luck. I wouldnt like to pay the life insurance. Could this be evidence of a different culture? Do me a favour tho...grasp this concept... what you like to do in the US of A is not necessarily applicable in the mother country. IG -- Accoring to an NSSF survey (that was really good, I thought) about 80% of people buying handguns in the US say they do so for self-defence. I've got to say that last paragraph is pretty patronising, exercising a civil right is not a sign of "necessity". The point he's making is that he has that right, we don't, or rather we did. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Web Site of interest
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Like I said before, I'm not against controls totally, but I don't think this is a good example of why they are a good idea. It may or may not be a good example, but that is neither here nor there. It's met with a deafening silence by the people who advocate NO controls, even if you personally are not one of them. Not one response has been made to this by those advocates! IG -- Well, on behalf of themG, I would say the fact that it took 20-odd years to figure out who he was and the fact he held a license during all that time does not indicate the effectiveness of the controls. During those twenty years he could have done anything he wanted with those guns. The fact that finally, twenty years later, the police figured it out is hardly comforting. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-law-abiding?
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] IG, Quite so, the presumption of innocence is the fundamental common law right; You do know that don't you? Wearily. I have never, ever, not once, ever, in any way, shape or form, or in any fashion that might have been able to be construed as such, mentioned a single word about the presumption of innocence. Why dont you read the original posting? Which part confused you? Having said that, I often get myself confused with ET's responses, so you may be forgiven. I suppose. Begrudgingly tho. IG PS If on the other hand you were merely starting an new thread and were only kindly enquiring if I knew about the presumption of innocence, then I can reassure you that, yes, I know all about it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention again. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Web Site of interest
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not hounding you, IG, but when you say, Total freedom of firearms means that people like this would be free to have firearms. you miss the point, which is that he WAS armed, and from what we know about him he would have been armed without regard to the law - as are a great many of the criminal classes. Laws only affect the law-abiding, etc - how many times does this basic point have to be repeated? And how many times does this even more basic point have to be repeated: If there were no firearms controls, then this individual would have been able to continue to possess firearms without fear of any sanctions being applied! He would still be here. What is hard about that concept! Ask yourself this: regardless of the bolshevik threat being dead..would you be happy for people such as this to have full access to firearms without any control? This, I am afraid, is the Emperors new clothes. Anti gun law advocates never tackle this argument. It wont go away. IG -- Realistically though he had owned firearms legally in this country for some twenty-odd years, so it's hardly the panacea you are making it out to be. If all the officers involved in licensing for those twenty years had been out catching criminals on foot patrol, would more crooks be in prison now? Like I said before, I'm not against controls totally, but I don't think this is a good example of why they are a good idea. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Web Site of interest
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, on behalf of themG, I would say the fact that it took 20-odd years to figure out who he was and the fact he held a license during all that time does not indicate the effectiveness of the controls. During those twenty years he could have done anything he wanted with those guns. The fact that finally, twenty years later, the police figured it out is hardly comforting. No excuses there at all. It was an absolute disgrace. Utter and total incompetence, call it what you want, no arguments from me there. However, better late than never. Especially in this case. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] But he's right that it is the best argument. If the antis argue that guns ought to banned because it might save one life, what's the counter argument? That banning guns will cost lives. Believe me, if some deer stalker goes beserk and shoots dead twenty people, your argument about controlling the deer population will look pretty weak by comparison. No it isnt the best argument. If people really want their handguns back, (me included), then the self defence argument is a non starter. If the arguments for sporting shooting arent effective, the right to carry for self defence is never going to materialise. Anyone who thinks it is valid as an argument, I strongly suggest looking on the Sportsmans Association BB. Various people advocate the right to summarily execute any intruder, publ;ic executions carried out by FAC holders, etc etc. Because your self defence argument will be hijacked by extremist latent sociopaths such as this, it is bound to fall before it ever gets off the ground. No matter how well intentioned the argument might be, it has no chance. In all honesty, how would you keep people like those mentioned away from firearms? Your other comments about deerstalkers going berserk are probably true. It is, however, a good illustration of why we will never have satisfactory legislation relating to firearms in the UK. Shooters are fragmented to an amazing degree. No unity at all. The government and anti's are laughing at us. They dont actually have to do anything, we do all the bad publicity ourselves! I think it was Jonathan who rightly pointed this out elsewhere. Each branch of shooting has its supporter, and damn the rest of the shooting world. I am sure there are people here who couldnt give a damn about deer stalkers. I equally couldnt give a damn about the self defence argument. I would support target shooters, but would never support those who want to own fully auto's. See? IG -- Well, I support all of them. The self-defence argument does work, it has to be framed correctly and in the context of this country and it's anti-gun attitude, which is why I wrote the paper on the website. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Firearms for self defence in the home are lawful as the following extract from the debates on the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 confirms. The Bill only applied to the carriage of weapons in public places. Lord Lloyd (a sponsor of the Bill) reminded the House of Lords that; If you lawfully hold a firearm for, say, shooting deer, there is absolutely nothing wrong in using it for self defence in the home PROVIDED that: It is the minimum force required in the circumstances. It is proportional to the perception of the threat at the time. The full circumstances are such that it is reasonable. Let me state an example... You come face to face with an intruder, who is armed with a knife and threatens you with it. You are able to reach your firearm, and in turn, threaten the intruder with it, who surrenders and is arrested by the police. (yes, your initial actions are an arrest, I know.) No problem. Now.if you take your firearm and shoot the intruder in circumstances where a warning was not given, although it would have been possible and reasonable to do so, then a court hearing will result. Proportionality comes into the calculation. Now if it is dark...you cant see a weaponyou are terrified... Its not an easy call to make, is it. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've got to say that last paragraph is pretty patronising, exercising a civil right is not a sign of "necessity". The point he's making is that he has that right, we don't, or rather we did. No it isnt. The point he's making is that, in the UK, we should have firearms for self defence. He is bragging that he carries all sorts of weapons. Big deal. I wouldnt want to live in a place like that. And its not me who is patronising. Why? IT's the most important reason for owning firearms. If you give up the right to use firearms as defensive weapons then they are just dangerous toys - why not ban them? These were his words! Now what can be more patronising than an American telling ME that I should have guns for self defence because that is all they are good for! Come on! I know that the Americans are held in high esteem, but I have to differ with this point of view! Dangerous toys! If we agree with this guy, then all hunting and target shooting goes out of the window! Just 'cos he's American doesnt mean that he's right you know! IG -- But he's right that it is the best argument. If the antis argue that guns ought to banned because it might save one life, what's the counter argument? That banning guns will cost lives. Believe me, if some deer stalker goes beserk and shoots dead twenty people, your argument about controlling the deer population will look pretty weak by comparison. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Certainly. Your country has effectively banned self defense for most but will probably throw its peasants against the wire the next time the German juggernaut cruises through Belgium and France. It treats people on this list like pawns to be used but which have no rights. Personally, I have a higher opinion of people on this list and recommend that they come to the US and reclaim their rights. How much do you know about self defence in this country? Absolutely nothing, judging by what you write. As for the next time the German juggernaut rolls, unless Japan gets involved, we wont be able to count on our mates from over the pond, will we now. What my country does or does not has got bugger all to do with the Americans. If the Americans want to carry every weapon ever invented on the off chance that they might meet a rabid pit bull attacking a kid (dangerous dogs act?), then so be it. Who am I to get involved in what people in another country want to do? What I personally don't need is an American telling me that firearms are only of any use for self defence and otherwise might as well be banned. They aren't and they shouldn't. Not even in the USA. BTW...I, personally, am not a peasant. For someone from the country that gave birth to Macdonalds, Jerry Springer, Appalachian mountain banjo players and the presidential elections, that comment is rather rich! God bless America! No one else will. IG -- Well, it we want to talk about tacky cultures... Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-drugs
