CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] < 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: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
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. Does anyone have the statistics? 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: 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 is in the rear-view mirror or loitering around in 30 zones with radar guns, not when 4 houses in the street get burgled inside a month! Not that I'm bitter or anything, but nothing puts Joe public off the 'fuzz' more than petty 'easy target' highway code enforcement. How to get more respect from Joe public? Be seen actively catching and locking up the c***s that burgle Joe public's house. > -- Richard Markham -- Or better yet, having a PC tell you not to touch anything because the scene of crime officers want to come around to look at it, and then they never do. 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: [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 "ordinary" people - ie those of the general public - do not take kindly to the - what seems like at least - fairly constant drip of authoritarian attitude from those employed to safeguard those ordinary people and their property ( partially by protection from crime and partially by law enforcement ). I believe that this resentment - I wouldn't go so far as to call it a blind venomous hatred, but there again I am not on the receiving end, so would not be adamant on that - stems from perceptions , mainly but not always justified, that the Police service are deliberately distancing themselves as a body from the general public, as they are only too aware of the shortfalls in the service they are currently providing, and appear unable to address this without politicising ie demanding more and yet more "powers" with which they may tackle "easy" or static targets whilst seemingly ignoring the real issues. What, you will probably demand of me, are these "real issues" ? I have no finite answer, but of one thing I am sure, they are constantly being obscured by the smokescreens thrown up by both the politicians , media and the police themselves - a pretty routine defense mechanism, but the smoke is wearing thinner and I believe the public is becoming less tolerant of this attitude of "Don't confuse me with the facts - these are the issues" especially when the issues are continually drummed up as "facts". It really boils down to trust. I readily appreciate things have changed in our society during the last forty or fifty years, some for the better, but trust is a commodity not lightly given and easily lost - and exceptionally difficult to retrieve from a distance or from behind a smokescreen. I for one, would dearly love to be able to advise my grandchildren as I was advised by my grandparents - "If you get lost or need help in any way, you can always trust a policeman" - unfortunately these days it's just an old-fashioned romantic idea of those who lurk behind the radar traps and surveillance cameras but rarely appear in person without two-tones and blues. Strike any chords of recognition ? Come back into the human race before it really is too late - technology is not the answer to everything. David M ( Sussex ) Don't forget - Sunday 18th March 2001 - Countryside March - be 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: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED] <<>> The law states that an opinion is required as to a persons suitability to possess firearms or hold a certificate.' If , in the opinion of the chief officer', etc. What you think the law should be is immaterial, that is what it is at this time whether you like it or not. It is completely matterless whether you agree or disagree, the same as it totally meaningless as to what I think of it. That's the way it is. Savvy? So it is not QUITE as simplistic as it you make it out to be. Its not a question of 'some jobsworths opinion'. BTW , what is a 'jobsworth?' If it is someone who is getting paid to do a job that might be unpopular with some people, then yes, I am a jobsworth and bloody proud to be one. 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 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: andrew, [EMAIL PROTECTED] But would not be barred from legally owning a car; only from legally driving one on a public road! There is nothing to stop one from owning a car or driving it on private land. Secondly those that are barred from driving on public roads are so after committing several road traffic offences, except drunk driving which requires only one, or on medical grounds i.e. poor eyesight. Not the opinion of some jobsworth as to their character. 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: "Michael Burke", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Snip- >Unless shooting/detaining burglars is covered by connected with its use> from the said paragraph (b), then it may be assumed >that if said firearms are not locked away, then I am not keeping them to the >conditions of the certificate. >Tim Tim, I've had some interesting conversations with Richard Worth on this one. I pointed out to him that my certificate must be lawful authority to possess as without one I would be comitting an offence. That being so, how could I then be prosecuted for carrying a firearm in a public place because if I had such authority, I could not possibly commit the offence. (Debates in the 1967 Criminal Justice Act confirm that a certificate is lawful authority by the way) I understood his reply to mean that you have authority to possess but thats all. The inference was that whenever you carried your firearms in a public place you could be committing an offence. Which is why shooters have been prosecuted (persecuted) in every conceiveable way when carrying firearms. Do what I did. Learn the law, learn your rights and then let no bast**d take them away from you. They cannot do it openly, only by stealth. Regards, Mike Burke. P.S. Section 'b' would cover not having the gun in a safe when you were at home because it would be in use under "for some other purpose connected with its use". Even Mr Worth was stumped on that one 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] <> Fair comment, and I apologise for the use of the term minimum force. You are quite right, it should have been 'reasonable'. As for the act not applying to self defence, you quite rightly point out that it refers to the prevention of crime or the arrest of offenders, etc. The prevention of a crime covers the case when a person is being attacked, assaulted, burgled, etc. Defence against a crime is also self defence.I will look up the stated and decided cases if you want. A good resume on the legal position, though. 