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

Well its not really a matter of belief, its what was actually said in the interview, which wasn't what you seem to believe/are implying. But I agree that I hope no one in the FLD misinterprets what was said either.

Blackstuff wrote:Well its not really a matter of belief, its what was actually said in the interview, which wasn't what you seem to believe/are implying. But I agree that I hope no one in the FLD misinterprets what was said either.

Sorry , my disagreement was that I still believe it's a silly debate to get into on live radio, when this is looked into in a period of time some of the details will get left out, it always happens this way.

Dorset_shooter wrote:

Blackstuff wrote:

Dorset_shooter wrote:
You missed the point completely, she is a firearms holder and publicly announced she would be prepared to use it to protect herself / others, last time I checked this wasn't good reason for owning a firearm in this country.

I wasn't opposing the theroy , I just wouldn't be the person to challenge it on live radio.

Can't imagine my local FAO re-issuing my license after shows like that!

The initial query by the caller was "What are the legal implications of a FAC/SGC/RFD holder using their firearms to defend themselves?"

Hernandez then took it one step further by asking "Would you use their gun to 'take out' a terrorist" to which the caller said "Yes".

They didn't say they what to get the conditions changed on their certificate from target shooting/pest control to self defence as you're stating. They were asking "Am I going to get hauled over the coals on the extreme remote possibility I have my gun with me during a terrorist attack and have the opportunity to kill them?"

I will agree to disagree, no point arguing what we both believe in.

My point was I hope she doesn't see any re-percussion from voicing her opinion!!!!

Intrestly the the CC of Devon didn't threaten to revoke or charge anyone who dared to use thier firearms for defence, he instead advised not to, I wounder maby because of the criminal law act 1963 which states the right of anyone to use resonable force for the prevention of crime or make an arrest
There has been a few cases whereby SGC / fac holders have shot intruders and were not charged or revoked !

joe wrote:
Intrestly the the CC of Devon didn't threaten to revoke or charge anyone who dared to use thier firearms for defence, he instead advised not to, I wounder maby because then he could be 'challenged' because the criminal law act 1963 states the right of anyone to use resonable force for the prevention of crime or make an arrest
There has been a few cases whereby SGC / fac holders have shot intruders and were not charged or revoked !

Fairly recently, a judge in a civil case told a burglar who'd been shot by a householder and was claiming damages that if he broke into a house where the owner was present and had a legally held firearm, said burglar should count being shot as an occupational hazard he'd accepted by breaking in. The burglar did not win, not sure about costs, and the householder kept his SGC.

As intent forms a major part of assessing the severity of some offences against the person, I still hold to the view that the less said about what someone plans to do the better.

The point is, that as British gun owners we are conditioned to accept that our guns are NOT to be used for self defence. This woman was rather silly expressing such a view on public radio.

Besides, many of us don't keep our gun cabinets in the bedroom along with the keys. The Police would seriously question a situation whereby you had time to go downstairs, open a gun cabinet and then your ammo cabinet and load a gun... rather than grab your phone and get out of the house..... or pick up a walking stick etc in a self defence situation.

HH1 wrote:The point is, that as British gun owners we are conditioned to accept that our guns are NOT to be used for self defence. This woman was rather silly expressing such a view on public radio.

Besides, many of us don't keep our gun cabinets in the bedroom along with the keys. The Police would seriously question a situation whereby you had time to go downstairs, open a gun cabinet and then your ammo cabinet and load a gun... rather than grab your phone and get out of the house..... or pick up a walking stick etc in a self defence situation.

That's more of a home invasion/burglary scenario, although I'm sure there are plenty of people who do have their cabinets upstairs, perhaps with internal ammo compartments, or simply mindful that Section 2 shotgun ammunition does not have to be locked away, who knows...

I think the scenario that the caller was envisaging was more of a marauding terrorist/gunman a la Michael Ryan/Derrick Bird/Paris terrorists and you having plenty of time to bolt the doors, phone the police and then empty the cabinet.

Some good points there Blackstuff.

