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

SevenSixTwo wrote:

Fedaykin wrote:...in a free society we have a right to an opinion.

On self defence? Unless of course you own a firearm, right?

Yes with a gun for self defence if it is proportional. For the vast majority of the time use of a gun for self defence is not proportional in the UK. Somebody storms the house of a gun owner armed with a gun then it might well be proportional under the law, I have no problem with that.

The NI case of a gun being allowed for self defence mentioned here is known to me, under the circumstances of sectarian violence in ni anybody who takes up a political position might well have a risk proportional enough to justify a gun.

Sim G wrote:

Fedaykin wrote: Ah the old there is lots of violent crime in Europe vs The US argument.

Have you heard of "normalising the data"?

The UK and other European countries class many hundred different minor crimes as violent, in the US federal government classes about 5 to 10 (I can't remember the exact number).

That means many more crimes get recorded as violent in countries like the UK vs the U.S. you normalise the data only classing like for like then the U.S. over takes the UK for violent crime.

Statistics can be used and abused!

So I am not wrong and the thinking that forms your opinion is based upon a flawed interpretation of statistics.

Look I don't want to trade insults anymore I think I have my position clear, in a free society we have a right to an opinion. What has made me bullish and belligerent is people just outright dismissing my points.

Normalising the data? How about trivialising the facts?

Ever heard of the door being broken down by the bloke in the flat upstairs who then violently assaulted and raped another man? Or the mugger who after getting the watch, wallet and phone walked away half a dozen steps, then came back and stuck his knife in the victims chest anyway? Or how about the old boy, a victim of a distraction burglary, but when they didn't find enough cash, tied him to his own kitchen chair and beat him. (There was no more money and the old boy said he so wished he had his old service bayonet) or what about the one where the junkie threatened to stick a syringe full of infected blood into the baby unless the mother handed over the keys of her car?

And that's before we see the special brand of criminality brought to these shores! Did you see the shootout in a London street between a Turkish gangster and a plain clothes NCA surveillance officer? The ease in which a criminal was prepared to fill a street with bullets is frightening.

Proportionality? Apart from the NCA shooting, all of the others happened within 20 miles of where I live and I live in a quiet, semi rural part of Kent!

You agree with the right to defence, but deny the most appropriate tools....?

Yeah, you're still wrong.

First of all can we drop the who is right and wrong stuff, it is childish (I realise that it was me who pushed it first). Right and wrong is subjective so can we just stop wasting each other's time accept that we have two subjectively different positions and call a truce in that respect.

In respect of data normalisation no it isn't trivialising the facts, if you go to the police in the UK and reported that somebody touched your arm without permission it would be recorded as a violent crime. In the US they would tell you to grow a pair and go away. Normalisation of data and analysing on a like for like basis is vital if the public are to get a fair picture. I would point out in a related sense the anti shooting organisations love to spout data as facts without normalising the data.

You have listed out some very terrifying crimes there but they are still statistically rare. We shouldn't use raw emotion when judging legislative need. As a thought experiment list out the practical steps that would be needed to get concealed carry with pistols on the statute and the political and public hurdles to get there. That is all I ask when people usually after a terrible criminal event star calling for any legislative change. We all asked for no kneejurk reaction after Cumbria, is what I am pointing out no different.

Comparing FBI crime statistics with those of the home office is highly dangerous without data normalisation.

Also as I have already pointed out I think people have a right to self defence proportional to any threat.

Define "proportional". Is it proportional to a specific threat? Who would define what is "proportional to a specific threat? Proportional in relation to what exactly? At what point is proportional established. How do we convey "proportional" to 12 people sitting in a court room hearing selective evidence against you.

Why should self defence be "proportional" anyway - surely if people risked being killed by their victim then the attacker makes the choice - win or lose - as they always do. Is this about protecting criminals??

If it was legal to shoot and kill burglars in your house just who would be at fault when a burglar was killed? Do not be a criminal seems the answer.