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] We didn't have this trouble when Laudanum was available over the pharmacy counter, and we didn't have it for just two reasons : purity of supply and administration, and the lack of pushers with a vested interest both in (arbitrary) cutting and in the propagation of addiction. No, we didnt have raves, AIDS, a simmering culture of violence and many other things either. It is beyond belief that anyone can even think about legalising, or even decriminalising class A drugs. I can only think that they have never seen the results of drug addiction. Im not talking about the crime aspect, I'm talking about the physical effects of narcotics on the individual. The incontinence, the hepatitis, the HIV, the septicaemaia, the depravity and filth. The pathetic specimens that sleep in gutters and doorways. Would being able to buy the stuff at a shop make this vanish? Of course not. Like it or not, some things do need legislation to regulate them, as too many people are weak minded enough to succumb to the temptation to indulge. IG -- I say it again, it's nothing to do with being weak-minded. It's peer pressure. Platitudes that it only happens to unemployed people or weak-minded people are conjured up in the same way that the anti-gunners say all gun owners are mentally ill or own them as phallic symbols. Is Robert Downey Jr the sort of person people think lives on a council estate? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is incorrect for those reasons. Claiming otherwise through innorance is no excuse either because it breaches the common law requirement for Crown servants to know the law; 'We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.' Regards, john Hurst. Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. Someone caught me out on the hasty misuse of a single three letter word. I suppose I should do the honourable thing. Pass me the sword please. IG Doesnt alter my own opinion that there are some people who should not be allowed near to any form of weapon, even though they have not been convicted of any offence. So there. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-drugs
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] There are people who live in Blakenhall who have sold the glass and doors out of their council house to buy heroin. If there were no gun controls, they could have legally bought firearms and nothing could have been done about it. It is but a small escalation to then use that firearm to carry out a raid on an all night garage. Or anywhere really. A bit like America. BTW..armed robberies are still less common than unarmed ones. Before the posts start flying in. So logically the finite resources of the police and Customs should be focused on the most damaging drugs, and the only way to do that is to legalise those drugs which don't do the damage. Or concentrate on the source of the problem. Colombia, Pakistan, etc etc. Get rid of the drug tzar and actually do something about the importation of drugs. I am surprised that anyone who admits to seeing the damage done by tack and E could advocate legalising such substances. Cannabis...hmmm..open to argument.but Emy God. What is a recreational drug by the way? Its another nonsense term, like 'friendly fire'. Its merely an attempt to minimise and legitimise the consequences caused by ingestation of chemical substances to alter a state of consciousness or to reduce inhibitions, etc. IG -- E isn't addictive though, not like heroin at any rate. I know a guy in Walsall who is brain damaged because he used too much of it but the doctors reckon it was because of a bad recipe. He has these spells where he sits and rolls his eyes and sometimes he has fits. However, that is nothing compared to what I have seen done to people who use heroin and I tend to feel that if ecstacy were legal it would be properly manufactured so any adverse affects would be minimal. And BTW, I didn't advocate that there be no gun controls, remember? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-law-abiding?
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] How many police officers have spotless pasts, whether they were convicted or not? Would you rather form a partnership with non-criminals in your country in opposition to serious crime? Or treat every non-officer like a future perpetrator...and become their enemy? Eh? IG Confused. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-dates of laws
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] A recent case in Kent had a judge being furious with a Crown prosecutor who declined to co-operate with his plea-bargaining strategy over some Kosovars and other ex-Yugoslavian dross who'd created mayhem in the street, and they escaped the prison sentence they deserved because they "copped a plea" to some lesser offence. I'm sure you know all about that kind of thing, IG. Is this your interpretation of events, or was this information actually published? If you let me know the case details, ie roughly the date and the name of any one of the defendants, I will pull the court transcript to establish what happened. Incidentally, would it have been as big a problem if it hadn't been 'Yugosalvian dross'? What happened with presumption of innocence here? They deserved prison even prior to conviction did they? I bet a hundred million pounds (or dollars even!) that not one single person will object to your comments on here. But if I had made them! lol Not that I'm bothered, amused, yes, bothered, no! IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-law-abiding?
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whatever happened to the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Puzzled a bit by this one. Who said anything about innocent or gulity? Semantics is not a favourite subject, but here we go. Is a law abiding person one who commits offences without being caught, or one who doesnt commit offences at all? A person knows in their own minds that they are committing offences (like, say, Robert Elmer Kleasen and his li'l old bench saw) is innocent util convicted. NP there. But are they law abiding? Hmmm. I dont personally think they are! They would come to me before they went to their trainer! Dogs are a good judge of character. My terrier would rather chase rats than come to me. So I agree, they are good judges. Hope these drugs dogs didn't cock their legs on you tho! In my book, if you ain't under arrest, or being pursued, they you is as legal as legal can be. And no man has any authority to cast doubt upon you without reason. Hold on. In the states, does every arrest lead to a conviction Yippee. I'm on the way!!!!!! IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Within 1000 yards of my office there has been one murder, two attempted murders (one of whom was a WPC), one armed robbery, at least two shootings and more assaults that I care to mention. Within a mile there was a smack dealer who was ambushed by two guys with sawn-off shotguns and murdered only a few months ago. Is that all? A quiet sleep little village by comparison to where I work. Why, only yesterday there was an elderly woman parked on a double yellow line. Mind you, she did have a disabled badge on her windscreen. 4 of us held her up with CS, then gave her a ticket EACH. That was loads of points for us on our performance indicator charts. Because she had a badge, she will plead not guilty and go to court. When we have to attend, it will be EXTRA points on our appraisals! Thats a whole months worth of armed robbers! Anyone familiar with the forms we give out to people who we search? Under PACE? There is a box titled 'reason for search'. Common reason put down by disgruntled cops is ''P.I." P.I.= Performance Indicator. In other words, a mark on the league table that keeps the boss off your back. IG of Dock Green Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] What? Are you implying that we have a law regulating the MISUSE of drugs? etc Oh God. Read the whole of that post please. The reason for mentioning that list of laws was to illustrate that there are more laws to break nowadays, therefore crime figures are bound to be higher. How on earth even you can turn that around is quite fascinating but boring.. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-police corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] IG would the police support a club these days if the applicant was from an ethnic minority and in the clubs opinion not suitable? Good question. I would like to think that would be the case. As I said..I would LIKE to think The police service is so bloody PC now, the slightest opportunity to show that they arent racist is jumped on and publicised for all to see. It actually has th eopposite effect in th eeyes of most people I speak to. So, I would like to think that action would be taken.in my force I am pretty sure it would be. Can't speak for elsewhere tho. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ya know, IG? Maybe if you cops were to have Friday night ho-down, and 'let it all hang out', you chaps would gain a sense of humor! Just a suggestion . . . Whats a ho-down? Do we need banjo players? IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Web Site of interest
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please provide one example of a person on this list who has said this person should be armed. Your straw man just won't stand up. Peter Jackson openly advocates total freedom of movement of firearms. That is one. Others seek the same end. Total freedom of firearms means that people like this would be free to have firearms. Which part of this dont you understand? OK. More laws mean more offenders, I know that. BUT, and its a very big BUT.take a look around you. It is a sad but inescapable fact that the degree of responsibility and common sense exercised by the average person is somewhat lacking. Example 1. Go to a football match. See the supporters, of all ages, leaping about and hurling obscenities and threats at the referee and opposition. A non football fan cannot go into some city centres on a match day for the thousands of idiots that congregate and are intent on causing as much mayhem as they can get away with. If you live in Newcastle and have a Sunderland accent, there are some areas that you would not dare go to, as you WOULD be violently assaulted. They are 15 miles apart. All to do with football. Loads of common sense there. Example 2. Go into any city centre on a Friday or Saturday evening. Take a look around. Need I say more? Example 3. Try travelling slower than 80mph in the outside lane of a motorway. Need I go on? IG -- But surely the point is that even with all the controls, he still had guns, so he would have still had guns either way, whether there were controls or not? So what benefit did the controls provide? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-dates of laws
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Prior to 1970 it was still illegal to drive a car whilst pissed, it was just harder for the police to randomly stop people. Now Essex police CC boast about how many people have their rights infringed every christmas in the knowledge that it serves no purpose. What particular rights are they, Nick? I take it that, in your ideal society, there would be total freedom to get pissed, drive and kill the odd pedestrian? I wager thee a kings ransom if you saw as much roadkill as I did, then your mind would be changed! Anyway, you miss the point by at least a mile. I quoted these laws in order to show that higher crime figures are as the result of more laws that can be transgressed and to show how society has evolved over the past 80 odd years. For no other reason. I wasnt trying to defend them! You make an interesting statement, which I personaly believe sums up much of the angst on the site. :::Now the law abiding are penalised and criminal acts punished diminished In what way are the law abiding penalised, apart from the obvious one of having our pistols and revolvers taken away? What constitutes law abiding? Someone never convicted or someone never caught? In what way are criminal acts punished less than in previous years? Not trying to light a fire, merely interested in what the perception is. IG -- Drunk driving is an absolute offence, I'm pretty sure, there is no need to have a finding of mens rea or even a finding of negligence on the part of the driver. "Law-abiding" to me is a misnomer because I believe it is impossible to be absolutely law-abiding. Everyone breaks the speed limit or commits other minor offences all the time without even thinking about it. There is nothing particularly endearing about a person who is law-abiding over a criminal if the criminal is a person convicted of some technical offence. The key is responsibility, and moral correctness. To talk in legal terms a law-abiding person is what I consider responsible if they commit no offence that is mala en se, i.e. a crime that is accepted as morally wrong, rather than mala prohibita, i.e. wrong because it has been prohibited by law. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-voting
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is the strength of the views that counts, you are 100% wrong on that one, because a poll may say 80% of people support the laws but of those people few will base their vote on it. However, if you're a shooter, you are far more likely to take the candidate's view of guns into account when you vote. This has been demonstrated in elections all over the world If I was to accept that you are right, what happened in 1997? And in any case, show me a single candidate or prospective MP who will make an election manifesto on a single issue? It wont happen. Even if there was such a thing, there aren't enough shooters in this country who are passionate enough to make any difference. We can't even unite under one organisation! IG -- What happened in 1997 is that all the parties supported the ban. However, the SRA managed in 1988 to get enough people to vote against William Hague in a by-election that he just scraped in by I think 600 votes in a safe Tory seat. At the next election his margin was in five figures. I'll bet if you ask William Hague if he thinks shooters are a force to be reckoned with at an election his view will be different to yours. The best example I can think of is Bernie Sanders, who is the Congressman from Vermont. This guy was a founder I understand of the American Socialist Party, and the incumbent was a Republican in the 1992 election. Bernie Sanders got elected purely because he opposed the Brady Bill, even the Republican and the Democrat said as much in their concession speeches. Shooters were a major force in the elections in New South Wales I think it was in 1991 or thereabouts. My experience is that it depends on what the issue is. If it is something minor like a proposal to make background checks tougher or have a longer waiting period then gun owners aren't much of a force at an election. However if it is something severe like the introduction of a ban or registration, and one party is heavily for it and one heavily against, then gun owners can make a major difference in the outcome. There's no need for the candidate to make an election pledge on just one issue, that's not the point. If the candidate is against more gun laws and isn't extreme on some other issue gun owners will vote for him/her. "They'll have to shoot me first to take my gun." - Roy Rogers discussing the 1982 California handgun "freeze" referendum, which failed. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I should also point out that prior to 1922 (can stand being corrected if the date is wrong) british subjects did have unrestricted access to firearms and carried them for self defence, can you point to any research that shows that this was a problem (except to criminals and governments of course)? I should also like to point out that prior to 1930something or other, there was no law regulating the misuse of drugs. Prior to 1970..or thereabouts.there was no breathalyser law. Prior to 1968 there was no offence of burglary or twoc Prior to 1950 something there was no offence of carry an offensive weapon Prior to 1312 or whatever there was no such thing as a breach of the peace Prior to 1993 there was no Child Support Agency Prior to 1960 something we weren't in the EEC In the1700s we had the South Sea bubble, tulip mania and a royal family who liked to wear tights (the men that is) Oh, the good old days. When men could go shooting whilst high as a kite on opium, get pissed, carry a flick knife and screw a bird without being bankrupted by the government, then have a fight on the way home. All in the same day as well. Sheer bliss. What a beautiful society. I would like to thank you though for starting this discussion, whatever your motives or whether officially sanctioned or not. Do me a favour. I risk my bloody pension posting on here. IG -- What statistics there are do show a much lower level of crime prior to the Firearms Act 1920, with firearms at least. Statistics for London are reasonably comprehensive. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Certificate Holders
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think this debate has run its course. I cannot, in all honesty, be bothered to repeat myself all the time by responding to individual posts. I have clearly stated my position, which is universally disagreed with. (Venomously and vehemently I might add!) I would say that some of the contibutors do themselves no credit. I find personal jibes insulting, (weasel words etc et al) but, then, if that person is incapable of articulating an argument, I suppose school ground invective takes over. Every time I voice an opinion, there are howls of outrage. I realise now that is because I am corresponding with entrenched views, minority views and a number of radical views. I have tried to point out the stance of the police and the public at large, but again, most correspondents don't want to know. All I get is stories about how crap the police are, how corrupt they are, how incompetent, etc etc. I dont mind, but it takes the value out of any debate. I have even been blamed for the way the Met behaved at the visit of the chinese premier! lol. That took some beating! (as did the practical shooters one!) News for you boys. Shooters that hold your views are a minority group. There are more people go to see a single premier league football game than share your views on firearms. Parliament isnt going to change anything for that number of votes. Contrary to what Steve states, it is not the strength of the views, but the number of people who are prepared to place their vote on the basis of a single issue. Instead of blindly lashing out at every authority figure, take the time to think what is required to gain political credibility. There can only be one answer to that, and that is a united front. We will never, ever have that in this country, because all the organisations fight each other. If it was agreed by some wonderful means that, say, BASC would be the overall representative body, there would be howls of outraged indignation from people who want to carry bazookas for self defence. Similarly, if the people here and from the SA bulletin board got there way, I would be howling because I dont want to see complete freedom of movement of firearms. Does anyone else see this? Hmmm.no, perhaps not. BTW, to those that think I am corresponding here on an official basis, do yourself a favour and see your doctor. Paranoia is treatable. And for those that are being wound up, take a chill pill and settle down. This is a computer screen. Treat it as such. IG -- It is the strength of the views that counts, you are 100% wrong on that one, because a poll may say 80% of people support the laws but of those people few will base their vote on it. However, if you're a shooter, you are far more likely to take the candidate's view of guns into account when you vote. This has been demonstrated in elections all over the world. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the basis that IG feels free to pass judgement on the character of members of the shooting fraternity, I feel just as free to state that he is just a "wind-up artist", bent on provoking hasty and unwise comments by the use of provocative statements. I cannot understand why subscribers rise to the bait like ravenous trout and get hooked in the process. Well, you would wouldnt you. This is a constantly recurring one as well, when someone doesnt like a few unpalatable home truths, this is a convenient little argument to throw out. If yopu think anyone has been hooked, then read the posts again. It is pretty fair to say that all the subscribers here are more than capable of sticking up for their beliefs. I am pleased, however, with your agreement that many of the comments are hasty and unwise. An ally at last! People with convictions joining the met: I am not aware of the type of convictions that are under consideration. The generla school of thought in my area is that it is a publicity stunt to tell the HO how short of manpower the met is. If the offences involve dishonesty or violence, I do not know of any of my colleagues who would share the same air. So the answer to your question is, I suppose, I dont know but I dont think so. If you or anyone else gets wound up by that or make a hast or unwise response, pass me my hat and a knife and fork. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I G If we assume that your thoughts on this may be held by other officers, then why was it executed? Does this mean that your fellow officers, if given ANY order, will follow it to the letter, irrespective of their thoughts as to it being un-reasonable action?? Where do YOU (and your fellow Officers) draw the line?? Tom C Why dont you ask them? I can only speak for myself. What do you want me to say? Its a nonsense question anyway, which invites the response: what is your position on the mass murderers who have used firearms to kill? We have had this debate before. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Inspector Who?
