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
From: Richard Markham, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why is it that so many people are blinded by a venomous hatred of the
police, to the extent that everything else, common sense included, is
blotted out?
I am sure someone can answer this one.
IG
Because the only time Joe public sees the police
From: "Nik", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But pit bulls are illegal here, remember.
So are handguns for the majority of the population - doesn't seem to worry
the lawbreakers!
Nik Jones
--
Actually it would be interesting to see what effect the
Dangerous Dogs Act had on reducing serious dog attacks.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why is it that so many people are blinded by a venomous hatred of the
police, to the extent that everything else, common sense included, is
blotted out?
I am sure someone can answer this one.
IG
Maybe I can offer at least some insight on this :-)
Most
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
From: Don Baldwin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can see where you are coming from but these aren't
very good examples. Set belts have little red buttons to
push to release them and I doubt very much that a Knife
or a pepper spray wil have a very swift effect on a Pit Bull.
Besides which you can
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
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
IG,
Quite so. The Firearms Act of 1920 and subsequent amending legislation
have
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
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
And it's the same in
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:::Fair enough but would you apply this logic to other objects that, if
misused,
could severly endanger the public. For instance motor vehicles or
matches?
Yes, certainly.
There are some people that shouldnt be allowed anywhere near either of
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IG you are as socially inept as you are legally.
First of all, most people in this country would feel a great deal happier
with the ability to make their own choices about self-defence. Some people
would choose to use a firearm for this purpose, others would choose not
From: Don Baldwin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I said if you are *away* from private property. I know you
can have whatever you want in your own home as long as
it's legal to possess it, but you can't carry anything in a
public place that is about your person for the specific
purpose of defence. This being
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would
support target shooters, but would never support those who want to own fully
auto's.
Which is the reason we won't be shooting at all in a few
years time, fragmentation. You have to support it all or
you won't get any.
Jonathan Laws
Cybershooters
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
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
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can have any weapon you like in
your own home for self-defence (except a firearm),
even switchblades and martial arts weapons as they
are only prohibited in public.
Steve,
Firearms for self defence in the home are lawful as the following
From: Don Baldwin, [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?
An honest answer would be nice.
We don't have the right to
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No you won't George Harrison's wife used a poker and
wasn't charged. You can have any weapon you like in
your own home for self-defence (except a firearm),
even switchblades and martial arts weapons as they
are only prohibited in public.
Steve.
I said if you
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,
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
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
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
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
From: Don Baldwin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A firearm?
A baseball bat?
CS or pepper spray?
A cattle prod?
A plastic shield such as the police use?
A clothes prop?
A rottweiler?
Our right to self defence has not descended anywhere. I repeat...ad
nauseumyou all have a right to self
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The law does not restrict self defence as being a "good reason",
Home Office Guidance does. Home Office Guidance even points out
that the police _should_ not issue certificates for that purpose,
it does not say they can't. A small but important point.
From: Mike Taylor, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Our right to self defence has not descended anywhere. I repeat...ad
nauseumyou all have a right to self defence!!!
It just so happens that firearms are not available for self defence. If a
firearm had been used in this case, then,
From: "Brian Toller", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What weapon do you think would have been effective in this case?
A firearm?
A baseball bat?
CS or pepper spray?
A cattle prod?
A plastic shield such as the police use?
A clothes prop?
A rottweiler?
Our right to self defence has not descended anywhere. I
From: RustyBullethole, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For the benefit of the US subscribers who may or may not
have got the details of the trial of another fruitcake,
detained for the attempted murder of George Harrison. It's
a useful reminder of the long term result of incremental
gun laws.
For those
32 matches
Mail list logo