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: "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 rather make the decision on suitability? > >Are you in favour of a total lack of control? --snip-- Steve, & IG, Butting in here (something I'm good at), allow me to state that at the other end of the spectrum, some of us have tried -- unsuccessfully -- to convince you of the fruitlessness of most controls. Control works, when it is applied in the manner it was intended to operate at: the citizen level. If the laws of carriage & possession are such that the only persons deprived of a right are those who are under a legal disability, then it is only them who are subject to the law, and not everybody else. Therefore, if one is deprived by law from possession and/or use, then it is only they whom the police and the forces of government have the rightful authority to assess of a breach of the law. What has been hinted at, plainly stated, over-stated, and run into the ground, is that the laws as they currently stand affect only those citizens (you know, the famous law abiding ones?), who are willing to undergo the rigors of proving one as being suitable. The criminal will never obey the law. But you know that. So, what good is a law that oppresses the lawful citizens, makes them jump through hoops and endless waits, while the criminal merely thumbs his nose at the law, and takes advantage of the disarmed, lawful citizen? Where in heaven, or on earth, is the logic in that? You people already KNOW who the criminals are, so why the heck are you torturing the law abiding citizens with the mindless, and worthless nonsense that is your law? Every time you run a citizen through that wringer, you already know what their status is. They have not broken any law of consequence. So what is the real essence of what you do? How much clearer can this get? -- =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it. =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= ET 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: "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 the time. >The full circumstances are such that it is reasonable. IG, I agree with you except for "minimum force" and the concept of "reasonable in the full circumstances". Necessary force can be used in self defence and in home invasion scenarios. As you know doubt know Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 goes like this; (1) "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large" . (2) Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose." Stones Justices Manual. Note that Section 3 (2) confirms that this Act only supersedes the common law rules in relation to the prevention of crime and the arrest of offenders and not self defence. This was acknowledged in the House of Lords debate when Viscount Colville, IIRC, raised it in debate and proposed an amendment which became Section 3 (2). He did this because other Sections of that Act which replaced rules of the common law did so explicitly. The common law rules on self defence therefore remain. What those rules are and what the term " is reasonable in the circumstances" means were covered in the debates on the Criminal Law Act 1967. On 1st November 1966 Lord Brentford pointed out in debate; "The Common Law permits the use of reasonable force where necessary" and asked why the word "necessary" had been omitted in the Bill because " it is the tradition of this country that a person may use force only if and when force is necessary"..."adding the word "necessary" will be beneficial for constables and others in that if they are limited to reasonable force they may have very great difficulty in arresting a criminal who is seeking to get away and who himself uses force. Under the wording of the clause as it is drawn they are entitled only to use reasonable force. Now what is reasonable force? Obviously, reasonable force can only be force of a moderate character. But, in the circumstances that I have described, it may be necessary, in order to effect an arrest, for the constable to use force of a major character, or to use the maximum degree of force. In the circumstances, that force would be "such force as is reasonably necessary". Lord Stonham, a sponsor of the Bill, replied explaining that the Government preferred the Bill as drafted without the word "necessary" because; "If we accepted Lord Brentford's amendment then a person who used even reasonable and justifiable force would not be excused unless he could prove that the force was reasonably necessary. There are two things, reasonable and necessary. In the view of my department, that would place too heavy a burden on a person who acted in a way reasonable in the circumstances at the time. It is important to bear in mind the kind of case in which clause 3 would be operating. There is a shout of "stop thief". You look up and see three men run from a bank and jump into a car and you pick up some heavy object and throw it at the windscreen. Or a man discovers a burglar in his house and tackles him by any means that occur to him. In neither case does he know of the existence of this particular provision, nor could he stop to think what his legal rights were. The important thing is that, in our view, the provision as we have it fulfils what is essential that it should protect anyone who, on the spur of the moment, behaves in a common sense and public spirited way. In our view it would not be right for the provision to give rise to nice, exact questions, argued with hindsight, after the event, in the sedate atmosphere of the law courts, as to whether the action taken was strictly necessary, or as to what alternatives there may have been... we use only one conception, reasonableness." This confirms that the subject is entitled to use as much force as is necessary to prevent himself getting hurt when he perceives that he is seriously threatened. It also confirms Blackstones definition of "duress" or "necessity" in my previous posting and shows that the subject is not expected to be held to the standard of "The full circumstances are such that it is reasonable". An authority for these interpretations is the Met Police "Officer Safety Manual" BTW, which also confirms that there is nothing in common or statute law which limits a defender to "minimum" force. And neither does the Human Rights Act before you ask . Regarding home invasion, a nocturnal break in to an occupied dwelling is regarded in law as the same as an assault. This
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
