Britain - a defenceless population

Bavarianbrit

Well-Known Member
#5
It made me move to Germany.
I could not stomach the stunt the UK government had pulled on 57000 law abiding people.
Over my stiff dead body (I was for 7 years in the USA though, and you cannot help but soak up that stubbornness into your own mentality).
Never regretted the move.
Martin
 

Monkey Spanker

Well-Known Member
#6
Very one-sided and difficult to compare Britain to the USA where virtually everyone appears to either own or carry a handgun! I think the scenes viewed would have still happened despite the handgun ban. An interesting propaganda video though all the same!
MS
 
#7
The issue of the handgun ban and personal defence are 2 separate issues. The film attempts to portray them as linked but that's a fallacy. Personal defence with a handgun was never a legitimate reason for ownership and the ban was a quick political move from a govt that went on to make 13 years of poor decisions. I think efforts are better focused defending legitimate sporting reasons for firearms ownership rather than muddying the issue with that of self defence.
 

Bandit Country

Well-Known Member
#8
Very one-sided and difficult to compare Britain to the USA where virtually everyone appears to either own or carry a handgun!
Having watched the 'COPS' programme recently (a 'fly on the wall' look at policing in various US jurisdictions) what intrigued me was the lack of firearms present at the various scenes presented. For a country apparently awash in handguns they hardly ever appear and often turn up in purses or under car seats after the offender is in handcuffs. Given the melodrama inherent in a gunfight you would think editors would include as many as possible to up the ratings, but most programmes are about stoned, drunk or otherwise smacked up car thieves, shop lifters or speeders - pretty much like the UK. What is most instructive is the manner and demeanour of the officers involved, who are generally pretty impressive when compared to what you see on Essex Police Interceptors! :stir:
 

patjack

Well-Known Member
#9
Lets not forget it was a Conservative Goverment that Forced the Pistol ban on UK shooters
Seems some only remember what suits them and quote such for their own Agenda.
 

Bandit Country

Well-Known Member
#10
Personal defence with a handgun was never a legitimate reason for ownership
Er... yes it was and still is. There are a number of folk in the UK who have permission to carry a personal protection weapon. I agree that spinning the self-defence arguement as a reason to repeal the ban would be more than short sighted!
 

shaun22/250

Well-Known Member
#11
Two things come to my mind on this, firstly if someone breaks into your property then they deserve what ever is coming their way. They made the decision so they can face the consequences. Secondly I think our police force should be armed, this may make the likes of the rioters think twice about kicking off (theres a copper waving a stick come on then lets have it.............or that police man has a gun pointing at me maybe I should pi** off)
 

patjack

Well-Known Member
#12
Two things come to my mind on this, firstly if someone breaks into your property then they deserve what ever is coming their way. They made the decision so they can face the consequences. Secondly I think our police force should be armed, this may make the likes of the rioters think twice about kicking off (theres a copper waving a stick come on then lets have it.............or that police man has a gun pointing at me maybe I should pi** off)
Firstly there are ARV's that are armed to the hilt in most major cities beds have a 50BMG on their helicopter well they use to anyway. When Ryan slaughtered people in Hungerford the nearest ARV was 4hours away which he probably was aware of but that changed very quickly after.

USA riots of the 90's were never stopped even though they had SWAT etc everywhere the rioters just carried on do you really think it would of stopped the UK rioters? as for arming the UK police force fully that like repeal of the Pistol ban will never happen, we could not afford it and generally we have a very low firearms crime don't forget if an airgun is fired in a public place that goes down on the stats.

PT17-SO19 are available in the capital at very short notice so are so called Leaders are always safe
Shame they seemed to take so long when that awfull incident happened in Woolwich.
 
Last edited:

CWMMAN3738

Well-Known Member
#13
Shame they only wounded them!
Firstly there are ARV's that are armed to the hilt in most major cities beds have a 50BMG on their helicopter well they use to anyway. When Ryan slaughtered people in Hungerford the nearest ARV was 4hours away which he probably was aware of but that changed very quickly after.

USA riots of the 90's were never stopped even though they had SWAT etc everywhere the rioters just carried on do you really think it would of stopped the UK rioters? as for arming the UK police force fully that like repeal of the Pistol ban will never happen, we could not afford it and generally we have a very low firearms crime don't forget if an airgun is fired in a public place that goes down on the stats.

PT17-SO19 are available in the capitol at very short notice so are so called Leaders are always safe
Shame they seemed to take so long when that awfull incident happened in Woolwich.
 

