Smellydog
Well-Known Member
I have to forfeit my liberty for scum and or the police but I pay for the police via tax.
You think that is acceptable do you?
Burglary and police removing my guns
- Thread starter TDShamwari
- Start date
-
- Tags
- london police shotgun license
- Status
You think that is acceptable do you?
Sometimes I wonder if it doesn’t matter what’s acceptable, we live in a country where too many people are happy to hand their liberty to the government because it keeps them ‘safe’…
On a bit of a tangent, I sometimes roll my eyes at the US obsession with liberty at all costs, but then I see that the ‘other side’ will take a mile if you give them an inch, so realise why they’re so uncompromising.
FoxAndDeer
Well-Known Member
(Conscious you're not replying to me)
But that's the sad state of affairs in this country, and how few rights homeowners have. I'm not saying I accept it - we all have to decide how best to handle it with our own circumstances. For me - risk not worth it. Your circumstance could be different. I'm not risking losing my license / going to jail due to an altercation with burglars just because I disagree with the principle of the laws in this country.
Personal choice for all of us
jcalleja91
Well-Known Member
Suggesting you'd shoot them in the head.... yes it would be wholly acceptable to remove your SGC/FAC for that.
People get all high and mighty about 'liberty' and 'what about my rights'... this isn't a thread about rights or liberty... its about common sense.
Burglars might be targeting an address to steal guns... move guns and they can't be stolen... Win for the OP as his guns don't get stolen... Win for the Police and the wider public as we don't have criminals now running around further criminality now armed with firearms.
Give it a few months to pass the most likely time they'd come back a 3rd time. Which given they've already come back once is far from make belief. Then the OP can carry on as he was and hopefully is never a victim of this ever again.
And for the record - I'm also not a fan of the laws of this country and do wish many things were different as a few have just suggested above.
BUT, unfortunately the laws are what they are and as firearms holders have to be seen to abide by them. I'm just pointing out that stating outright on a public forum you'd use your firearms (or at least it could be implied you suggested using your firearms) to "bust someone in the head" would easily give enough justification to your home force to remove your certificates permanently.
Last edited:
Trouble with that attitude is that, so long as private individuals can own guns, they may be stolen and used by criminals.
Once you accept someone’s suitability to own guns should be dictated by matters outside of their control, you pretty much accept that public safety (in a wide and nebulous sense) must always take priority, and that’s only going to result in one conclusion.
Once you accept someone’s suitability to own guns should be dictated by matters outside of their control, you pretty much accept that public safety (in a wide and nebulous sense) must always take priority, and that’s only going to result in one conclusion.
Jeff8861
Well-Known Member
This is a common sense approach however, which should be time limited. It's very common practice and is used in quite a few similar type situations. It's nothing to do with penalising the certificate holder and more of risk assessment exercise. There is a risk to members of the public and the certificate holder.
jcalleja91
Well-Known Member
100%... but as said above... most criminals will give firearms a wide birth as that would lead to significantly more serious offences and a significantly increased policing attempt to recover said firearms and arrest said individuals.
The fact they returned is the cause for concern. Which is an extremely rare occurance
Well, common sense to me is shooting the burglars. And the more it's done, the more cautious the burglars get (which is why burglaries/home invasions are fairly rare in the US).
Disarming the victims is a losing proposition, unless you're the perpetrator.
Shoot the burglars. Problem solved. No more burglaries from them, and less from others as they go find easier/safer means to sustain themselves.
I pity you guys sometimes when I read threads like this, and then I realize all too many of you have asked for it/voted for it, for the sake of "common sense".
Sometimes, violence is the answer. But the overcivilized haven't learned that while they may be civilized, everyone else may not be.
JMTCW...
Disarming the victims is a losing proposition, unless you're the perpetrator.
Shoot the burglars. Problem solved. No more burglaries from them, and less from others as they go find easier/safer means to sustain themselves.
I pity you guys sometimes when I read threads like this, and then I realize all too many of you have asked for it/voted for it, for the sake of "common sense".
Sometimes, violence is the answer. But the overcivilized haven't learned that while they may be civilized, everyone else may not be.
JMTCW...
jcalleja91
Well-Known Member
And whilst I don't disagree with the fact that if people decide to commit crime, that choice is theres and they should live (or die in this case) with the consequences.
That's not the laws of the land we live in or that we agree to when obtaining our certificates. Therefore, anything other than complying is wrong.
Also, in the US where absolutely anyone could have a firearm, responding to any threat at your home with a firearms is justifiable and proportionate.
Here.. that is as unlikely, if not more so, that burglars returning to an address... so any mention of using said firearms to defend your property is not proportionate (by the law - not saying I fully agree or disagree)
And what you said here is actually very important.. "Disarming the victims is a losing proposition, unless you're the perpetrator."
In this case, temprorarily disarming the victim means the perpetrator does not become a future armed perpetrator.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Utter nonsense. I never suggested shooting anyone. Pure assumption on your part. I said I'd give them a bloody good headache. Far more satisfying than shooting. Then they would be tied up ready for collection by the police I freaking pay for
So what is being suggested here is that every law abiding person must now in Britain cater for the wants and needs of the criminal elements amongst us.
What's next, offering our hands so they the home invaders can tie them up so we can have the pleasure of watching them rape the wife before being stabbed to death? Or worse still, our children??
FFS what a disgusting pathetic situation.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
So I haven't imagined what I read....
jcalleja91
Well-Known Member
I think you missed what I said in my second post, and tbf i thought i put it in my original post that you've quoted but I hadn't.
It would be easy, given your choice of words, for an FEO to assume that's what you meant.
Otherwise, yes I agree I'd be doing everything - within reason - to stop them.
Nope. Unfortunately not.So I haven't imagined what I read....
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
For once I fully agree with you.
Why should the victim of the crime be made to feel as if they have done something wrong purely because they have firearms.
Hence my point in my previous post that your laws have been brought upon by yourselves under the guise of "common sense" and "safety".
As one of our founders once famously said "Those who would trade freedom in exchange for safety, deserve neither." And as demonstrated here in this thread, you have gotten neither.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Stalin must be dancing in his grave.
Fear has gripped the nation, fear of authority in place of lost liberty and security, very sad, it's sad with or without our precious bloody licenses.
While I remain of the view that telling someone their license may be revoked because they were burgled isn’t the right approach, I’d have a touch more sympathy if the police had intelligence that the criminals we’re looking to steal the guns. The fact they made the same request the first time suggests otherwise, and that this is just another policy borne out of an abundance of caution that bears no correlation to the real situation.
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
So true.
Where is the common sense and safety in letting yourself get bent over a bench and royally rogered to death be it from an authority or a felon.
I'm so sorry glad I'm only half English, to be full on English would crush me!
- Status
Similar threads