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 this in mind. Criminals, "weak minded" persons and juveniles are excluded from lawful certification. Going back further, Article 7 of the Bill of Rights acknowledges these restrictions also. That leaves the majority who are entitled to possess arms for their defence, and for sporting purposes. During the passage of the Firearms (Ammendment) Act in 1997 the House of Commons Library produced a briefing document, Research Paper 96/102 dated 8th November 1996 Page 75 quotes the case of Bowles v. Bank of England confirms that the Bill of Rights remains an operative statute BTW. Page 10 contains the following passage; "The underlying purpose of firearms legislation in the UK is to control the supply and possession of all rifles, guns and pistols which could be used for criminal or subversive purposes while recognising that individuals may own and use firearms for legitimate purposes...". It is a good read, would you like a copy. Regards, John Hurst. 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: "niel fagan", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >At the risk of grotesquery, I doubt that a pit bull would >hold one very long with a knife inserted in its eye. It'll see you coming and do more damage trying to avoid you, insert knife/stick even finger into dogs anus (blind sided it can't see you too well) and by reflex it will let go, only momenterally though, then hope you are not its next victim. > >Search and rescue people that I've talked to have ALL carried >stout, locking knives. And we haven't had a rash of knifings >by crazed paramedics. > >Why should anyone care if I choose to carry these items >anywhere, as long as I don't misuse them and harm an >innocent person? Because nanny said you shouldn't. > >Don >-- The recent killing of that 10 year old in London will no doubt bring further bans, though the knife found had a 6 inch blade according to the news, more worrying perhaps is the fact he bled out from a leg wound that if treated promptly would have probably been survivable, it seems the desire not to get involved (drummed into people by the broadcasters/police/govt in different ways) contributed to his death. Niel. 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: Brian Galbraith, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 always thought that the police were supposed to be public servants..and not a law unto yourselves, as you are now indicating. >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. So can we assume from this. that you ..as an individual have been threatened to the extent that you require(d) a PPW for personal protection, know all the hassles involved in "carrying", and have taken the decision that it is not for you? Or perhaps you are just voicing your own personal opinion.? As handguns are banned on the UK mainland...I suspect it may be the latter,...in which case the above comment ( which could be described as a valid point) applies to yourself, as much as anyone else. Regards Brian Regards Brian 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] <>> 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-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "Michael Burke", [EMAIL PROTECTED] <>absolutely >>nothing wrong in using it for self defence in the home PROVIDED that: >>It is the minimum force required in the circumstances.>> >I understood the term was reasonable force. Actually, reasonable force only applies to arresting someone. It does NOT include self defence. Read section 3 of the 1967 Criminal Law Act carefully.It says 3. Use of force in making arrest, etc(a).-(1) A person may use such force as is reasonable(b) in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest (c) of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large. Nothing there about self defence is there? Self defence, prevention of crime and assisting in the lawful arrest are three entirely different things. We've all been had. Regards, Mike Burke. 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] <<>> 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 <<>> 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-Stop or I'll chant!
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 carry a knife here as long as the >cutting edge dosen't ecceed 3 inches (not lock Knife >though). At the risk of grotesquery, I doubt that a pit bull would hold one very long with a knife inserted in its eye. Search and rescue people that I've talked to have ALL carried stout, locking knives. And we haven't had a rash of knifings by crazed paramedics. My point wasn't to list an exhaustive set of circumstances where one would want to carry the items I described. I was listing possible cases where these items would be handy for uses other than a weapon against people. Why should anyone care if I choose to carry these items anywhere, as long as I don't misuse them and harm an innocent person? Don -- But pit bulls are illegal here, 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-Stop or I'll chant!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] << :::Fair enough but would you apply this logic to other objects that, if misused, could severely endanger the public. For instance motor vehicles or matches? Yes, certainly. There are some people that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near either of the above. My wife being one of them, in the case of cars anyway. Probably matches, too, if she reads this. >> I expected better than that. I was trying to make the serious point that firearms are only one way that the public can be endangered. I was trying to find out if you would exclude certain people from the use of other potentially dangerous objects without them having been convicted of an offence. If your answer is yes then I would have to ask who you would consider fit to make the judgements? The police by any chance? Just how much arbitrary power do you think the police should have? If no then why limit access to one thing and not the other. Just how do you distinguish between someone who in your opinion is not mentally fit to own a gun but is mentally fit to drive a car? 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. Kenneth Pantling 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: "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 the >above. >My wife being one of them, in the case of cars anyway. >Probably matches, too, if she reads this. > >IG Steve, & IG, Quick, IG, what's her e-mail address? -- =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it. =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= ET 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: [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 the US of A, contrary to popular belief you do not have the right to simply blow away anyone found on your property. 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: "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 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.