Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link

[modplod]

Thought I'd enlighten you all with a link to this interesting web forum where you may safely (and responsibly) discuss this subject with others with same thought pattern. Keep it adult and legal though...

http://www.armbritain.com/forum/index.php

I agree that this forum is NOT the place for such discussion as it is hard for the Mods to police (theres a funny pun).

[Ejcb]

Not until the rule of law ends - beautiful irony!

[firepower]

Interesting, do you subscribe to their point of view modplod?


ATB
Mick

[Plymtom]

Given that on here if someone mentions getting a license for a firearm, the advice is to not go saying it's for self defence, I'm not sure wich way to go on that one, I have had a look and am going to read alot more, I do share the sentiment to a large degree, but you shooting guys have re kindled my desire to get involved primarily as a family social activity, possibly if things get worse for hunting (with permission obviously) for self defence i would require and desire propper training, I have no problem to agree with such statements as " the best defence against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" and see no wrong in defending your life and those of your family, but I think for that purpose it may be reasonable to demonstrate a degree of competence, safetey consciousness including sensible secure storage, it's not an easy subject to be totally right or wrong on, but for my money banning is wrong.

As Mick said do you subscribe to their point of view modplod?

[modplod]

You can't ask me that!

To a point YES I do.

I simply believe that if someone is of proven good character, they should be able to own a firearm for this purpose. The difficulty comes in determining who can be trusted to own a lethal firearm without risk to the public. A squeeky clean criminal record (including local intelligence checks for all past interactions with police) together with no history of mental illness will weed out the bad guys. I might also require applicants to be at least 25 years of age (they will by this age have had a proven conviction free track record). I think the general public get an extremely raw deal from the police when you consider how much money we give them and HUGE resources now made available to them. Local police stations are closing down and replaced by huge USELESS super-police stations. Many people oddly (to me anyway), seem only to happy to make lame excuses for the "hard pressed" police but in reality their resources have never been larger then they are now. Those of proven good character should be able to defend themselves with lethal or if they prefer, non lethal weapons (Mace, Pepper Spray etc).

Then again, if we had proper deterrent's in place and made our ultimate sanction (prison) a REAL punishment where convicts wouldn't like to return to, I believe the current crime rate would be cut by at least 60%. Many hard-core criminals have a better life inside than out (which speaks volumes about their lives). In my exerience about 10% of the population are responsible for 99% of serious crime. I still think that 70% of the population are nice decent and kind citizens and it is these people who need to be properly protected. The police have already shown they are not up to the job...

The only individuals with unfeterred access to firearms at the moment are the criminals themselves!

Finally I would like to say that I believe the government has disarmed (castrated) the people to stop them having the capability of over-throwing their corrupt regimes. A true democracy gives it's people the right to defend themselves from the bad guys and so it follows that in my opinion we don't live in a democracy any longer... It's all about showing us who is boss!

Lets try and keep this difficult discussion grown up, proportional and within the bounds of the law & forum rules.....

[Plymtom]

Modplod wrote

You can't ask me that!

To a point YES I do.

I simply believe that if someone is of proven good character, they should be able to own a firearm for this purpose. The difficulty comes in determining who can be trusted to own a lethal firearm without risk to the public. A squeeky clean criminal record (including local intelligence checks for all past interactions with police) together with no history of mental illness will weed out the bad guys. I might also require applicants to be at least 25 years of age (they will by this age have had a proven conviction free track record). I think the general public get an extremely raw deal from the police when you consider how much money we give them and HUGE resources now made available to them. Local police stations are closing down and replaced by huge super-police stations. Many people oddly (to me anyway), seem only to happy to make excuses for the "hard pressed" police but in reality their resources have never been larger then they are now. Those of proven good character should be able to defend themselves with lethal or if they prefer, non lethal weapons (Mace, Pepper Spray etc).

Then again, if we had proper deterrent's in place and made our ultimate sanction (prison) a real punishment where convicts wouldn't like to return to, I believe the current crime rate would be cut by at least 60%. In my exerience about 10% of the population are responsible for 99% of serious crime. I still think that 70% of the population are nice decent and kind citizens and it is these people who need to be properly protected. The police have already shown they are not up to the job...

The only individuals with unfeterred access to firearms at the moment are the criminals themselves!

Finally I would like to say that I believe the government has disarmed (castrated) the people to stop them having the capability of over-throwing their corrupt regimes. A true democracy gives it's people the right to defend themselves from the bad guys and so it follows that in my opinion we don't live in a democracy any longer... It's all about showing us who is boss!

Lets try and keep this difficult discussion grown up, proportional and within the bounds of the forum rules.....

I like and agree with your reply Modplod thank you

[modplod]

As well as ex job I used to be a radio amateur (HF ham radio). I also hold a shotgun certificate and firearms certificate (pest control). I have been hunting since my father bought me my first .410 shotgun at 14 years of age. I enjoy helping others as well as voicing my opinions....lol.

I have always had the intent of prepping but have only just started to organise properly. I believe I already possess some skills (and equipment) which will come in very handy for SHTF. I enjoy planning and helping others not to make the same mistakes I made.

My wife and most of my family just think I'm a paranoid nutter! They will be thanking me when the BIG EVENT occurs soon (the complete utter financial collapse of this country).

[12mp82]

Strangely if I don't like the government of the day I have the chance to vote them out every four years. We don't have a tyranical government, we might not approve of some of the things they do, but others do, maybe if we went back to full voting, instead of going if we feel like going or stay at home if it is raining, like they used to back in the bad old days or face a penalty worse than the government we don't like.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyrannical

Finally I would like to say that I believe the government has disarmed (castrated) the people to stop them having the capability of over-throwing their corrupt regimes. A true democracy gives it's people the right to defend themselves from the bad guys and so it follows that in my opinion we don't live in a democracy any longer... It's all about showing us who is boss!

Don't we? Providing it is done as defence not revenge then I have the right to defend myself up to and including the ultimate course of action.

Yes I might get arrested, but that is the norm until all the facts have been clarified.

Or does it depend on who we see as the bad guys?

[tom2tom]

Hey i teach self defense courses every so often. When i went on my fresher they was telling us about the new law that could be past in 2013. It's supposed to make self defense clearer to people. But as the law stands now if someone you have to use self defense on you can use what ever you have one you as long as you did not carry that for the specific use of self defense in that case it becomes a weapon.

Also you have to use something that is called 'reasonable force'. Basically if you think someone is been aggressive you can use a force = or slightly higher than that of an attacker. For example if on a scale of 1 to 10 he was been aggressive at a level 5 you could use level 5 or 6 force back any greater and you would be risking getting into trouble.

So if you was walking around hunting with a gun and someone was lets say trying to steal from you and you shot them then u would be the bad guy. But if you was hunting and someone tried to kill you or stab you and you shot them in self defense then your safe.

Remember though at the moment in the UK you have to prove that your actions was justified. It would not be the other way around (someone trying to prove you actions was not justified)

I'm in now way saying you should shot someone tho

My grammar is shocking =P give me a few mins and i'll post a copy of a sheet i got on my course that the home office sends out about self defense =)

[12mp82]

I don't think it will ever be the case that you can use unreasonable force to stop an attacker. Not allowed to beat someone with a bat if they come and slap you, but if you genuinely fear for your life then you can use proportional force to counteract that threat.

Often better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.