Kalahari

Well-Known Member
#14
Shame they only wounded them!
nnnn
I am afraid I disagree, if Hamilton had been captured alive and faced the full force of the law some of the hatred would have been focused on him rather than on pistols and there may, and I only say may have been a chance for the recommendations of the enquiry which were not to ban pistols to have been accepted.

David.
 

deeangeo

Well-Known Member
#16
When Ryan slaughtered people in Hungerford the nearest ARV was 4hours away which he probably was aware of but that changed very quickly after.
When Thames Valley police went to Hungerford by helicopter, they just stood around neither searching nor knowing where to go or what to do. It was the boys from the regiment that got him holed up in the school where he 'killed himself'.......now, the strong money says it's pretty hard to 'double tap' yourself with a 7.62mm round.

Not much of the carryings on in this case was ever released by the Thatcher government at the time, but it was known, she didn't want the UK police to look like an ass. Although, as also with the case of Hamilton, police checks on background were not detailed enough as both had lied about clubs of which they purported to be members, also, recommendations by a police sergeant in the case of Hamilton where he described the man as being 'devious and sly' were disregarded by the Asst. Chief Constable. He was later retired on a full pension.

Our biggest shooting enemies are the media, along with both police and politicians. Their minds are made up. Confuse them not with facts. Just my take on these incidents and the penalty genuine shooting sportsmen pay for these horrific but isolated occurrences. We should be represented by organisations with more teeth. ATB
 

perdix

Well-Known Member
#17
Totally agree with what deeangio has said.

We really need everyone under one umbrella so to speak but how many of us would join one fieldsport/shooting organisation that covered everyone and not prefer to be a member of something that covers the particular field we enjoy the most?
​Seems at the present we are divided and could quite easily be conquered
 

Dalua

Well-Known Member
#18
Personal defence with a handgun was never a legitimate reason for ownership.
Well, it seems that before the 1920 Firearms Act you could buy and carry a pistol pretty much as you pleased: Parliament largely rejected attempts to interfere with this useful right.
1920 - 'good reason' was clearly intended to include personal protection, but already HO Guidance-style suggestions steered the police to grant for this purpose only if the applicant 'lives in a solitary house where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definate threats to his life...'
1937 - police advised to discourage applications for house or personal protection
1964 - police informed 'it should hardly ever be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for protection of his house or person'
1969 - police informed 'it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for protection of his house or person'

I cribbed the above from Joyce Lee Malcolm's interesting essay 'Lessons of History: Firearms Regulation and the Reduction of Crime', which I commend to you as interesting and informative. http://dvc.org.uk/dunblane/lessonsofhistory.pdf
 

Taff

Well-Known Member
#19
let's not get carried away, no one shot to wound at woolwich, as to police being armed preventing riots dream on. I shoot with a lot of Americans all carry pistols, why ? because they can, with a average age of 55 not one has had a reason to use it for defence, apart from in the service of there country, and of the two serving police officers, neither have discharged there side. arm at a civilian.
 

patjack

Well-Known Member
#20
When Thames Valley police went to Hungerford by helicopter, they just stood around neither searching nor knowing where to go or what to do. It was the boys from the regiment that got him holed up in the school where he 'killed himself'.......now, the strong money says it's pretty hard to 'double tap' yourself with a 7.62mm round.

Not much of the carryings on in this case was ever released by the Thatcher government at the time, but it was known, she didn't want the UK police to look like an ass. Although, as also with the case of Hamilton, police checks on background were not detailed enough as both had lied about clubs of which they purported to be members, also, recommendations by a police sergeant in the case of Hamilton where he described the man as being 'devious and sly' were disregarded by the Asst. Chief Constable. He was later retired on a full pension.

Our biggest shooting enemies are the media, along with both police and politicians. Their minds are made up. Confuse them not with facts. Just my take on these incidents and the penalty genuine shooting sportsmen pay for these horrific but isolated occurrences. We should be represented by organisations with more teeth. ATB
You must be privvy to information that has never been made available
Interesting so the Hereford guys were in the area or did they fly in? Thames Valley were not licensed to carry firearms in helicopters at that time? were they unarmed? lots came out at the enquiry and we had a ban on CF. SLR's after that and multi shot shotguns became FAC the only time its not been used to restrict firearm ownership is after Cumbria (Bird) and you can thank Mr Keith Vaz for using common sense for a change.
 

Top