< > >Lets examine this scenario, under the presumption that if my firearms are >kept to the conditions on my firearm certificate, which states on the >certificate, in Para. 4(a) ; --snip-- Steve, & Tim, Loved it Tim! Here's my choice scenario: Burglar breaks in making a considerable bit of noise. Home owner awakens and shouts: "Ho! I have firearms securely locked away, and I am about to look for the keys! You are forewarned to depart the premises!" The burglar, thusly warned, shouts back: Ha! Looser! While you are rummaging around for those keys, I shall make myself at home with some tea and crumpets!" Home owner fumbles interminably with the keys, cussing loudly all the while, and finally manages to get one in the first lock. He shouts "Yo! Scumbag, your time is short! I have but one key to insert and twelve combination locks to twist, and your butt will thence be mine!" The burglar, having feasted upon several tasty crumpets, a few pots of tea, a leg of lamb, and some whiskey, manages the following, with a half full mouth: " Yeah, sure, Ya Betcha!" The home owner is now in the home stretch, working on the last combination, and yells out: "Time is short, scumbag! I'm a-coming real soon!" The burglar, now fully sated upon food and drink, and works rummaging through the house, yells: "That's what you said an hour ago, turkey!" The home owner, finally manages to liberate a single shot (only one legal now) shotgun, and runs down stairs to accost the burglar only to find him in the arms of his wife, both of whom seem totally oblivious to his presence. The home owner calls 999 (911 if you are in the US) and is promptly arrested for employing intimidating tactics with a firearm (we'll get around to quoting the appropriate law later). -- =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it. =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= ET -- Tea and crumpets? Don't take up script writing! 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: 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 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. When government is stern but fair, good people will comply with the law. When government demeans people and treats them like children, naturally they become rebellious and loud. This is not a comment on your government, it applies here in the US too. I would like to suggest an experiment. Identify a gun friendly police office and get them to run an experiment using exemplary citizens. Issue those people handguns and allow them to carry them concealed...letting them know that the police will come down on them like a ton of bricks if they misuse those guns, that they'll never see the outside of a cell again. I guarantee you that they will react the way concealed handgun carriers in the US have: with great restraint and responsibility. >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. I'm willing to support the other fellow's game but am disappointed with what I've found over here. When I wanted to shoot handguns and rifles at targets, every shooter I talked to invited me out to the range. In contrast, I've been asking about hunting (re: safety I am a certified firearms instructor) and all I get is "good luck, chum". This difference may be ominous to the future of hunting in the US. re machine guns: I can see regulating them a bit more strictly than other firearms but they're too regulated in the US. And I would probably never own one even if they weren't. I never bring home what I can't afford to feed... :) Don -- The law relating to machineguns in the US is beyond words. It is so complex that they can't even get the regulations worded correctly. Go to the GPO website and look at 27 CFR 179.11 and then the following section. They are identical except for one word. And then are about a jazillion rulings on what does and does not constitute a machinegun component, about a million court rulings on said ATF rulings, etc. Even the ATF FAQ on their website contains a number of very big errors, e.g. that the AW ban applies to NFA weapons, which is half-true but really it doesn't in any meaningful way. 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: "niel fagan", [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Picture a British subject walking down the street and witnessing > > a horrible accident. He rushes over and tries bravely to try > > and free the victim before the car bursts into flame. A stout > > knife would enable him to cut the seat belt but he has none. > >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 Which often won't release, of course my "rescue" knife, made only for rescue personnel is illegal for me to carry "off-duty", 4 inch locking blade, heavily serated AND blunt bull-nosed (to reduce the risk of penetrating an acident victim)... And I have a "duty of care" to stop and offer assistance off duty, as all trained ambulance (and fire) personel do. Stupid laws, for stupid people? Niel, Still EMT 1 qualified. 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: [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 to and you or anybody else has no right to dictate from their ivory tower who could or should use what. It is ironic in fact that you are issued handcuffs, a baton and gas for your own protection ANYWHERE while we have nothing, and dare we use any or carry any of those items we would get arrested by YOU for doing so. The core constraints allowing the lawful use of deadly force on another person(s)is if that other person(s): Has the ABILITY to kill or cause grave bodily injury to the victim Has the OPPORTUNITY to kill or cause grave bodily injury to the victim That the victim is in immediate JEOPARDY of being killed or suffering grave bodily injury at the hands of that other person(s) Other variances of this core is if the same A.O.J. criteria affect someone else one can use deadly force in their defence. In defining Ability a disparity of force argument is applicable. EG Armed woman v's unarmed man is OK as there is a recognised physical disparity between the genders. The same applys to armed disabled person v's able bodied predator or an armed victim v's multiple unarmed assailants. If one of the A.O.J. critera isn't fully met in the reality of the circumstances it falls to the recognition of the situation as it unfolded and the 'reasonable man' test of beleifs. Finally there falls another test between that of Justifiable Homicide and Excusable Homicide. The latter being that lethal force was not required in the circumstances but it was an excusable response at the time. Terror, poor light, chainfire, poor weapon choice and use. Whilst this is not a comprehensive overview of the 'self-defence' defence it is the core of it and it remains common law, not statute and is for a Jury to decide upon the facts. My belief is that a firearm is an eminently suitable tool for self defence but it should be used as part of a layered defensive strategy that might well involve retreat and non lethal and less than lethal weapons escalating to the firearm. The firearm when used in these circumstances is rarely fired but in the minority of deadly force encounters using a firearm, perpetrators get shot and some die. Making the choice to use deadly force is never easy and sometimes it may not be the right choice to have made. However, criminal predators have a choice about their actions whether petty or violent. My belief and that of 90%of the population is that when somone chooses to invade your house, mug you in the street, sexually assault you or a loved one, they have abdicated most of their rights to protection under the law and deserve what is meeted out to them. Poor burglars, car thieves, street robbers and vandals, sure some might end up getting killed for their actions but you can bet that EVERY criminal would begin to think twice about doing the crime if the 'time' meant potential death from their victim. Self defence is common law and is no different here than in the US with the exception that Statute in the US helps to define rights of virtually everyone to be armed for their defence. In addtion sensible measures like 'Castle Law' such as that in Florida and New Hampshire means that even if a scabby burglar out to steal your TV is caught in your home you are legally permitted to use deadly force to protect your property. The burglary rate in New Hampshire is virtually zero. 