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Would this be the male half of the investigative duo in the MEIKLEJOHN LEIDL mysteries? A good, well researched answer. Unfortunately, it is incorrect. You are the weakest link...etc etc. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Certificate Holders
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] The restrictions which you have in mind, be they heavy or light, bear only on people who have no desire or propensity to commit crime. Such restrictions are not in the interests of society as a whole. So the answer to your assumption is no. Guns should be sold and exchanged as freely as apples, individually or by the pound. Have to agree to disagree on this. I have no wish to live in a society where guns are as freely available as you want them to be. I find that disturbing coming from a dealer. (I presume..'Jackson rifles?) As I said elsewhere, this viewpoint of freedom from gun control is not the majority nor even a popular viewpoint. No credible political party subscribes to the theory and it will never appear on any election manifesto during the remainder of my life. It is held by a very small number of people. No matter how honourably and passionately those people hold the view, by very virtue of the fact that they are so committed to the viewpoint, they will never ever be prepared to countenance the moderate stance. They will remain, hoewver, in the minority. That fact is inescapable. I am not alone in the shooting world, not even alone on cybershooters, in being an advocate of sensible restrictions on ownership. It is amazing, and amusing it has to be said, to see the frenzied outbursts from people when someone has the sheer nerve to state an opposite viewpoint.
CS: Misc-Web Site of interest
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Take a look at http://www.kleasen.org.uk Now, I see that a gun club eventually shopped this guy. Good for them. Yes, it was outrageous that the Police gave him a certificate. No excuses there at all. Total incompetence. However, some of the contributors here would consider that it was quite OK for him to have firearms. In particular, Peter Jackson seems to advocate freely available firearms, which would mean that Monsieur Kleasen would be entitled to possess anything he wants. I would be interested in the views of the panel on this charmer. He has, I believe, now been deported back to the country of his birth. I wonder if he is entitled to possess firearms back there? Anyone enlighten me on that one? So many people like to use the American comparison, it would be interesting to know how they would treat this socially inadequate perverted murderer. IG -- Federal law prohibits anyone from possessing a firearm who has been convicted of a crime _punishable_ by more than a year in prison, so no he wouldn't be able to. Although it will be intriguing to find out if they are aware of his conviction here! Federal law also prohibits anyone from possessing a firearm who: is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; is a fugitive from justice; is an unlawful user of marijuana or narcotics; has been adjudicated mentally defective or involuntarily commmitted; has been dishonourably discharged from the armed forces; is an alien illegally in the US; is a person who has renounced their US citizenship; is a person who is not a US citizen or permament resident alien, with the exception of non-resident aliens in the US for at least six months who have the authority of the Attorney General (there is an exception for "sporting purposes"). This is in many ways more restrictive than British law, because there is no way of getting your rights back if you are convicted of a Federal offence. In Britain, a person who has spent less than three years in prison gets their ability back after five years, they only lose it if they serve more than three years, and even then, a judge can lift that restriction. However the police must be satisfied "in all the circumstances" that the applicant for a certificate is not a danger to public safety or the peace, and they must have "good reason" for Section 1 firearms. The rather large caveat there though is that there are circumstances under which you don't need a certificate to possess a firearm. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have difficulty reconciling the fact that whereas I put up with all the BS connected with owning firearms legally the local drug dealers get no hassle at all over their firearms or how they use them! This is a common thread, so lets deal with it. First of all, this is popular mythology that has come to be believed due to repetition amongst people with axes to grind. It is simply not true that drug dealers etc are allowed by the police to carry firearms without penalty. Before you repeat this mythology, take the time to do some research and find out the truth.
CS: Misc-police corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, this figure of 5% is just pure rubbish and IG knows it, he probably just chose it because it sounds catchy. If it were correct I certainly wouldn't be associating with this type of person and if it were right I would be getting rather worried, and I'm not. Well, I'm sure you are in a better position than me to judge. I *know* its not rubbish, but I include applicants in this figure, as well as people who make spurious applications for variations, etc. (you know, when you get as far as checking out good reason for possession, you find there actually isnt one. Things like that). Not a question of sounding catchy. 90% would be much more catchy! I also doubt if you have the investigative resources open to me when enquiring about people. It might surprise you to learn about the background of some people that you think are perfectly OK. (I speak in general terms of course. I am sure all of your shooting associates are perfectly fine and upstanding citizens) IG -- So you're saying people who the police decide don't have "good reason" for a variation (but hold an FAC) fit your list of being dodgy? You must be joking. All that means is that they don't fit into whatever legal definition the HO have foisted upon your licensing dept. Otherwise they are probably perfectly respectable people. We've had long threads on here about collecting. I have been turned down twice for collector's authority, so by your definition I must be a dodgy person! Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-gun carrying
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I forget his name now (McGartland?) but he applied for an FAC for self-defence and already held one in Northern Ireland. Northumbria Police unfortunately followed Home Office Guidance and Mr McGartland had a visit from some IRA terrorists. As far as I know he is the first person in recent history to apply, be turned down, and subsequently be shot. In this particular case Northumbria Police acted incorrectly, although it is more the fault of the Home Office for shoddy, narrow-minded and outdated Guidance. Unfair. This is an ongoing case, of which you only are aware of one side of the story. I very much doubt if you know the full circumstances surrounding the shooting, either. Take my word, this is not a good example to use to illustrate the need for firearms in self defence. IG -- It hardly matters what the circumstances surrounding that particular shooting of him were, the simple criteria should be whether or not he is facing a serious enough threat that he needs a gun to defend himself, the answer to that one is obviously yes and the RUC agreed, but Northumbria Police didn't, although it's largely the HO's fault. Whether he actually got shot or not is incidental, there is nothing in law saying you have to get shot to qualify, he merely has to show "good reason", which he obviously had. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Inspector Who?
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tempting first prize as it's rumoured that cops always have the best dope (or is that employ). Second prize worries me slightly as I would prefer to know which poor shooter is being roasted to provide the main course. I regret I can't claim the prize but a search of the Mets site turns up a reference on Open.gov.uk listed as Turf Fraud scandal, or trial of the detectives but "the web server was unable to locate the page" Blue pencil or flaky technology? Brian T Well, in the absence of any other entries...looks like it MIGHT be your lucky day! Tell you what..have one more go and I'll make it two nights out with the drug squad, if you get it exactly right! IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Cops Shooters tarred w. same brush?
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're part of this equation IG, so you come in for a bit of stick I'm afraid. But no-one's calling you a Nazi. OK, fair comment, I was probably overdoing the irony bit. I'm a little sensitive about nazi's. Actually, I tend to agree with most of what you say. I can see that the police service is heading down the wrong road. It is headed by far too many politically sensitive types, who are more interested in their career and promotion prospects than in the actual rights and wrongs of what policies they pursue. Classic examples that make me cringe are the blatant intimidation of wagon drivers by pushing video cameras into their faces, by creating exclusion zones, by closing off city centres so football matches can take place, the treatment of protesters at the visit of the Chinese prime minister, etc etc. I can think of many more examples, as I am sure that most contributors can The list of lost freedoms over the past 10 years is heartbreaking. There are more to come.my freedom to foxhunt will be lost soon, I can't buy my veg in lbs and ozs, I wll be forced to use the Euro as currency, to obey laws passed by the EU, etc. As another contributor said, a society gets the police it deserves, the men and women being a microcosm of society in general. IG -- I don't want to get too off-topic here but I was under the impression the law said that traders had to show metric measurements, but they could use any other measurement they wanted in addition to metric. Having been taught only metric in school and having lived in the US for six years, I have no clue about the Imperial system at all other than some of the measurements sound the same as US measurements but are actually different, so I support the idea of requiring merchants to use a system of measurement I understand! One thing that does seriously nark me off is CNN International and the reporters always use US measurements in their stories. How is anyone in Europe going to understand what they're talking about? A copper asked me how tall I was last week. "1.78 metres" says I. He didn't have a clue what I was on about! Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Target-range accident
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well being fair this dosen't sound like a negligent discharge to me. Cramp is not something you can control, if it were Swimmers wouldn't drown because of it. This seems like one of the rare occurences of a genuine accidental discharge as far as I can see. 'course its negligent. Did he get cramp in his finger AND leg at the same time, causing them to move into line with the muzzle.. lol If it had been a cop who did it, what an outcry there would be! lol IG -- Not if it was cramp, most NDs the police have seem to be due to lack of basic safety procedures. I have had cramp on a very cold range and had an AD, but I had the gun pointed downrange so it wasn't a problem. It does sound highly unlikely that it was caused by cramp though, I have to say. Perhaps the NRA would like to comment? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Inspector Who?
