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

With Ken Clarke's recent statement on the clarification of self defense, where does that leave things and what could it lead to?

With his statement that ''People are entitled to use whatever force is necessary, to protect themselves and there homes''

''A person has an absolute right to defend themselves and there home''

Could we end up seeing things going the way of America ???


Mr Clarke's brief interview can be found on the following link:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13959093

LONG RANGE CAPT wrote:With Ken Clarke's recent statement on the clarification of self defense, where does that leave things and what could it lead to?

Could we end up seeing things going the way of America ???


Mr Clarke's brief interview can be found on the following link:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13959093

Nah we're not that lucky! An Englishman defending himself and his castle, you must be maaaaaad! :lol: :(

This whole thing is conceited b0ll0x to get the tory big-gun 'crazy' Ken back in the publics good books after that ridiculous half-rapists-jail-sentence fiasco :evil:

I'll not hold my breath for the first time its tested in court :roll:

Gotta agree with blackstuff, the Tories spouted this guff time and time again when Liebore were in..only to see those defending home or self getting fcked over by the Criminal Protection Service..This is just headline grabbing in an attempt to look good, they don't mean it.

No government in this country(i.e the big 3 con that will be elected by most) will EVER want you capable of fighting back.

If they REALLY meant it they would legalise handuns and shotguns for home defence and let us set up the training and infrastructure to support it..and of course THEY would collect the taxes on all the guns sold and businesses that would do the training.

Clearly targeting the CPS...hope it changes in favour of the homeowner and not the perp.

It will be easily measured in the press...they will have to stick to their word.

They might have reviewed the 22 handgun law Labour brought in in '98, but for bird going nuts in Cumbria. They reckon after the olympics now.

:(

Robin128 wrote:They might have reviewed the 22 handgun law Labour brought in in '98, but for bird going nuts in Cumbria. They reckon after the olympics now.

I have a feeling we somewhere between slim chance and none and Slim just left town.

We are not going to see 22 handguns for a long while if ever...

Chuck wrote:Gotta agree with blackstuff, the Tories spouted this guff time and time again when Liebore were in..only to see those defending home or self getting fcked over by the Criminal Protection Service..This is just headline grabbing in an attempt to look good, they don't mean it.

No government in this country(i.e the big 3 con that will be elected by most) will EVER want you capable of fighting back.

If they REALLY meant it they would legalise handuns and shotguns for home defence and let us set up the training and infrastructure to support it..and of course THEY would collect the taxes on all the guns sold and businesses that would do the training.

Chuck whilst I dont disagree with what you say,,and your feelings on this,,,,I have to say that we must remember what is reasonable in the circumstances,,,and therefore the use of a Gun in many circumstances would not be reasonable,,and infact way over the top,,,and that in itself is the problem...

Remember you have to justify your actions,,,,and I will say it again as I have before and will continue to do,to everyone,,,,and that is this,,,,IT IS YOU AND YOU ALONE WHO WILL HAVE TO CONVINCE THOSE ON THE 9 O'CLOCK JURY (thats, those who were not there at the time and did not percieve the threat) THAT YOUR ACTIONS, WERE,,,REASONABLE, LAWFULL, JUSTIFIABLE and NECCESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES and that you were at that time IN FEAR for your LIFE and THOSE who it is your DUTY to PROTECT at that given time Either morally or Lawfully.

And for Gods sake make no mistake that there is, in all this, a very thin line when it comes to DEFENDING YOURSELF AND THOSE IT IS YOUR DUTY TO PROTECT.....and DEFENDING/PROTECTING PROPERTY,,,,,different ball game then I'm afraid....I kid you not...
Property is Property,,,and usually replaceable,,,Whilst Life is Life and not Replaceable... The decision of your actions is yours!!

I was totally terrified...he had a big knife (or maybe a gun) and he made a hell of a noise breaking in downstairs and I shouted for him to leave and that I was armed and he just ran up the stairs towards me. My wife was screaming, the dog in the kitchen was climbing up the wall and I thought I was done for and just before he reached me the gun went off in my trembling hand, mylord.

:shock:

Robin128 wrote:I was totally terrified...he had a big knife (or maybe a gun) and he made a hell of a noise breaking in downstairs and I shouted for him to leave and that I was armed and he just ran up the stairs towards me. My wife was screaming, the dog in the kitchen was climbing up the wall and I thought I was done for and just before he reached me the gun went off in my trembling hand, mylord.

:shock:

You might get away with that one Rob?

Of course an Aimed shot would suffice,,,but even that would be misconstrued not doubt by the 9 O'clock jury??

You might be guessing by now that I have absolutely no faith in the 9 O'clock Juries!!

barney57 wrote:Chuck whilst I dont disagree with what you say,,and your feelings on this,,,,I have to say that we must remember what is reasonable in the circumstances,,,and therefore the use of a Gun in many circumstances would not be reasonable,,and infact way over the top,,,and that in itself is the problem...

Remember you have to justify your actions,,,,and I will say it again as I have before and will continue to do,to everyone,,,,and that is this,,,,IT IS YOU AND YOU ALONE WHO WILL HAVE TO CONVINCE THOSE ON THE 9 O'CLOCK JURY (thats, those who were not there at the time and did not percieve the threat) THAT YOUR ACTIONS, WERE,,,REASONABLE, LAWFULL, JUSTIFIABLE and NECCESSARY IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES and that you were at that time IN FEAR for your LIFE and THOSE who it is your DUTY to PROTECT at that given time Either morally or Lawfully.

And for Gods sake make no mistake that there is, in all this, a very thin line when it comes to DEFENDING YOURSELF AND THOSE IT IS YOUR DUTY TO PROTECT.....and DEFENDING/PROTECTING PROPERTY,,,,,different ball game then I'm afraid....I kid you not...
Property is Property,,,and usually replaceable,,,Whilst Life is Life and not Replaceable... The decision of your actions is yours!!

But not if the law is changed...

barney57 wrote:

Robin128 wrote:I was totally terrified...he had a big knife (or maybe a gun) and he made a hell of a noise breaking in downstairs and I shouted for him to leave and that I was armed and he just ran up the stairs towards me. My wife was screaming, the dog in the kitchen was climbing up the wall and I thought I was done for and just before he reached me the gun went off in my trembling hand, mylord.

:shock:

You might get away with that one Rob?

Of course an Aimed shot would suffice,,,but even that would be misconstrued not doubt by the 9 O'clock jury??

You might be guessing by now that I have absolutely no faith in the 9 O'clock Juries!!

Don't ever change, my cyber friend!