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. The truth is you trust nobody else with the same powers you have and use at will, whay are you any better than anyone else - and don't say training. The infantile training Police get compared to real instruction is appalling. This country would be a far better place if the citizenry were able to choose and deploy their own defensive measures, if we had 'Castle Law' and if we halved the numbers of Police officers. New Hampshire doesn't need it so why do we? Guy Savage -- One correction, the law in Florida does not ever entitle you to use deadly force to protect property. If someone enters your home and threatens you, you are permitted to use deadly force to stop them, but you cannot use deadly force outside the home unless you cannot retreat or if so doing would be inadvisable. There is a FAQ about it on the Florida Dept. of State website. (Yes they do other things than just certifying elections!) One of the examples they provide is a court case in which a man was threatened on his doorst
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >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. ---snip--- >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. Steve, & IG, IG, if I were to take your particular argument, and apply it across the board to every right -- that you happen to have left to practice -- of the people of the UK, there would none left. That you, or anyone else, has the temerity to explicate the very idea of rights, and then turn right around and hurl epithets upon what happens to be the most dear of them all: the right to defend one's life, I can only wonder. Self-defence is not a one hour a day task. It is 24 hours long -- or what passes for a complete cycle of diurnal period. Last I heard, cops are still human, are of finite quantity, must still occupy space and time, and cannot perform superhuman feats. Therefore, if a person feels the need to possess a firearm or other implement of defence, just who the hell are you to determine whether they shall live or die, or even suffer NEEDLESSLY at the hands of another, merely because someone like yourself gets a bad feeling about them being able to affirmatively defend themselves? I don't care how good your courts are, what laws assist the citizen, or how much help they can get after the fact -- if they are still alive. What matters is that someone was MADE to suffer at the hands of someone else NEEDLESSLY, simply because they were deprived by your supremely wonderful government of the right to seek the best method available for self-defence: a firearm. Criminals do not argue with lethal force, unless they are fools. In my book, one less fool, equals one less court case, one less mouth to feed, one less repeat offender, and one less worry -- period. And that goes for that 'loveable little rogue' who was snuffed out by Mr. Martin. It matters not that there will be people who will misuse firearms. You seem to be of the errant mind that just because there are people who will misuse firearms that they must be regulated into damn near oblivion. Well, what about everything else that causes death? I don't see you wanting to regulate water, or bicycles, or automobiles to the extent that firearms are. Where is your great wisdom there? Seems to me that there is a very great amount of hypocrisy concerning a projectile tool. Just what, I'd like to ask, is so darn MORE heinous about a firearms wound as compared to all other deadly wounds? Is death by firearm any worse than by knife? Or by baseball bat? And, damnit, you still haven't answered the question: If people in your nation DID INDEED pack firearms for self defence before they were regulated to hell and back, then how in the name of the Queen, can you be so duplicitous about modern day citizens? Oh, and one last thing (as if you needed more): I see absolutely nothing wrong or bad, with carrying a knife, or three, and a firearm or firearms upon one's person as a means of self-defence. You say that you find it interesting that someone does, and that you feel that if someone did, that you would not want to live in such a place. Well, aren't you the lucky one? Just so happens that a lot of people here in the US do just that. If merry old England (and the rest of the UK) are such havens of peace, tranquility and non-criminality, then why the mention of them with great frequency on just this list alone? Could it be that there are more than a few serpents in paradise? Like maybe, that you have an infestation that could well be remedied by the judicious use of citizen packed firearms. Oh, I know, you can sit back and laugh in merriment about all the crime here in the US, and comment endlessly about all the very loose firearms laws and the reports that you read about with great frequency about all those 'high noon' fire fights on main street USA every day. Of course, it never occurred to you to consider that every report of firearms MISUSE is reported at least TWENTY times more than proper use. That's right, IG, you read that correctly. Every act of misuse is reported at least 20 times,
CS: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
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 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] 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] :::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 the above. My wife being one of them, in the case of cars anyway. Probably matches, too, if she reads this. 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: "Tim Jeffreys", [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 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.< Lets examine this scenario, under the presumption that if my firearms are kept to the conditions on my firearm certificate, which states on the certificate, in Para. 4(a) ; The firearms and ammunition to which the certificate relates must at all times (except in the circumstances set out in paragraph (b) below) be stored securely so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, access to the firearms or ammunition by an unauthorised person. Unless shooting/detaining burglars is covered by from the said paragraph (b), then it may be assumed that if said firearms are not locked away, then I am not keeping them to the conditions of the certificate. So, enter baddy, with dishonest intent; householder awoken by noises other than those of his lodger's snoring and flatulence. Does he open the locked bedroom door to investigate, lie there listening to the house being trashed, or start preparing a rifle? If he opts for staying put until the locked door is forced, by the time the gun safe keys have been retrieved, dropped, retrieved again, inserted into the wrong keyholes, inserted into the right keyholes, the door clanked open, the ammunition locker keys dropped, retrieved, replaced in the lock, some ammunition scrabbled out of a box and chambered in one of a pile of falling rifles Does he shout "Go away, I must warn you I'll be armed in a minute... (oh bugger, I've dropped the keys again)" Does this sound like a readily available form of self defence in the home? >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.