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hm... This wasn't the bloke who investigated the Met in the 60's-70's? When the Drugs Squad were dealing drugs, CID were setting up bank jobs and the porn squad was raiding dirty book shops and then selling the stuff back to the shop owners was it? Jonathan Laws No. Next please. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] It certainly doesn't inspire me with confidence to hear a copper saying he thinks he _knows_ certificate holders who aren't suitable to hold a certificate. Don't think, I know. And am dealing with it! Its a rolling process though.get one out of the way and another appears. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] A Then why are you not reporting this and getting their certs pulled, especially if you are correct about the "..potentially dangerous..." ones? B even if what IG was saying had an element of truth to it, (a) it's more like 0.005% and (b) why hasn't he had their certificates revoked? A: I am. And have been doing so for twice as long as you have been shooting. Next question. B: See A. -- Well, if that's true I take back my earlier comments criticising you. 'Nuff said. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well done mate. Through your own ignorance you have just condemned the people who like to shoot practical rifle Where in heavens name did I mention practical rifle shooters? Bloody hell, man, I shoot practical rifle. Where did you get this from???? IG (Bewildered!) Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-gun carrying
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't think it's as difficult to do as IG makes it out to be, all the questions of who should be allowed to carry and what the criteria should be can be thrashed out by the usual methods Parliament uses in all legislation designed to regulate something. It's done all the time. So leave it to parliament, then. That will be OK. We trust them, dont we? If so, then you must accept and agree with the current laws they have passed, i.e. the 97 amendment? Do us a favour! IG -- Parliament has already decided and stated it in law - it's whomever has a "good reason", and in the case of a handgun, who also has the authority of the Secretary of State. There is no absolute legal bar on granting authority to a person to carry a gun for self-defence. I forget his name now (McGartland?) but he applied for an FAC for self-defence and already held one in Northern Ireland. Northumbria Police unfortunately followed Home Office Guidance and Mr McGartland had a visit from some IRA terrorists. As far as I know he is the first person in recent history to apply, be turned down, and subsequently be shot. In this particular case Northumbria Police acted incorrectly, although it is more the fault of the Home Office for shoddy, narrow-minded and outdated Guidance. Members of the UUP and DUP have applied for visitor's permits to the HO for personal protection and been turned down as well. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have to say I can't recall any SGC or FAC holders that worried me to the extent that I thought they were dangerous. Some of them are a bit strange in their own way, but I suppose we would come across as being a bit strange to your average punter. I can think of some RFDs who struck me as being dodgy though, literally all of whom are either now out of business, in prison, or currently facing prosecution. Are you separating RFD's and cert holders? Most RFD's that I know also have f/arm or SC's. The American murderer chappy was both. I suppose here is as good a place as any to point out the siege mentality that exists amongst many of the subscribers here. Shooters are beyond reproach, that is the common thread. Wake up. They aren't. Every time we go to revoke a certificate, there is blind support from one or other of the shooting organisations, who are rarely, if ever, prepared to consider the argument from the police side and who will push a lost cause as far as possible purely because they are anti police. The unpalatable truth needs to be pointed out. As well as dodgy coppers, as the popular but boring thread goes, there are dodgy shooters. Get used to reality! I see them regularly! And I do something about it, as well. It is insulting to suggest otherwise. The 5% I quote includes applications for FAC's and SC's that are refused. I have no reason to backpedal, it is quite simply a fact that lots of dodgy people are attracted to firearms! Why should that be a surprise to anyone? I make no apologies at all for quoting the types of people I consider to be unsuited. I was asked, and I told the person who asked. Boy, did it touch a nerve! Too close to home for some perhaps? IG -- As the lawyer who defended John Hinkley told me, everyone has a right to the best legal defence possible. That is their right, regardless of the crime they have committed. I am talking from personal experience, having never gone shooting with any of the RFDs I consider dodgy, I have no idea if they held FACs or SGCs although it is a reasonable assumption that they did. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have to agree with both points about trusting the police and trusting shooters! I would agree that about 5% are people who have "something" about them, an "air" of racism, sexism and unpleasantness. Of whom do I speak? Police and shooters in equal measure! Don't disagree with that one. Careful, though, Richard, you will be castigated, slagged and called nasty names for agreeing with the filth! Well, not totally agreeing, but agreeing a little bit. You'll start getting the hate mail soon! lol IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think IG has too is being a bit misleading when he says he is preventing the "wrong" sort of people from owning firearms. You are doing no such thing! Only preventing certain people, who you don't like, from LEGALLY owning firearms. All you are really achieving, if anything, is to force people who want to own a firearm (for whatever reason) to do so without putting up with the expense and hassle of jumping through your hoops etc etc. Once again, the paranoia has re-surfaced with a vengeance! I certainly never mentioned Hitler photos as you suggest. Once again, the disturbing trend towards obsession with Nazi's has surfaced.I am not even going to try to defend myself against things that I never said! Get a grip! (I have no problem with people worshipping Nazi's. I have no problem with devil worshippers. I even have no problem with shooters!) I presume that you are one of the inteligentsia who think that anyone, under any circumstances, should be allowed to possess a firearm for any reason whatsoever. In other words, you appear to be in favour of total freedom from controls. Fine. I ,unfortunately, along with many other millions of people, do not share your views! Do me a favour though, get your quotes right before you run away at the mouth. IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the case of Stefan Kisko he was convicted of raping and murdering a child. He did 16 years inside as a child molester. Had the law allowed, he would have been hanged. The law didn't allow, so where is the point you are making? The law didn't allow Hindley, Brady, Dennis Neilsen, Peter Sutcliffe, Black, the Wests, too many paedophiles to mention and many others to go the way they rightly should have. Go on then, make me out a good reason why they are still alive? (Apart from Fred West, who did the honourable thing). IG (member of the Pierrepoint fan club) ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Again, why let fact get in the way of a good rumour. I quoted the oft repeated comments that are spouted by the rabid anti-shooting lobby. As the point seems to be lost, why not consider the reality of things. If a rumour is repeated often enough, it becomes fact in the mind of the listener or reader. As I like to think that I am a fairly intelligent individual, I am able to use my own experience of life, of people, of my occupation and when a little common sense is applied, I find that the assertions that I repeated are wholly innaccurate and mostly false. Nevertheless, I repeated them. If you read the responses to that post, despite the fact that I made it abundantly clear that these were RUMOURS, the respondees have, without exception, considered that these are views that I personally hold, or consider to be true. Now then. As it has been written that 66.6% of police officers are corrupt, going by the above experience, eveyone is going to take that as gospel, when in fact it is total, insulting, feverish and rabid CRAP! It does get really boring reading the ill informed comments on the police. Fine, if there is something tangible and informed, but to foster comments such as 'I have heard that ...' is a waste of time! While we are at it, lets deal with some of the comments, no doubt believed, that were made by Norman. nor the assertion that the UK police are the occupational group most likely to possess illegal firearms for the purpose of protecting themselves against the personal malice of the criminals they are paid to pursue. Where in the name of creation did this come from? lol Its like me saying..'actually, bank