The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Thanks Phil.

A well argued and sensible discussion on home defence.

And not having to resort to foul language to try and make a point...unlike some on here, myself included.

My thoughts on this well known and I never used my FAC as an excuse for not voicing them.

I haven't heard any of the groups formed to protect local property calling for the right to have firearms for self defence. Rightly or wrongly, I don't think the average British thinks "guns" when it comes to these sorts of situations

Maybe not but has anyone ever asked them? What about the above average oines.

Chav's with guns...not legal ones sso that is a red herring. As stated many already have them or ready access to.

So, you use your LEGALLY held shotgun (hypothetcially) and slot some scrote who is burgling your house because you have the right to do so. ...So, he's stone dead. Who's fault is THAT? THOSE WHO SAY WHOEVER SHOT HIM GO STAND IN A CORNER, THE FAULT IS squarely ON THE CRIMINAL, (oops caps lock). he/she CHOSE to break the law and break into your home, whether he/she was shot or not was a gamble they took and lost. Undere NO cirumstances should ANY householder EVER be prosecuted for wounding or killing ANYONE who breaks into their home, ever.

however the REAL attitude of the UKL has shown up, brooms and dustpans, that is what we are good at. That and some wee sing songs, a few candles and flowers..we have been dumbed down by years of oppression from the authorities into being victims. Seems the Turkish shopkeepers who were were warned off from defending their shop politely told the cops to eff off according to Turkish news. Of course as i wqrite Cameron is praising those who stoogd guard around temples etc...OK let's get this message to the ppolice, leave those who want to protect themselves alone and deal with the problem not the solution. This two faced attitude is exactly why people have no confidence inteh police at times like this.

Anyway, we can find plenty of reasons why we should not defend ourselves with lethal foirce...it can be summed up in one word, cowardice. Easieer to claim the moral high ground and bleat about being "just like them" which is of course just crap or fancifil but daft notions of "chavs and wee Jeanie" having a gun. Those whop spout this have no knowledge of the situation and should spend some time inplaces where self defence is allowed, visit the ranges, meet the people and above all attend one of the clases..I can arrange those easily enough in Az.

Maybe once people have actually SEEN what goes on they would be better placed to comment. Of course not everyone avails themself of that RIGHT where that RIGHT exists. Even in the UK we are too scared to stand up for our rights so really here it is a moot point. However, if anyone wants to do an NRA Course on Personal Protection Inside and Personal Protection Outside the Home by all means let me know. I will gladly arrange an enlightniong stay and very enjopyable time in Az for you to take the course, sit the exam and acquire c ertification.

Not that it means owt here..but it could come in handy should you ever really have to do the biz and use your legally held firearms to defend the life of yourself or loved ones.

And as I write some MP's are now finding ways of explaining away the events of the last few days..TYPICAL! Seriously what chance do you think you have in the long run with attitudes like that..

Chuck wrote: So, you use your LEGALLY held shotgun (hypothetcially) and slot some scrote who is burgling your house because you have the right to do so. ...So, he's stone dead. ..

An old farmer once said to me, "If you shoot a dog, make sure they find wool in its mouth." ........ That scum would have a bloody big knife in their hand.

Tower.75 wrote:That seems to be the crux of it.

This is a quote from three people replying to one of my Facebook statuses. This shows the attitude of the British mind set:

Tower.75: ...and this is what happens in a disarmed populous. Food for thought.
Friend A: It'd be much worse if we all had access to firearms.
Friend B: hmm would be a lot more then burnt out cars and house rubble on the floor if they were armed.
Friend C: chavs with guns... God forbid!!
Tower.75: Worse for the rioting scum. Lets get real. The scum bags of society ALREADY have guns. Illegal guns. Thousands of them. There have already been shootings. This is what you need to get. The guns are already in the hands of the criminals. The 1997 handgun ban just increased illegal handgun crime and pushed a load of the things underground. If every home owner and shop owner was packing a 12 bore then every single one of them rioters would be thinking twice. FFS the [rude word] were kicking in the doors of private homes! I don't want the police explaining to the husband that his home was invaded and his wife raped and murdered. I want the wife explaining to the police why the burglar on the floor in full of lead!
Can't really fight that attitude.

The problem is when you broach the subject of a right to arms in this country, the general public seem to think that would mean everyone would have a gun - "like in America" (!). However if you look at America its not the case, as Chuck says, not everyone chooses to excersie the right just because they have it. A figure of 45% of households springs to mind, but that could be wrong. Chav's/ wrong 'un's wouldn't be able to legally possess a gun because of criminal records/other criteria, so on the whole it would come down to half of the population of 'average' people having guns, which they could choose to use to defend themselves and take the consequences that would bring.

The idea that the streets would be running with blood if CCW was permitted here, personally i think is alarmist claptrap. The only major difference between here and america would be our drinking culture, which would be needed to be factored in to the restrictions placed on CCW, e.g. a drink/carry limit similar or less than the drink/drive limit, god save me from Chuck - Gunfree Zones in pubs/clubs . . . I would however expect an increase in the use of firearms in domestic disputes and suicide. So i suppose it would come down to whether that would outweigh your wish to be able to defend yourself and others. For me, i'd like to be able to have a chance to defend my life if god forbid i had to

I do think that people should have the right to defend their lives/property and to use deadly force if necessary.Why should it be that if you found someone in your home they have more rights than yourself when you attack them.From what i see on various cop shows burglars often arm themselves with a knife or something equally intimidating so far as im concerned they've made that choice to cause their victim harm if caught so have to face the prospect of being hurt or dead.

I dont actually want to cause someone harm or death,but neither do i want to be a willing victim either.

The thing I've never understood is this "reasonable force" thing.

Well, what is reasonable, and who decides? You? The intruder? The responding police officer? The courts?

What might seem "reasonable" to 4 people, might be seen as unreasonable to 8 people.

tower: "reasonable force" can only be decided by the victim, not an after the event cop, lawyer or rentboy loving judge. THAT is the main problem, a half baked law with half baked lawyers and well cut judges determined to make sure the victim pays for his bravery.


for example: a 20 stone, 6ft6 rapist is shot dead by a wee 4'7" woman, THAT is reasonable.

A 20 stone man shooting dead a 5'0 scrote is not at face value reasonable force, unless the scrote was armed with a knife, gun or syringe! If he was just mouthing off anf threatening then the correct solution was to TRY and get away. not evryone can do that of course, despite the nonsense shown in self defence books etc etc. I mean of course folks in wheelchairs, on crutches, elderly and infirm such as asthmatics, women with kids in a pram or toddlers. The list goes on, ALL of these people are denied reasonable and affordable means of protection by a well armed and guarded government and police force who have NO REMIT to defend them as has been shown on countless occasions.

Now HERE is how it should be http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... owner.html

Ok there are glaring self defence errors in this BUT the bottom line is the scrote is now well learned as to the errors of his way...and the cops would NOT have charged or bothered the shopkeeper in ANY way unless the weapon was illegal. the perp on the other hand, well cops have no time for that kind of person.....THAT is the difference between a free country like his or the USA etc and a subservient fuedal state like the UK where we are a nation of cowards and pleaders..