< Does a minute's clattering around constitute a warning? Personally for the above reasons I wouldn't regard my firearms as a viable self defence at short notice. On the other hand the deactivated sten is a handy ugly looking lump of metal, and some of the old replicas might be convincing in the dark if the burglar was unarmed and none too bright. Tim -- Actually I've come to the conclusion myself that a really loud blankfirer is quite good for self-defence, because in a small room when you aren't expecting the noise it can cause disorientation. 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: "Stone.s451", [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 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 ask the intruder to wait while you: 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. you can then 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. > 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: "alellis", [EMAIL PROTECTED] <> I understood the term was reasonable force. al -- It is and the ECHR have criticised that law, BTW. 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Picture a British subject walking down the street and witnessing > a horrible accident. He rushes over and tries bravely to try > and free the victim before the car bursts into flame. A stout > knife would enable him to cut the seat belt but he has none. > Another scenario: the same person is walking with his child > when a pit bull terrier attacks the tyke. A bit of pepper > spray or a knife could enable him to remove the dog from the > child's throat before the jugular is severed. Pity - he has > none. 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 carry a knife here as long as the cutting edge dosen't ecceed 3 inches (not lock Knife though). As far as I understand this rule has been taken to ridiculous lengths in that in the case of knives with blades like those on the Spyder Co ones, it was deemed that the "cutting edge" was to be measured not simply from hilt to point but rather to include all the extra length that you get from the curves on the serrations. So if you have one that meausres just under 3 inches from hilt to tip then it may actually be over 3 inches when you include all the wavy bits on the blade. I'm sure there is case precident for this, or possibly Home Office guidence, perhaps others can shead more lighgt on this one? > I use a knife 5-10 times a day for much more (thank god) > mundane tasks. A British subject would be prohibited > from any of these options on the ridiculous premise > that criminals will respect this and refrain from > carrying similar weapons. Only if it's over 3 inches or is a lock knife. Jonathan Laws. -- Or a switchblade or a butterfly knife or a Stanley knife or anything other than an "ordinary pocket knife". 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: [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 the case then you you do > in efect have a right to reasonable self defence as your > means with which to execute such right has been denied. OK, I spotted my own deliberate mistake, the word *not* should be inserted between the words "do" and "in", in the last sentence. BUM! Jonathan Laws. 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IG wrote: 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. 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? Kenneth Pantling 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] <<>> 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: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "IG", [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 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] <> 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] <<>> 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. <<>> 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] <<>>> 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: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
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 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 the case then you you do in efect have a right to reasonable self defence as your means with which to execute such right has been denied. Jonathan Laws. 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: "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 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; "It should be noted a person who remains on his own property may with impunity go around positively festooned with weapons. If he has a firearm he would need the appropriate certificate. His house may be a veritable arsenal. He will be committing no offence under this Bill". Hansard, 14 April 1953. The security conditions on FAC's also take this into account. Regards, John Hurst. -- Do they? 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: Don Baldwin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > >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 use them, so we can't give up something that we >haven't got. Maybe people in your country will take it back, eventually. ><
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? Hmmm. Try to think outside of media sound bites for a sec. Picture a British subject walking down the street and witnessing a horrible accident. He rushes over and tries bravely to try and free the victim before the car bursts into flame. A stout knife would enable him to cut the seat belt but he has none. Another scenario: the same person is walking with his child when a pit bull terrier attacks the tyke. A bit of pepper spray or a knife could enable him to remove the dog from the child's throat before the jugular is severed. Pity - he has none. I use a knife 5-10 times a day for much more (thank god) mundane tasks. A British subject would be prohibited from any of these options on the ridiculous premise that criminals will respect this and refrain from carrying similar weapons. I've never had to defend myself or my family from a criminal but I will ALWAYS reserve the option for myself. In my opinion, the martial arts approach of avoiding conflict but being prepared to go badger is preferable to mindlessly hoping for the best. >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. 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. Don 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] <>> If you want me to, I will. Do you want me to? Or do you want an honest answer? <<>> 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 ? <<>> 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: Pol-Stop or I'll chant!