Lets just put the Paris attack to one side and consider the case of either Michael Ryan & Derrick Bird.... they had time to plan what they were going to do..... now just imagine you hear gun shots outside and people screaming for help.... you grab a shotgun and run out into the street to help..... the Armed police miraculously turn up in record time.... to to find both of you... IC1 males with guns..... Michael or Derrick brandish their certificate in the air while yelling "he's the baddie" while pointing at you.... and the police shoot you instead of him.

It comes down to "INTOT".... I Never Thought Of That.

We could argue that in the current climate, that it would be easier to determine who the "baddie" is = the IC4 or IC6 bearded man yelling about God.... But then that might be classed as "stereotyping people"...

At this moment in time I am in Dodge City visiting my son and his American wife. My wife and I flew into Wichita before driving to Dodge and have been to Garden city and all the way over to Colorado Springs, and nowhere have we seen anyone acting in the normal yobbish manner that we see back in the UK.
We have been to places where teenagers gather and have not heard anyone "F" and blind or cause any problems. We have not seen anyone carrying (and with the temperatures up @ 98-104 it would have been difficult to hide a pistol) In fact almost everyone we have met has been friendly and pleasant towards us.

So when I hear people say that we don't want to be like America I have to smile, because the people here are a darn site more likely to help you than most people back in the UK. Yes they do have guns; in fact my son's boss has one in the car and when he rides his Harley, he carries it in a holster tucked into the back of his jeans, but that is only when he goes to sort out troublesome tenants who are being evicted (the police will actually turn up to help). Most people my son knows have home defense guns, but no-one makes a big deal about them.

Last night @ 9.00, my wife and I went for a walk around the area just as it was getting dark. We passed people out for a stroll in the heat (still in the low 90's) and all of them said Hi and waived as they passed us; even people in cars waived; something we would find extraordinary back home.

They may own guns but they are a whole lot friendlier to each other.

Right .......... just off to watch the gunfight at the Boot Hill Museum on Wyatt Earp Boulevard clapclap

Worth reading the actual conversation and Devon Police website response if you are interested. The Guardian was a fairer report than some.

That's said, I don't think there is much appetite amongst the few remaining firearms owners for an armed militia. What might happen in the privicy of our own homes is rightly left unsaid in the main.

That said, I would support the right of suitably licensed people to be allowed to carry non lethal forms of defense such as tasers or CS gas if they wished.

I dispare that the British public are so subdued that the only option in the event of a knife attack is to run, assuming you can..

HH1 wrote:Some good points there Blackstuff.

Lets just put the Paris attack to one side and consider the case of either Michael Ryan & Derrick Bird.... they had time to plan what they were going to do..... now just imagine you hear gun shots outside and people screaming for help.... you grab a shotgun and run out into the street to help..... the Armed police miraculously turn up in record time.... to to find both of you... IC1 males with guns..... Michael or Derrick brandish their certificate in the air while yelling "he's the baddie" while pointing at you.... and the police shoot you instead of him.

It comes down to "INTOT".... I Never Thought Of That.

We could argue that in the current climate, that it would be easier to determine who the "baddie" is = the IC4 or IC6 bearded man yelling about God.... But then that might be classed as "stereotyping people"...

I think the initial scenario is extraordinarily unlikely to occur, so taking it to the absolute extreme and have the 'which gunman to shoot' choice like in a film where the hero doesn't know which evil twin/clone/doppleganger to shoot is pushing the boundaries of believability

Firstly if I was in that scenario I would be locking myself indoors with my gun, I wouldn't be running out into the street unless the active shooter (AS) was directly outside and was about to kill someone and I couldn't get the shot from where I already was. Secondly, the police generally approach such situations extremely loudly so I would be dropping my gun well before they were out of their cars. Lastly, I think if the police were to approach the AS would be engaging them, themselves, in which case I think the police would have a pretty good idea who they will be shooting at first.

Either way, stepping outside with a gun in your hand in such circumstances, even if your intentions are good, carries an extreme risk to your own life.