Keep the same firearms laws BUT allow good decent honest people to defend themselves against the many bad guys who are now among us all (at this point, it's hard for me to resist going off on a political rant). This can be easily achieved by allowing personal defence as good reason to privately acquire licenced firearms.
What is more important is to take responsibility off the local police for firearms licensing and then hand it over to new a new specialist NATIONAL wide Firearms Licencing Agency. Reduce the police budget accordingly and fund the new agency from this (ignore the self-serving police chiefs who constantly bleat they have no resources, because it's bare-faced lie).
The existing firearms laws are interpreted differently by each county police force (sorry service). This is why there is so much bloody confusion among FAC/SGC holders and the general public, they don't sing from the same hythm sheet.
Another clear example of the (failed) new UK police model (and it's senior officers) no longer being fit for purpose!
Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link
Re: Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link
Last edited by modplod on Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:46 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link
Hmmm. Interesting. I had no idea of that Canadian stat, Kalprep.
Modplod - were you an armed officer when you served? You clearly have strong views on all this!
Modplod - were you an armed officer when you served? You clearly have strong views on all this!
Re: Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link
Completely agree. There is nothing wrong with people owning appropriate firearms (rifles, shotguns, even handguns) when they are shown to be responsible, of good character and with legitimate reason. This would spur on further clubs, ranges and business and encourage a sport which can be very safe and very enjoyable.
What I would NEVER see a reason for is the kind of arsenal that Americans are able to obtain. Why in this earth does ANYONE require a .50 calibre Barrett rifle in their home? Or civilianised versions of military weapons?
Pretending that our society and criminal fraternity has not changed is short sighted and fruitless. There are more and more reports of armed criminals, and as someone with ties ( I won't go into detail ) with a very publicised shooting of police officers I may take a slightly different view to those with no ties with something of that nature.
I suppose one view to take would be that any entertainment of the idea that gun laws needed updating or refining along with changes to definitions of appropriate force may undermine the political view that everything is safe and we can trust our government to look after us all.
What I would NEVER see a reason for is the kind of arsenal that Americans are able to obtain. Why in this earth does ANYONE require a .50 calibre Barrett rifle in their home? Or civilianised versions of military weapons?
Pretending that our society and criminal fraternity has not changed is short sighted and fruitless. There are more and more reports of armed criminals, and as someone with ties ( I won't go into detail ) with a very publicised shooting of police officers I may take a slightly different view to those with no ties with something of that nature.
I suppose one view to take would be that any entertainment of the idea that gun laws needed updating or refining along with changes to definitions of appropriate force may undermine the political view that everything is safe and we can trust our government to look after us all.
Re: Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link
All MDP officers are trained to use firearms and about 75% are armed at any one time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_ ... nce_Police
After 13 years with the MoD Police, I went onto serve 10 years in the Met (London) but not as a Authorised Firearms Officer (AFO).
Seeing you ask, I could cry what the politicians (sold out by senior officers) have done to the job I loved so much. I'm glad I'm out now because I feel so utterly ashamed.
After 13 years with the MoD Police, I went onto serve 10 years in the Met (London) but not as a Authorised Firearms Officer (AFO).
Seeing you ask, I could cry what the politicians (sold out by senior officers) have done to the job I loved so much. I'm glad I'm out now because I feel so utterly ashamed.
Re: Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link
Is there a link someone cast post to verify that Canada has more guns per capita than the US? I'm having trouble finding anything concrete. So far it looks like Canada has a lot less.
I still think there should be less guns in the system, not more...
I still think there should be less guns in the system, not more...
Re: Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link
Here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country
Wikipedia is THE best place to look.
Switzerland is up there because it has no standing professional army - it allows it's citizens to possess military full automatic weapons in their homes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country
Wikipedia is THE best place to look.
Switzerland is up there because it has no standing professional army - it allows it's citizens to possess military full automatic weapons in their homes.
Re: Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link
Thanks!modplod wrote:Here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_ ... by_country
Wikipedia is THE best place to look.
Switzerland is up there because it has no standing professional army - it allows it's citizens to possess military full automatic weapons in their homes.
So, that shows me that Canada has a lot LESS guns per capita than the US. I'm looking for something to verify what Kalprep said - that Canada has MORE guns per capita than the US.
It seems to me that the US has the MOST guns in the world, and the HIGHEST gun murder rate in the developed world.
I'm not statistician - but there may be a link there...
Re: Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link
Things have moved on at a pace since I was going to add a bit but for now I'm with Modplod here and kalprep
So as they can go to the range and enjoy the thrill and skill of using one just as the .50 cal clubs do here by the way Barret wont sell in California because they opted to ban the .50 cal which to this day has never been used to kill to a human being in the USA, most murders are more personal, .50 cals and the range they shoot at in the civillian world are a real skill and sport, it's more like golf with bulletsWhy in this earth does ANYONE require a .50 calibre Barrett rifle in their home? Or civilianised versions of military weapons?
I have a strategy, it's not written in stone, nor can it be, this scenario has too many variables, everything about it depends on those variables, being specific is not possible.
Re: Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link
There are .50 cal shooting clubs in the UK, you can own a Barrett rifle if you want, there great fun for long range target shooting, which is a great sport. As for keeping it at home, maintaining it is a good reason.KalPrep wrote:Completely agree. There is nothing wrong with people owning appropriate firearms (rifles, shotguns, even handguns) when they are shown to be responsible, of good character and with legitimate reason. This would spur on further clubs, ranges and business and encourage a sport which can be very safe and very enjoyable.
What I would NEVER see a reason for is the kind of arsenal that Americans are able to obtain. Why in this earth does ANYONE require a .50 calibre Barrett rifle in their home? Or civilianised versions of military weapons?
Pretending that our society and criminal fraternity has not changed is short sighted and fruitless. There are more and more reports of armed criminals, and as someone with ties ( I won't go into detail ) with a very publicised shooting of police officers I may take a slightly different view to those with no ties with something of that nature.
I suppose one view to take would be that any entertainment of the idea that gun laws needed updating or refining along with changes to definitions of appropriate force may undermine the political view that everything is safe and we can trust our government to look after us all.
http://www.fcsa.co.uk/