From: "John Hurst", [EMAIL PROTECTED] <> >OK, I will wear that one. IG, That is not good enough. Your Oath of Alleigance requires that you accept the law as it is, specificaly the common law confirmed by the Bill of Rights and the entrenching clause; Article 7 " That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law...". "...Now in pursuance of the Premisses the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons in Parlyament assembled for the ratifying confirming and establishing the said Declaration and the Articles Clauses Matters and things therein contained by the Force of a Law made in due Forme by Authority of Parlyament doe pray that it may be declared and enacted That all and singular the Rights and Liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true auntient and indubitable Rights and Liberties of the People of this Kingdome and soe shall be esteemed allowed adjudged deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said Declaration And all Officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majestyes and their Successors according to the same in all times to come...". Your previous posting was; >It just so happens that firearms are not available for self defence. If a >firearm had been used in this case, then, provided it was legally held for >say, clay shooting, then no jury in a million years would convict someone >using it. Don't delude yourself. >The law only restricts self defence as being a good reason for possession... 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. 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: Jeremy Peter Howells, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think the original point was that - if you are away from private property then the right to self defence is in effect denied to you because if you are caught in possession of *any* implement intended to be used defensively you *WILL* be charged and *WILL* be convicted of being in possession of an offensive weapon, even though it's purpose was purely defensive. Mrs Harrison took up the poker within her own home in an effort to defend her husband and herself. Ergo she was 'legal' in the circumstances. If she or her husband had advanced onto the street in search of a suspected prowler then she would likely have been convicted if she admitted the item was for 'self defence'. Any 'prior preparation' or an 'advance to contact' with an intent to use a weapon woul dalso land you with some explaining to do. Regards Jerry 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: 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 defence!!! > >It just so happens that firearms are not available for self defence. Can't you even see the internal contradictions inherent in those comments? You can't own a firearm for the purpose of self defense in the home. You can't carry ANY weapon for purposes of self defense in public. 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. Are you going to honestly say that British folks on this list have as much ability to defend themselves as I do? >The law only restricts self defence as being a good reason for possession. 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? Don 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: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED] >That juries will almost always acquit in these circumstances may be >true. Which raises the question of why the prosecution is brought in the >first place. How do the prosecuting authorities decide? > >Prior to the trial the licensing department will have revoked the >certificate for any legally held gun. > >After the acquittal, which implies that no crime has been committed, >will they reissue the certificate without any fuss? Steve, & Mike, It seems that might be iffy at best, since because: (a) you were arrested, (b) because you had your license revoked -- as a result of the trial -- that upon once again becoming free man, unencumbered with a criminal disability, you will be denied, because you were arrested, and were sent to trial. In other words (as I understand your systems of 'justice') the police may now play a game with you, because you had the resolute frame of mind to defend yourself with one of them terrible 'guns.' They have that particular ability to determine if you are fit to possess. So, you are in a catch 22. Seems it makes no difference that you were of a sterling personality before the happenstance, because now you are of the most questionable type. Allow me the caveat of 'it depends which force area you find yourself. Am I correct Steve? -- =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it. =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= ET -- It depends also on the circumstances of the case, if the police think you got off on some technicality they may decide that you are not prohibited from possessing a firearm under Section 21 but that you don't have good character. There was a case in Birmingham where a man who was a firearm certificate holder was reported to the police by another who claimed that he had been threatened with a pistol. The police searched the premises and found a Glock, which the owner of the premises said he had with him to take to the gun club after he finished work. There was never any corroborating evidence he had threatened anyone with it and it appeared the "victim" may have had reason to lie. Anyway, his FAC was revoked. Ten years later he applied for a new FAC and the police refused. On appeal the police decision was overturned because the judge felt that it was wrong given the lack of a conviction, and after ten years it was a moot point anyway. There was a case down in Essex where an RFD shot a man who entered the shop with a sawn-off shotgun. His RFD was revoked but he got it back, largely because of a public outcry, although there was some technical legal argument about whether the area behind the counter was open to the public or not and therefore whether he had violated the condition on his RFD requiring secure storage of firearms in his possession. But I can also think of cases where certificates have been revoked merely because a licensing officers asks the question: "If someone broke in, would you use your gun to shoot them?" and the certificate holder has answered: "Yes." On the other hand there have been cases where people have shot people with illegally held guns, and because the act of self-defence was legal there is a principle that the possession could not be illegal during the act of self-defence. Therefore they have gotten away with it. But then there was another case where a guy got into a fight in a pub and shot dead another guy who was attacking him. He claimed he found the gun in a car he had bought and received a L1,000 fine for illegal possession. Basically there are no hard and fast rules on this one. It doesn't depend so much on the area in which you live but more on the mindset of the specific police officers you talk to, the judge if you get charged, and how good your lawyers are. 