managers are the most likely people to possess illegal firearms' Benefit of experience..real experience not rumour fed experiencethere is not a problem with police officers having illegal guns for self defence. Doesn't happen. Enlighten me if you know of something that I don't, but try to be factual. The matter of fraudulent police clear-up rates for crimes like burglary has been extensively covered in the national press and I don't see how IG can deny that every member of the police is aware of what's going on and presumably can live with it or we'd have police demonstrations in Wembley Stadium protesting about it. The fraudulent clear up rates are a perennial bone of contention. The home office decides what statistics will be used in clear up rates and in crime recording figues. Instant reduction was made when attempted twoc was made a summary offence with no power of arrest. The effect was..when I got called to a damaged vehicle, (locks smashed, ignition ripped out, etc) I would record it as a clear attempted theft of a motor vehicle. As the criminal attempts act reduced the attempt to a summary offence, it was not therefore part of the home office recordable crime statistics. The crime figures fell overnight! A far as clear ups go, this debate has always centered on prison and offender visits. An offender who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment would be visited in prison, and would make numerous admissions of crimes. He or she would make these admissions for a number of reasons. They knew that no action would be taken against them, as they were already serving a term of imprisonment. They were therefore making sure that there would be no charges waiting for them when they got released. They often got rewardscigarettes, chocolate, etc. (no, NOT drugs.) A day or so talking to the police relieved the boredom of sitting in a cell. If you look at the HMIC reports on every police force (available online from HMIC web site) you will find all the information about crime statistics, including the methods of compilation. Before running off at the mouth about things like this, try doing some research about the real facts. The situation of UK police corruption deriving from the expanding drugs market in the UK and mirroring what has happened in the US is something I would have thought was fully accepted. No, 'fraid not. No one I know accepts in any way, shape or form any form of corruption. If a bent copper is caught, he goes to prison. Rightly so. I have never met an officer who would hesitate to take action against anyone who is involved in any form of drugs related corruption. If you have any evidence that officers are involved in this, let me know - anonymously if necessary, or through a third party, and I will publicly and openly take the most stringent measures to ensure the longest term of imprisonment is imposed on the guilty parties. I have no problem with that. As for insanity, I personally consider it insane that policemen are being put on the street without sidearms to protect themselves with and that they are not expected, as they are elsewhere, to go armed at all times in uniform or not Personal opinion, fine, I can live with that. My personal opinion is that it would be totally insane (and
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] When I was a boy I was taught to trust and like the police; these days I don't. I do my best to keep contact with the police to an absolute minimum, and the same goes for a hell of a lot of people I know. Sorry. Dear Ant My point exactly. I am a shooter, and used to think that all shooters were great people. Having worked with licensing for some years, I now realise the amount of unpleasant, potentially dangerous and thoroughly objectionable people that own firearms certificates. Before I hear the howls of protest, let me state that these form about 5% of the total in the area that I work. That 5%, however, colours the remaining 95%. All tarred with the same brush.unfair, but thats the way it is! Frustrating, isn't it? We both know the realities of our respective groups, but are unable to get people to see the wider picture! IG PS..No relation to Adam? -- You don't own a firearm certificate, you hold a firearm certificate, this is what I was told when I attempted to claim compensation for loss of use of the authorities that I had paid for on my firearm certificate when my handguns were confiscated. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Target-Ruger M77 Heavy Barrel Rifle
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have used an M77 in .308 for a number of years now. We also have a few as sniping rifles. Using 167 gr Lapua scenar, I get sub minute of angle out to 600m, which is as far as I have ever shot it. (Fitted with a Schmidt 12 x 42) My own has seen a lot of rounds down it, over 5,000 now, and it still shoots as well as ever. I had it rebedded by Riflecraft of Suffolk about a year ago, and this produced a notable tightening of group size. (not that it was ever bad) I have used it on reds and found it was no problem lugging it around the hills. All in all, a good choice and a proven design. (the triggers can sometimes benefit from a little tinkering to take the edge off a little roughness and rebedding in glass will improve things further, as it will in almost any new rifle) IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Artists Rifles
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] They say sorry to go on at such length but thought you would appreciate the background and indeed THE FACTS Sorry if I made any mistakes, OOerr lol Amazing the reaction that you can get just 'cos you think something is naff! lol IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] The people who made the comments that IG is witness to, are extreme bigots; and if they occupy any office of government, they are particularly dangerous as well. I wonder: would they be able to defend them in an open law court? Ho hum. Here we go again. Police v shooters. The people i mentioned (tongue in cheek btw) would be able to defend their ignorant and untrue comments equally as well as the ignorant and deceitful rumour mongers who propogate the myth that 66.6% of police officers are corrupt or do nothing about corruption. Or perhaps neither of them could... or perhaps one or the other is wrong? or perhaps they are all wrong? Phew IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-statutory right of entry
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Police and everyone else generally need warrants to enter your house. There are exceptions though: In order to save life or prevent a breach of the peace, in immediate pursuit of an offender or suspected offender or person unlawfully at large, to prevent damage by flood or fire and probably a few more instances that I've forgotten about. The fire service can enter to prevent or minimise damage by fire or water. The others all need warrants issued by a court, where evidence is given on oath and in accordance with PACE where the law specifies it. The social services usually call the police when taking action under S29 MHA. Police may enter to prevent a breach of the peace, etc. The VAT men (Customs and Excise) have always had awesome powers. Who would cheat the Queens revenue men? I wish the police had their powers. IG (only kidding) Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Misc-Police Corruption
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I've heard estimates that one third of the UK police engage in corruption of some kind - ie take bribes from criminals, resell seized drugs etc, engage in clear-up figure fiddling etc. That one third of the UK police know enough about corruption going on to make a complaint with a reasonable hope of success - but don't because you make too many enemies that way. And that the remaining third of the UK police are honest, usually those new on the job and/or in lowly positions. As you might expect..lola few comments are worthy in response to the above paragraph, which was probably written with absolutely no venom dribbling onto the keyboard. I have heard that shooters are all homicidal maniacs. Not a proportion, all of 'em. I have also heard that almost one half of shooters own illegally held firearms. Sorry, weapons. I have personally, with my own ears, heard it said that shooters are not to be trusted with firearms (sorry, weapons) because they just want to kill people. I do believe it has been rumoured in the very best rumour circles, that target shooters are all sad anorak types. Another thing, heard by a cousin of a friend of mine in a pub, spoken by a man he didnt know and will never see again but was called Smith, was that 34.7 % of shooters hate the police! (this was whispered so it could have been a mistake). Moral of the story: why let truth get in the way of a good rumour! Oh, and as I'm not new in the job (or anywhere else I suppose!) then I must be in a lowly positionso I can't know what I'm talking about..or else I am corrupt! Now that what I call a no win situation. g IG PS Please excuse the sarcasm. The original post wasn't worth anything else. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Field-baboons, pressure, etc.
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Actually pressure drops with altitude. What you were experiencing was the effect of reduced air density. Density drops with elevated temperatures and altitudes. Dave What I meant was an increase in cartridge pressure, not the ambient air pressure. The higher temperature of the powder means higher pressure within the case and a possible consequent increase in velocity. Add this to the less dense atmosphere and this is how I accounted for the decrease in drop of the bullet. As I said, the less than sympathetic handling by the airlines also could account for a knocked 'scope. Indeed, on returning home, I found the reticle of my scope was broken and the elevation adjustment cover was jammed and cross threaded. Could only have been done by a severe jolt, or the rifle being removed from its case and dropped. Of course, the carriers deny responsibility. As an aside, on my return, my rifle and that of my mate appeared on the luggage carousel. We picked them up and just walked away with them. Last year, they got lost at Heathrow, although we eventually got them back, they were returned to our homes without ever being checked either by customs or airport security. UK airport and airline handling of firearms is a joke, as anyone who has travelled abroad will probably testify. IG -- I find it varies depending on the airport, at Heathrow they usually come out on the carousel, at Gatwick Customs usually intercepts them. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Target-Sportsmens Battalion - info wanted
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think they were a sniper school set up by some landed gent who was fed up of the Germans sniping his men. it consisted of gamekeepers ghillies and landed gents who enjoyed game hunting etc. I think the person you are talking about could be Major Hesketh Pritchard. If you want the history behind him and WW1 sniping, email me and I will send you the lesson on power point that I do on the subject. IG (not really a trooper before the emails start) Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Animal Rights protesters
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Small protest at first hunt of season A small group of saboteurs has descended on a hunt meeting in West Kent and tried to disrupt it. Its always been a source of wonder to me as to why the hunts never picket the ALF homes or meeting places. It would be absolutely lawful provided the tresspass laws were adhered to, and no public order offences were committed. Field sports participants seem content to sit back and take it, or pontificate about how aggrieved they are by the actions of the saboteurs, etc. Could it be that the antis are better organised than us? Or are they more passionate? Imagine the publicity if even a small band of field sports persons were to demonstrate at the home of a saboteur? IG (or could it be that being unemployed and living off state benefits gives them the time and means to go all over the place causing bother..) Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Target-Artists Rifles
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kenneth: There is a poster or plaque, can't remember which, over the entrance. It has 3 black clad soldiers, reapirators, etc. One holds an MP5, another a grenade and the third a Remington 870 I think. They are crouching, and the words 'stand by, stand by' are round the top. Underneath is the motto: 'We are the Pilgrims, master, ever we shall go a little farther' or something very similar. Personally, I think it spoils the place. Its another naff emblem that gives the wrong impression. Just a personal view, you understand! IG -- Hmm, probably a bit too SASish. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Pol-Police Review
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site of Police Federation of England and Wales: http://www.polfed.org/main_frame.htm They are still building this but soon you'll be able to send them e-mails. I guess that there are more than one or two people who can't wait to comment on some of the rubbish they print in Poice Review. Truly I don't mean this destructively but the police are such an exclusive bretheren that some sensibly written input from outside can only do good. Police Review is an independant publication with absolutely no connection with the Police Federation. It will therefore be of no use emailing the Federation office as they have no influence over this magazine. The magazine of the Federation is called simply 'Police'. It is published monthly as opposed to weekly. Why dont you try sending a letter or article for publication? You may get a pleasant surprise. Having said that, given the amount of vitriolic, ignorant and ill informed comments coupled with open hostility regarding the police that appear on here, it is more than likely that no response at all would be forthcoming. PC Plod (Fed Rep for a large area of a large police force with a good licensing dept. that NEVER make any mistakes and an even better armed response unit) (AKA as IG) Lights the blue touchpaper and stands back again. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Lawful Orders
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] My own experience of the police involvement with this evil event come from the apparent joy these blokes gained from being able to deprive innocent citizens of their lawfully owned property. I know each one of the officers personally who officiated at the infamous surrender of private property. I am staggered to hear you talk about them like this. I will take them to task! ' A constable is a citizen, locally appointed, with authority under the Crown.His primary functions are the protection of life and property, the prevention and detection of crime and the prosecution of offenders against the peace' He or she takes an oath along the lines of..'I swear by her sovereign lady the queen that I will faithfuly uphold and discharge the duties of my office without favour, affection, malice or ill will'.etc. Not the exact wording but I can get it if anyone wants it. These are the terms under which the police operate, along with a 16 point disciplinary code that includes the offences of 'neglect of duty', 'failing to conform to a lawful order', discreditable conduct, etc. etc. The punishments vary from a reprimand to dismissal and forfeiture of pension rights. I suppose IG could simply say that we could have all refused to hand our stuff in, so we are as much to blame as anyone, but we could have used some help. Now, I wasnt going to say that, as I dont believe that people should disobey or break a law, no matter how repugnant it is to the individual, but the mere fact that the overwhelming majority of shooters complied with the law proves that we are law abiding and responsible. Can the same credit not be bestowed upon the Police? Are you saying, Steve and others, that the citizens who were being disenfranchised should have been met by officers who refused to take their firearms from them? That would have been a nice safe way of getting out of it for the private individuals. Or should, perhaps, the situation have been that the citizens refused to hand things over and the police should not have done anything about it? Good idea, except when you look at it in reality, it would only have taken one citizen or one police officer to depart from that principle and the whole lot would founder. Collective action only works if it is 100%, and in this case I think it would be agreed that it would have been impossible. Someone made reference to the poll tax riots earlier. I quite agree, violent protest has, in the past, forced a change in laws. Does anyone think, seriously, that violent protest by firearms owners is going to get a law repealed? Worse still, does anyone think that a sustained campaign of terrorism is relevant to this issue? (As per the Gerry Adams connection). I don't. Heres a one to be going on with whilst I am away for the weekend. The police in the UK use .308's to destroy large animals like bulls. (Yes, I know the story about the Rhino). The favoured ammunition might be, for example, the 185gr. lapua Mega. The weapon might be an Accuracy International. What does the panel think about that? IG -- Like you, I used to think that following the law was a virtue. And let me just say I go to excruciating lengths to follow the law, and based on my personal experience I am the only person in Walsall who does. I no longer think that following the law is a virtue. It is a sickening burden, because I realised that the law is written by a bunch of morons whose only real objective is to get their name into the history books. Whether or not the law actually helps anyone is low on their list of priorities. One of the primary differences I noticed between living here and the US is that in the US it is actually possible to go through life without breaking any laws. Here in this country very often I hear people say: "Oh, that's just a daft law, don't worry, the police will never do you for it because they think it's stupid too." People here are selective in which laws they follow, simply because I think it is probably impossible to follow them all as many of them contradict one another. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity etc
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nuremberg has no bearing on any legal precedent in the UK, not is it the basis for the establishment of any legal principle. It is certainly not included in the list of any stated or decided cases.What laws do you think the police should enforce? Who should decide? Individual officers? What if some officers thought that a certain law was a good one, and others thought it was a bad one? Whichever way you dress it up, it is a gross insult to every police officer in the UK to be mentioned in the same sentence as anything to do with Nuremberg. You arent the only one to make this odious comparison, its been mentioned by more than one subscriber and its yet another popular bandwagon. No the wonder there's so great a division. IG -- All I can say is that you're going to find yourself in a very nasty lawsuit if for example you try and enforce the law which requires people who have received a speeding ticket from a speed camera to identify themselves, because that law has just been ruled illegal. That was the point I was trying to make. If an officer attempts to enforce a law which contravenes the ECHR for example, and which has been ruled to contravene it, that officer has broken the law. It will not be too long IMO before the EU sets up some sort of enforcement mechanism to stop police officers from enforcing laws of a country which contravene EU law. The results of the Nuremberg trials apply in a similar way. Don't kid yourself. With the Human Rights Act on the books every copper who violates the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights is going to have a sticky time in court justifying themselves, if the UK law they were enforcing is held to contravene the ECHR. Or are you familiar with every ruling of the ECHR and every court of every country that has signed the ECHR? There are heaps of lawyers out there who are going to make a living doing this in the coming years. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Bad Laws
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] On the point about the bad laws on the books, there is no obligation for the police to enforce them in the same way that that the Nurenberg trials held. Police officers are not blindly obligated to uphold bad law. It's not that simple I realise, but it is also not as simple as the responsibility falling entirely on the Home Office and Parliament. Lets start another hornets nest. Are you saying 'blame the servants, not the masters?' Who says they are bad laws? I presume you are talking about the '97 act? A large number of people would say they are good laws. (I dont go with that, I think it is bad and unworkeable, but I am open to others views). Are they wrong? Who says sous? What is bad law? The Child Support Agency enforce bad law. The inland revenue enforce bad law. HM Customs enforce bad law. The DSS enforce bad law. Burglars think the theft act is bad law. Drunks think the breathalyser is bad law. Where do we draw the line? Personally, I find the reference to Nuremberg extremely insulting. IG -- I never mentioned the 97 Act, you were the one who came out with the comment that it was the fault of Parliament and the Home Office, and that is a cop out (sorry), frankly. If ACPO, the Police Federation etc., not to mention yourself know these laws are bad, why not do something about them? You can go and see your MP, you can make representations to your Federation rep. and so on. If you are enforcing a bad law which harms members of the public, it may be different in magnitude but it is no different in concept with the local SS officer blindly following the orders of the Nazis. Police officers are not the servants of Parliament or the Home Office, they have autonomy and they are supposed to use discretion. That means that they bear the responsibility to a large degree for what they do. The entire purpose of the police force is to protect the public, not to be the strong arm of the Government. Or will you follow ACPO's advice and start pulling people over for doing 31 in a 30G. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-S.54 etc.