Comparing FBI crime statistics with those of the home office is highly dangerous without data normalisation.

Same applies to US experience of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens for self defence - it is impossible to compare the US experience against the UK. Different people, different mindset. I am sure the FBI quantify data differently to the UK.

Chuck wrote:

Also as I have already pointed out I think people have a right to self defence proportional to any threat.

Define proportional.. Consider disparity of force.

CANT RUN.jpg

daft rape advice.jpg

Well you make point Chuck with a couple of US posters. We cant judge in a proportional sense based on the us that has a different cultural climate and practical situation on the ground. Remember what I said about France! There are more pistols in public circulation within the us than all the guns held by the public, police and military within France. A terrible terrorist attack against a known target who already had police protection is not justification to legislate for conceal carry and widespread public support for a change is unlikely.

A terrible terrorist attack against a known target who already had police protection is not justification to legislate for conceal carry and widespread public support for a change is unlikely.

I wonder how the victims would feel about that one mate. Of course public support is unlikely, they are took damn scared and abdicate their own safety to others, it's what we do nowadays.

Just wonder why we must remain defenceless in face of random attacks by those who DO want to kill us or cause harm. Maybe time that workplaces had armed security - suitably trained of course.

The origin if the posters is irrelevant, the message is universal.

Chuck wrote:The origin if the posters is irrelevant, the message is universal.

Absolutely. Why does a US rapist reasonably deserve to get shot, but not one from the UK. Does UK rape not work the same way as US rape? Do us stiff upper lipped Brits not mentally scar the same way.

Fedaykin, I see you not wanting to rock the boat, but the bottom line is that there is no public or political support because we have gone to them and asked for it. People with the same mindset as you are running the national bodies and scared to death of losing what we already have to ask for something more, which is of course reasonable.

Do our opinions on legislature on guns as law abiding firearms owners not count for anything. We shouldn't speak out when we see a gross injustice?

Your suggestion of just don't make yourself seen or heard will only damage firearm legislature of the future. "Well we don't hear from them [FAC holders] when we take things, let's take more, because we can".

We should be jumping up and down and making a stink about how upset we are that our sports have been desecrated as much as they have been in an effort to overturn the kneejerk legislature that was put in place in years gone by. All of us, and the governing bodies.

So what would be "proportionate response " here then?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/belt-beating- ... ml#MAHODnr

Les wrote:If the criminals are intelligent enough to source illegal weapons, then I am sure they are intelligent enough to find ammunition for them.

Just why the feck Lord West believes that this rubbish has anything to do with FAC holders is beyond me.

Indeed! Can't see terrorists having the patience to go via the FAC route - 100 + days for a renewal in my case!

"Look, any news on our FAC applications? Only we have a major strike for Allah against Western oppressors planned for next week!" :)

Chuck wrote:

A terrible terrorist attack against a known target who already had police protection is not justification to legislate for conceal carry and widespread public support for a change is unlikely.

I wonder how the victims would feel about that one mate. Of course public support is unlikely, they are took damn scared and abdicate their own safety to others, it's what we do nowadays.

Just wonder why we must remain defenceless in face of random attacks by those who DO want to kill us or cause harm. Maybe time that workplaces had armed security - suitably trained of course.

The origin if the posters is irrelevant, the message is universal.

Rape is an awful crime and victims of it deserve our support and perpetrators deserve all they get but...

Rape is extremely rare, fyi the second rarest crime in the UK after murder. Also victims of rape in most cases know the perpetrator as it is also sadly a crime mostly within the home. Being raped in a public space is thankfully extremely rare which brings me back to proportionality.

Chuck wrote:So what would be "proportionate response " here then?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/belt-beating- ... ml#MAHODnr

I have a meeting so I will give a reply later, in short still not a gun.

In the meantime I have a question Chuck, are you prepared to pay with increased taxes if concealed carry was allowed for in our country? Explain later unless you guess the point first....