[Closed] Private ownership of firearms

Why else would Elf be back in a dying thread? Lol

furry muff.
i guess if there's plenty of them doing it one will be caught and make the news soon enough.

Why else would Elf be back in a dying thread? Lol

😀

No it's bin quite interesting actually. Apart from some of the silly posturing and attempts at justification.

Now I know you're out there, so hands up everyone who's eagerly waiting for the thousandth post?

not me. i'm waiting for the 'TJ-response' to my post about him being wrong about self defense and going to jail. (backed up by actually knowing somebody who walked free and then supplying the newspaper report to the court case)

Tj gone bed innit.

(Come one, come on...)

Is there a Scout or Guide badge for firearms?

I think there used to be one for target shooting, in the Scouts anyway.

Here's a child you wooduv hated:

[img] [/img]

Nineundredandninetyeight...

1000 🙂

EDIT: Noooooooooooooooooooo!

[img] [/img]

And you missed it - you needed this

[img] [/img]

I am genuinely surprised that nobody has commented on my experiences that I outlined on page one.

I hold a FAC. It will expire in May and I will not be renewing it. During my years as a keen shooter I have to say I have met several people who were wrong uns but who owned things like a .308" "tactical police sniper.". Pre-Dunblane, I was at a house where a guy came back from the pub (pissed up) and decided to get his Ruger Redhawk (.44 Mag) out of the cabinet and pass it round the group. I also met someone who happily told me how he'd despatched a vixen with a sub 12 ft lbs air rifle. A member of the club I used to be a member of was jailed for eight years for rape and kidnap. He had club membership an FAC and several rim fire rifles. I could go on.

It's all absolutely true and there are many more similar anecdotes.

Yeah but the thing is, Derek, that a number of people on this thread aren't actually interested in thinking things through,and posts like yours require careful thought and consideration.

Truth is that there is, for quite a lot of people, a bit of a macho fantasy element about guns and shooting, but they just don't want to admit it.

Firing a high-powered rifle at a target was a very rewarding experience for me, and I got a lot out of it, as it helped me focus my mind, control my body, and relax. Actually amazingly therapeutic, I thought. I'd love to do it as a hobby.

I woon't trust myself to own firearms though.

And I don't think they have any place in the family home, in residential areas.

I don't think such views are particularly unreasonable, and if anything, this thread has reinforced such onions.

Mr Smith - I amnot wrong about using a gun in self defense being murder.

1) you can only use minimum force that must be commensurate and proportionate.

2) you might get away with using a weapon of opportunity. However a gun should be locked away.

3) if you used a gun you have either not kept it safely or have had time to go and fetch it this it is premeditated not a weapon of opportunity.

the case you mention is clearly a perverse verdict which does happen and a set of very unusual circumstances. The home owner got away with it as the jury believed he fired accidentally - which was not what busydog was saying nor what I said was murder which is deliberately shooting an intruder

You don't know whether the jury believed he fired accidentally or not, TJ. I think he's lying but I don't care because I think shooting the thug was a perfectly reasonable thing to do under the circumstances, and if I'd been on the jury I'd have lied and said I believed the shot was accidental - it's imposible to prove you're lying about what you believe so no risk of being done for perjury. Jury members are asked to consider the case as a whole and unlikely to be swayed by the accused saying it was an accident - it's a handy excuse to let a man they sympathise with go free though.

You haven't commented on the case I linked where there was no question of the shot being accidental. Do a bit of Googling. If you can find a single Brutish case where someone has been prosecuted for murder having shot an advancing intruder in the front you are doing better than me.

I think you've highlighted the pertinent point TJ, which is that any incident like this where an intruder is shot is a different case and will be considered on it's own merits. Hence you can't simplify it to shooting intruders is murder any more than you can simplify it to shooting intruders is lawful.

Edukator - tehre have been numerous instances of homowners being prosecuted for excessive force - its fairly clear where the limits are

In that case the crucial point is the claim the gun was fired accidentally - thats the only possible defence.

Edukator - he did not kill him - shot him in the leg. No paralllel

I know i shouldn't bite and do this, but...

TJ - the case you mention is clearly a perverse verdict [s]which does happen and a set of very unusual circumstances.[/s] [b]because it doesn't agree with the law according to TJ[/b]

Of course the wording you quote regarding proportionality is correct, but if for example a farmer heard a distubance in a livestock shed, presumed it was foxes so went to investigate with his shotgun, and instead came across a bloke trying to steal his livestock or machinery, who, when challenged, instead of running away fancied his chances and advanced on Farmer Giles getting a shotgun round in his chest for his troubles, then that could be considered reasonable and proportionate. Lethal force with a weapon to hand is a wholly proportionate response when you honestly believe that your life is in danger.

v8 - which is nothing like the situation I commented on which was busydog saying he would use his guns to deliberately kill an intruder.

Its hardly reasonable force anyway the situation you describe

Lets put it this way - my point about Rambo fantasies has been well proven by the things some pro gun folk say on this thread. It shows how unfit some of them are to hold guns.

Some, TJ? SOME? I thought all those who wanted to own guns were violent fantastists, mentally unstable and therefore unfit to be allowed to own them.

BACKTRACK!
BACKTRACK!
BACKTRACK!

🙂

In that case the crucial point is the claim the gun was fired accidentally - thats the only possible defence.

Edukator - he did not kill him - shot him in the leg. No paralllel

Unfortunatly CFH you of all people appeared to show a reasonable response. 🙂

Lets put it this way - my point about Rambo fantasies has been well proven by the things some pro gun folk say on this thread. It shows how unfit some of them are to hold guns.

So which are the ones on this thread who [b]are[/b] fit to hold guns, since you seem to be indicating that not all are violent fantasists?

Excessive force, that's not "murder" though is it, TJ. How about linking a case to prove your point.

"accidental" is not the only posssible defence, there are many, use your imagination, it's what defence lawyers do.

There it is, the old proportionate force argument, no wonder criminals wander the streets with impunity when we have the likes of TJ holding the rights of a burglar/home intruder above that of the occupier. Minimum force only serves to ensure that a home owner is more worried about being jailed than protecting his/her family as we all know the feral scum that roam the streets don't give a damn about the damage they cause. Only in the UK would someone have rights once they break into a home etc. Does this mean I think they should be shot in the face as soon as discovered, god no but if you break into someone's home you're fair game, the choice was the criminals.

TJ, Busy Dog doesn't live in the UK.

Monkeyfudger - what utter bollox. No one is

holding the rights of a burglar/home intruder above that of the occupier.

monkeyfudger - Member

TJ, Busy Dog doesn't live in the UK.

Became apparent [i]after[/i] I had commented on his posts

Edukator - only excuse in [i]that case.[/i]

and with that I am out of this thread

Does this mean I think they should be shot in the face as soon as discovered, god no but if you break into someone's home you're fair game, the choice was the criminals.

Isn't that a completely contradictory statement?

busydog saying he would use his guns to deliberately kill an intruder.

Lets put it this way - my point about Rambo fantasies has been well proven by the things some pro gun folk say on this thread. It shows how unfit some of them are to hold guns.

I bow to you all....far greater stamina than me, please carry on!!

Too late Don, he's [s]left the thread[/s] lurking on the thread and will some post some muffled sounds of frustration from Edinborough...

I that case there was also the fact he knew the attacker to be violent, had been threatened and was acting in self defence, TJ. Even without the "accidental" excuse I'm sure the jury would have considered all the other mitigating factors enough to return a not guilty verdict. That's why we have popular juries, they are there to respresent society and apply the values of society within the context of the law. The law generally leaves plenty of margin for manoeuvre so the jury has the scope to reach a fair verdict.

Too late Don, he's left the thread lurking on the thread and will some post some muffled sounds of frustration from Edinborough...

Alongside violent fantasies and dubious morals this thread suggests that we should add Internet/forum masturbation to the list of cheap thrills that some seek! I am not sure of the legal status of that in Scotland. Is it a crime?

Flounce of victory, or flounce of defeat? and was the flounce commensurate and proportionate? Only a jury of his peers can decide...
[img] [/img]
my vote, foreman of the jury. whats yours?

Neither - just the argument has become particularly circular and become about trying to score points off me rather than addressing the points raised.

Many debates on here end up like this. Entrenched positions and personal attacks not debate. this is why I usually ignore some posters.

It has clearly highlighted that I was correct about the violent fantasies of the gun nuts tho and the impossibility of defending much gun ownership.

"It's all about me!!"

Is about where it "comes" to !

Many debates on here end up like this.

It has clearly highlighted that I was correct

and with that I am out of this thread

But the, right, there's this;

TandemJeremy - Member
Neither - just the argument has become particularly circular and become about trying to score points off me rather than addressing the points raised.

Many debates on here end up like this. Entrenched positions and personal attacks not debate. this is why I usually ignore some posters.

It has clearly highlighted that I was correct about the violent fantasies of the gun nuts tho and the impossibility of defending much gun ownership.

Posted 4 minutes ago

Flounce One Niner failed to get airborne! 🙂

just the argument has become particularly circular and become about trying to score points off me rather than addressing the points raised.

It was never going to be anything BUT circular, with such a devisive subject. Never usually stops you. Fair one about people trying to score points of you, but you put yourself on such a flippin pedestal that when you post something that's plainly wrong it becomes irresistible. You build yourself up...

It is satisfying when you backtrack though...

TJ

It has clearly highlighted that I was correct about the violent fantasies of the gun nuts tho and the impossibility of defending much gun ownership.

While I believe that you may well be right for a significant proportion, you have't really done that. Stating that you have doesn't make it true. Now I really suggest you leave the thread for both your and everyone else's santity (and you wouldn't want to drive the gun nuts over the edge, now, would you 🙂 )

don simon - Member
Many debates on here end up like this.

And what is the common reason for this?
It has clearly highlighted that I was correct

That's correct, the incessant ramblings of a fantasist.

I would like to write one word that resolves this thread

Tolerance