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] The point I was trying to make is that the police are subject to the same laws as anyone else. We don't have any special exemptions. I am afraid that Richard Worth has lost me off altogether. I will ring him tomorrow an see if he can explain this new law to me! If Forestry Enterprise staff can claim crown exemption ? As far as the MP5 goes, totally agree, fully and wholeheartedly. It is of no use as a weapon when conducting a house search and it is a technical solution to a training problem, as someone else put it. However, it is very sexy and easy to use, so it will probably stay. JHP should also be used, where applicable, but we cant have it 'cos the Hague convention says so. Comments on this would be gratefuly received. (Article 29 of the Hague convention on Warfare on Land, 1899 refers I think!). We use JSP instead. Oh, and by the way, Dave, a little piece of education for you. The revenue from all your beloved speed cameras goes to the treasury. The Police don't get any of it! Strange but true. Another thing.. you must have got a speeding ticket when you were a child, this might explain your fixation. More people are killed by vehicles every year than by any other cause of sudden death. Is it not right that the police pay lots of attention to this area? If you want, you are more than welcome to spend a day with me and our traffic department. We can show you some lovely things that might just help you open your eyes and see the bigger picture, but I doubt it. Anyway, if you want to take me up on this, drop me an email. I'm not kidding! It's interesting for Jonathan to insinuate that all officers who carry firearms in the course of their duties may or should go to prison. Thats what I call informed debate. Doesnt really need an answer, although it might have been an attempt at humour. A response springs to mind about sharing cells with some famous FAC holders, but I wont mention it. OOPS! IG Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Yes, those forces and indeed most forces have dedicated armed units. The problem is that the members of these units do more than firearms work. They are also expected to meet 'performance indicators' by handing out speeding tickets, HORT 1's, verbal cautions, in fact everything that every other police officer does. If they don't, then its goodbye to the unit and back to normal duties. Most units have a tenure of post policy thet means an officer will spend a maximum period as an AFO on the unit, usually around 4 or 5 years. They are then moved and a brand new officer takes their place. Dont ask me why, I dont know. Its the usual policy thing. Most AFO's are not detectives. In fact, very few nowadays outside the Met are detectives. Armed criminality is almost always the responsibility of the ARV's or specialist units. (see open govt site and HMIC reports on each force). We are all looking at less than lethal options, and bean bags are an option. I personally dont like the baton for a number reasons, but the bean bag seems to have potential. The whole issue has to be looked at. Overt arming..yes, good idea to be able to get to weapons quickly. However, what law allows the UK police to carry firearms overtly as a matter of routine? S54 of the '68 act allows crown servants to possess firearms without a certificate in the course of their duties when requitred to do so. Is routine patroling sufficient requirement for routine arming? If it is, should ALL officers be armed? Opinions would be welcome. IG -- I don't think Section 54 is remotely relevant, TBH, because as has been pointed out it provides no exemption that applies to Section 5 weapons anyway, and even if it didn't exist, it's only a matter of getting a certificate from the licensing dept. and a letter from Mr Straw. Section 54 also says nothing about the Crown Servant requiring the firearm, it says they are exempt, that's it. I don't think all officers should be armed but I make the point that all armed offenders arrested in the commission of an offence that was not known to the police via intelligence were arrested by unarmed officers according to the HO. My view is that the police should ditch the MP5s and assault rifles which scare the crap out of the public (with rare exceptions) and learn how to use pistols. I also think that patrol officers who operate in areas with high levels of armed crime (e.g. Handsworth and Moss Side) should be routinely armed with firearms. Routinely arming all the police with guns is a waste of money and the training levels (such as they are) would sink to almost nothing. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-anonymity
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, now everyone, including me, has had the chance to sound of and get things off their chest. Take a step back and look at things from all angles. ARV crews are volunteers. They have to perform normal duties alongside their armed role and switch from one to the other at the drop of a hat. Having read many of the posts, I can single out various comments, such as the one that alleges the ARV teams in his area openly brag about it in the pub after a few beers. That is appalling and, if true, should be the subject of an official complaint. In my area, they would all be dismissed form the unit. Has anyone ever asked themselves what law gives the police in the UK the power to carry firearms? S54 of the '68 act gives crown servants exemption from the need to possess a firearms certificate. S3 CLA gives ANYONE the right to use reasonable force, as does s117 of PACE. Common law also gives the right to ANYONE to use reasonable force. The judicial system in this country means that an inquest is held to determine the cause of death of a person when it has not been certified by a doctor, i.e. after an illness in hospital. The type of inquest can range from an appointment with the coroner to a full blown hearing before a jury, as all deaths involving the police MUST do by law. If the inquest finds that the death was unlawful, the coroner can order a person to be indicted. That power has been used, but usually the CPS will have pre-empted this and charged the persons believed responsible. They will NOT be anonymous under these circumstances. Contrary to the popular belief displayed by correspondents here, there are set and rigorous procedures that an officer will be subjected to if he or she is involved in a shooting. They will be treated as a murder suspect. No special treatment here, the same investigation will be done. Everyone has had their go now, how about some constructive ideas on less than lethal options, types of training, equipment, etc. The police have always taken their skills from the civilian world. That door is now closed. There is so much antagonism between police and shooters that everyone tends to forget that there are many officers who are private shooters and have suffered in the same way as everyone else. Likewise, there are many officers who play the political correctness game. Any ideas and constructiveness will be greatly received. IG -- Not all ARV teams switch between duties, the Met, West Mids and GMP all have permanent armed officers. There are different categories of AFOs. One intriguing statistic is that as far as I have been able to discover, when AFOs encounter armed criminals in the commission of a crime (pretty rare event), they are more often than not, unarmed! Most AFOs are detectives and the like who are only issued firearms under certain circumstances, they're not all riding around in Range Rovers with an MP5 slung across their chest. Suggestions I have - JHPs instead of SPs, and bean bag shotgun rounds. Also more training on the use of the pistol. And in fact, more _use_ of the pistol as I fail to see the reason behind coppers carrying semi-auto MP5s which are in essence, big pistols. And if we are going to have coppers riding around in Range Rovers, enough of this idiotic policy of having the guns locked in a box. I remember something on the TV showing two Nottingham officers having to unlock a box and take out their revolvers. If they are supposedly trained in the use of a firearm, surely they are capable of carrying one without accidentally shooting themselves? And it would be quite nice if AFOs are trained to recognise guns, instead of shooting people with walking sticks, table legs and so on. And those deadly flocks of pigeons, of course. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
CS: Legal-Anonymity
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rusty and Jeff Wood seem to have a problem with anonymity being granted to Police Officers involved in shootings. As a police officer myself, I cant see what there problem is. It seems to me to be yet another case of 'lets have a go at the police 'cos they never answer back' and its a popular national pastime from disenchanted shooters who blame every one but themselves for their problems. Lets look at the wider picture here. Police officers are not trained to the degree that military special forces units are. They perform under different rules altogether. Please dont get confused between special forces and the police. They are different and can not be linked at all. As far as accountability goes, well, if the police werent being held to account, then what the hell is the inquest doing? Open your eyes for gods sake! The comments about self incrimination are not really worthy of comment, other than ask what on earth Rusty is going on about? 'Seeds' of evidence? Where is that term mentioned in any legislation or description of the judicial process? What does it mean? The danger of revenge attacks is greater than members of the public like Rusty and Jeff Wood appreciate. I speak from experience, as I look at the panic alarms and emergency equipment in my living room, due to a threat from criminals. Hobby shooters who pontificate from their sitting rooms don't have that to contend with. I do not relish the idea of the press discovering my identity and publishing my details either. I strongly resent the undertones that are implied in the post from 'Rusty'. He is suggesting that the officers should be treated as defendants. Maybe a lesson in S3 Criminal Law act, S.117 of Pace, Common Law etc. might be adviseable. Good advicethink it through before posting drivel like the above. IG -- I appreciate what you're saying, but this wasn't an armed criminal who was gunned down who has mates who are going to attack this police officer. It appeared to be an emotionally disturbed man who unfortunately did a very stupid thing. At the end of the day it may make no difference not to know the officer's name, but I find it hard to believe the officer would have faced any sort of revenge attack. Is the threat of revenge attack the only reason for officers being anonymous in this fashion? Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