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: "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 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, provided it was legally held for >say, clay shooting, then no jury in a million years would convict someone >using it. Don't delude yourself. >The law only restricts self defence as being a good reason for possession. Since you ask I would like the opportunity to carry either a CS spray or stun gun and could detail at least two occasions within the last three months when I would have been justified in using them if it were a legal option. There is however no legally acceptable reason for owning either of these so the explanation you offer in your last paragraph would not apply. We appear to be left in the situation where you can claim to have used either a firearm or knife that had been held for entirely legal reasons, but would quite likely prove fatal, whilst being unable to claim any reason to own something that would just bring any assailant up short and allow you to escape. I don't see the objection to CS spray as we have it from the mouths of police spokespeople that these are used purely for defence. With regard to all the previous discussion on the list of the if's, but's and maybe's of aquiring a pistol legally for self defence is there any legal avenue for applying for ownership of either of these options because I can't think of one. Brian T -- Bear in mind that CS spray and stun guns are classified as firearms under Section 5(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1968! How the courts ever came up with that is beyond me. 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Our right to self defence has not descended anywhere. I repeat...ad > nauseumyou all have a right to self defence!!! Theorectically true, the fact of the matter is however; if you are away from private property then the right to self defence is in effect denied to you because if you are caught in possesion of *any* impliment intended to be used defensively you *WILL* be charged and *WILL* be convicted of being in possesionof an offencive weapon, even though it's purpose was purely defensive. Jonathan Laws -- 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. 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: Paul Bartomioli, [EMAIL PROTECTED] based upon the photos in the Times, I can't understand how he FOUND them. the place is a castle, and apparently Mr/Mrs Harrison were on what we Americans refer to as the second floor, since George "went downstairs" to investigate. BTW, a rather stupid act; confronting the unknown without benefit of a defensive weapon. 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] <> OK, I will wear that one. 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: 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, provided it was legally held for >say, clay shooting, then no jury in a million years would convict someone >using it. Don't delude yourself. >The law only restricts self defence as being a good reason for possession. > >IG >-- That juries will almost always acquit in these circumstances may be true. Which raises the question of why the prosecution is brought in the first place. How do the prosecuting authorities decide? Prior to the trial the licensing department will have revoked the certificate for any legally held gun. After the acquittal, which implies that no crime has been committed, will they reissue the certificate without any fuss? 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: "E.J. Totty", [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. ---snip--- >Having to chant "Hare Krishna" in an effort to defend >yourself in your own home illustrates the pathetic level >our "right" of self defence in the UK has descended. Steve, & Rusty, Well, I think I know why the bad guy attacked in the first place: He thought he was being taunted. I mean, if I had not been familiar with Harrison's songs before hand, and he started yelling out "Hare Krishna" at me, I'd tend to think I was being called something in a foreign language. Call me hairy krishna, eh? We'll see 'bout that bub! Joking aside, what was the motivation the attack? As rich as that man must be, you'd think he'd have a better security system, like fer instance a mastiff. -- =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it. =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= ET -- His home is a fortress, from what they showed on TV. The attacker has been committed under the Mental Health Act. He apparently thought the Beatles were witches at that George Harrison was their leader, so he felt he had to kill him. I'm not making this 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] <> 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 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, provided it was legally held for say, clay shooting, then no jury in a million years would convict someone using it. Don't delude yourself. The law only restricts self defence as being a good reason for possession. IG -- 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. 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: 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 unaware of the story, Harrison was woken by an intruder in his mansion, the intruder went on to stab him 10 ten times, only the bravery of his wife Olivia prevented him from being killed. """As he gazed down at the intruder, the musician chanted "Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna" in an attempt to confuse the intruder, but the chanting had no effect. "He rushed towards the bottom of the stairs and came up towards me." ""(Times 15 Nov 2000)http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,35995,00.html Having to chant "Hare Krishna" in an effort to defend yourself in your own home illustrates the pathetic level our "right" of self defence in the UK has descended. For those in the US it's a timely reminder - your guns will be registered, next you will require a good reason to keep them and eventually they will be taken away by the state. On a humorous note, a competition in our office for something more suitable to shout was won by: "Keep the noise down sunshine - Tony Martin's in the spare room". Rusty 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
