Yep, he was. He is quoted as saying during this time, "Every British household requires two things. Good insurance and a sturdy revolver."
And at the time of his death, Churchill held an FAC issued by Kent, on which he owned six handguns. One of which was a Hi-Power presented to him by the Belgium government.
Likewise, when Churchill shipped off to South Africa for the war, he was given a Mauser Broomhandle by his mother as a 21st birthday present. Churchill knew the importance of personal arms.
If you could carry would you (2) A case in point FOR
Moderator: dromia
Forum rules
Should your post be in Grumpy Old Men? This area is for general shooting related posts only please.
Should your post be in Grumpy Old Men? This area is for general shooting related posts only please.
Re: If you could carry would you (2) A case in point FOR
In 1978 I was told by my grand dad that the secret to rifle accuracy is, a quality bullet, fired down a quality barrel..... How has that changed?
Guns dont kill people. Dads with pretty Daughters do...!
Guns dont kill people. Dads with pretty Daughters do...!
Re: If you could carry would you (2) A case in point FOR
Blackstuff, just a wee point, weapons are only offensive when WE have them, they are DEFENSIVE when the cops have them. Quite how they switch from "good" to "bad" I am not quite sure yet...Why is it OK for police to defend themselves whilst we can NOT, why do some MP's have armed guards yet it can take the rest of your life for a 999 to be answered. The police have no remit to defend or protect any of us so on the assumption that they alone can stop a threat (which WILL invariably happen when they are MILES away) then surely this is just extreme arrogance on their (government) part and an admission that the normal victim's life and limb do not matter, because he/she is not a cop.
As for the drunks as mentioned earlier., the aggressor does NOT need to be armed to justify you shooting him, a simple example is a woman being raped....firearm is anequaliser. You could argue that the "drunk" was high on drugs and so no amount of physical stength possessed by the victim would have been enough to prevent serious harm or death. As such the victim would quite rightly have to shoot to stop a threat, the threat to HIS/HER life that he believed existed at the time as the warning of/presence of a firearm did nothing to deter the attacker at the time.
bottom line: Would anyone WANT to take a chance that some thug(s)high on booze WILL stop before you die or are disabled for life..think on it. Are you willing to bet your LIFE they will..because that is what you would be doing.
Sim, seems this other guy was bailed, charges in the ofing methinks..or is that normal?
As for the drunks as mentioned earlier., the aggressor does NOT need to be armed to justify you shooting him, a simple example is a woman being raped....firearm is anequaliser. You could argue that the "drunk" was high on drugs and so no amount of physical stength possessed by the victim would have been enough to prevent serious harm or death. As such the victim would quite rightly have to shoot to stop a threat, the threat to HIS/HER life that he believed existed at the time as the warning of/presence of a firearm did nothing to deter the attacker at the time.
Sim, seems this other guy was bailed, charges in the ofing methinks..or is that normal?
Political Correctness is the language of lies, written by the corrupt , spoken by the inept!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests