Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Tory rightwing, Labour, UKIP. Trust politicians and big business. Fear the citizen?
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Andy Wainwright
May 15, 2013, 2:03:54 PM5/15/13
to
"Clamp down" on this. "Get tough" on that, and so forth.
As it happens its actually taken a rightist politician, in the form of
Ron Paul, to point this anti-freedom agenda out.
This agenda suits monopolistic business cartels, power hungry
politicians and religious fundementalists alike. The people are not to
be trusted, they must be controlled with an iron fist.
So who's at the recieving end of all this getting tough and clamping
down? Ordinary people. Taking away freedom doesn't make anyone any more
safe either- but the myth that there is a trade off between human rights
and law and order is actually good at keeping the public frightened and
repressed and thus toothless to fight corruption and abuse. Here- look
at this imaginary monster, give us *power* to deal with it. You are
barbarians and need protecting from each other by the all powerful
state. Here, go attack the unemployed, the refugees and so forth-
they've got your money, *forget* we've got more money ourselves than the
rest of you put together.
There's money in fear. Fear sells weapons, locks, walls and fences. When
each shell fired costs ten grand or so of your hard earned cash, who's
taking about wasters and scroungers?
As it happens its actually taken a rightist politician, in the form of
Ron Paul, to point this anti-freedom agenda out.
This agenda suits monopolistic business cartels, power hungry
politicians and religious fundementalists alike. The people are not to
be trusted, they must be controlled with an iron fist.
So who's at the recieving end of all this getting tough and clamping
down? Ordinary people. Taking away freedom doesn't make anyone any more
safe either- but the myth that there is a trade off between human rights
and law and order is actually good at keeping the public frightened and
repressed and thus toothless to fight corruption and abuse. Here- look
at this imaginary monster, give us *power* to deal with it. You are
barbarians and need protecting from each other by the all powerful
state. Here, go attack the unemployed, the refugees and so forth-
they've got your money, *forget* we've got more money ourselves than the
rest of you put together.
There's money in fear. Fear sells weapons, locks, walls and fences. When
each shell fired costs ten grand or so of your hard earned cash, who's
taking about wasters and scroungers?
Andy Wainwright
May 15, 2013, 2:14:33 PM5/15/13
to
Michael Portillo- "Politics should be about setting people free rather
than locking them up".
Just wish we'd have political leaders that would show some balls and
push a pro-freedom agenda.
Bill
May 15, 2013, 2:17:14 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:14:33 +0100, Andy Wainwright
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Again, not socialist/commie stuff this. Another rightist I'll quote is
>Michael Portillo- "Politics should be about setting people free rather
>than locking them up".
>
>Just wish we'd have political leaders that would show some balls and
>push a pro-freedom agenda.
>
Is that an agenda that allows me to own pistols again?
<andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Again, not socialist/commie stuff this. Another rightist I'll quote is
>Michael Portillo- "Politics should be about setting people free rather
>than locking them up".
>
>Just wish we'd have political leaders that would show some balls and
>push a pro-freedom agenda.
>
Andy Wainwright
May 15, 2013, 2:22:17 PM5/15/13
to
events. The difference between a competant and otherwise leader is the
skilled one acts not reacts.
Cynic
May 15, 2013, 2:24:20 PM5/15/13
to
--
Cynic
Bill
May 15, 2013, 2:31:29 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:22:17 +0100, Andy Wainwright
I very much doubt that any political leader in the UK could have
resisted the tide of hysteria that flowed over the press at that time.
Pistols were banned from private ownership because the press,
especially the Daily Mirror who have led the charge several times
against the private ownership of various firearms, wanted them banned
and the 50,000 pistol shooters didn't have the cash or the numbers to
fight them.
Later something similar happened to the fox hunters.
It is interesting to note that the game shooting people weren't even
considered for some sort of 'punishment by licence terms' after the
recent massacre by a sporting gun in 2010 even though the deaths were
on the same sort of scale as Hungerford and Dunblaine.
resisted the tide of hysteria that flowed over the press at that time.
Pistols were banned from private ownership because the press,
especially the Daily Mirror who have led the charge several times
against the private ownership of various firearms, wanted them banned
and the 50,000 pistol shooters didn't have the cash or the numbers to
fight them.
Later something similar happened to the fox hunters.
It is interesting to note that the game shooting people weren't even
considered for some sort of 'punishment by licence terms' after the
recent massacre by a sporting gun in 2010 even though the deaths were
on the same sort of scale as Hungerford and Dunblaine.
AlanG
May 16, 2013, 3:14:21 AM5/16/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:17:14 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
It should be.
I'm not against gun controls but they should be more like the permits
to drive a car. I should not have to ask a policeman for permission to
own a gun. Rather I should have the absolute right to own one as long
as I have passed a test of safe use and law regarding use. That right
should only be removeable by a court on grounds of incompetence or
real risk to a third party just like driving a car.
wrote:
I'm not against gun controls but they should be more like the permits
to drive a car. I should not have to ask a policeman for permission to
own a gun. Rather I should have the absolute right to own one as long
as I have passed a test of safe use and law regarding use. That right
should only be removeable by a court on grounds of incompetence or
real risk to a third party just like driving a car.
Norman Wells
May 16, 2013, 3:50:56 AM5/16/13
to
AlanG
May 16, 2013, 4:20:25 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:50:56 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
No they don't. Do you expect one to leap out of the bushes and shoot
you?
> It's what they're for.
They have a multiplicity of uses
wrote:
you?
> It's what they're for.
Mentalguy2k8
May 16, 2013, 6:23:08 AM5/16/13
to
"Andy Wainwright" <andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kn0jhj$11a$1...@dont-email.me...
*might* happen rather than what *has*. Either that, or you're advocating
complete inactivity on everything.
Mentalguy2k8
May 16, 2013, 6:24:42 AM5/16/13
to
"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aj59p8lua9b3q18o3...@4ax.com...
>>All guns represent a real risk to third parties.
>
> No they don't. Do you expect one to leap out of the bushes and shoot
> you?
dangerous.
>
>> It's what they're for.
>
> They have a multiplicity of uses
Mentalguy2k8
May 16, 2013, 6:30:17 AM5/16/13
to
news:1h19p852gegt609tv...@4ax.com...
a bank teller for permission to withdraw money from your account. It's the
information that they can access which determines, according to strict
criteria, whether you're "allowed" to do either, not their personal opinion.
> On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:17:14 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:14:33 +0100, Andy Wainwright
>><andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Again, not socialist/commie stuff this. Another rightist I'll quote is
>>>Michael Portillo- "Politics should be about setting people free rather
>>>than locking them up".
>>>
>>>Just wish we'd have political leaders that would show some balls and
>>>push a pro-freedom agenda.
>>>
>>Is that an agenda that allows me to own pistols again?
>
> It should be.
>
> I'm not against gun controls but they should be more like the permits
> to drive a car. I should not have to ask a policeman for permission to
> own a gun.
You don't ask a Policeman for permission to own a gun any more than you ask
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:14:33 +0100, Andy Wainwright
>><andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Again, not socialist/commie stuff this. Another rightist I'll quote is
>>>Michael Portillo- "Politics should be about setting people free rather
>>>than locking them up".
>>>
>>>Just wish we'd have political leaders that would show some balls and
>>>push a pro-freedom agenda.
>>>
>>Is that an agenda that allows me to own pistols again?
>
> It should be.
>
> I'm not against gun controls but they should be more like the permits
> to drive a car. I should not have to ask a policeman for permission to
> own a gun.
a bank teller for permission to withdraw money from your account. It's the
information that they can access which determines, according to strict
criteria, whether you're "allowed" to do either, not their personal opinion.
AlanG
May 16, 2013, 7:07:06 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:24:42 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:aj59p8lua9b3q18o3...@4ax.com...
>
>>>All guns represent a real risk to third parties.
>>
>> No they don't. Do you expect one to leap out of the bushes and shoot
>> you?
>
>Nuclear warheads don't jump out of bushes either, but they're still
>dangerous.
No they're not
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:aj59p8lua9b3q18o3...@4ax.com...
>
>>>All guns represent a real risk to third parties.
>>
>> No they don't. Do you expect one to leap out of the bushes and shoot
>> you?
>
>Nuclear warheads don't jump out of bushes either, but they're still
>dangerous.
>
>>
>>> It's what they're for.
>>
>> They have a multiplicity of uses
>
>Yes, shooting things... ummm, shooting things and errr shooting things.
Like hammers are used for bashing things
>>
>>> It's what they're for.
>>
>> They have a multiplicity of uses
>
>Yes, shooting things... ummm, shooting things and errr shooting things.
AlanG
May 16, 2013, 7:10:32 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 11:30:17 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1h19p852gegt609tv...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:17:14 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:14:33 +0100, Andy Wainwright
>>><andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Again, not socialist/commie stuff this. Another rightist I'll quote is
>>>>Michael Portillo- "Politics should be about setting people free rather
>>>>than locking them up".
>>>>
>>>>Just wish we'd have political leaders that would show some balls and
>>>>push a pro-freedom agenda.
>>>>
>>>Is that an agenda that allows me to own pistols again?
>>
>> It should be.
>>
>> I'm not against gun controls but they should be more like the permits
>> to drive a car. I should not have to ask a policeman for permission to
>> own a gun.
>
>You don't ask a Policeman for permission to own a gun any more than you ask
>a bank teller for permission to withdraw money from your account.
Liar
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1h19p852gegt609tv...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:17:14 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:14:33 +0100, Andy Wainwright
>>><andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Again, not socialist/commie stuff this. Another rightist I'll quote is
>>>>Michael Portillo- "Politics should be about setting people free rather
>>>>than locking them up".
>>>>
>>>>Just wish we'd have political leaders that would show some balls and
>>>>push a pro-freedom agenda.
>>>>
>>>Is that an agenda that allows me to own pistols again?
>>
>> It should be.
>>
>> I'm not against gun controls but they should be more like the permits
>> to drive a car. I should not have to ask a policeman for permission to
>> own a gun.
>
>You don't ask a Policeman for permission to own a gun any more than you ask
>a bank teller for permission to withdraw money from your account.
> It's the
>information that they can access which determines, according to strict
>criteria, whether you're "allowed" to do either, not their personal opinion.
They can refuse you.
That is a bit different to having an absolute right to own a firearm
and the police having to prove you are a danger to others in order to
stop you owning one.
Ophelia
May 16, 2013, 7:27:53 AM5/16/13
to
"Mentalguy2k8" <Mental...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kn2c8k$1iu$2...@dont-email.me...
be the same for all areas but unfortunately neither are very specific and
the interpretation differs greatly between constabularies. The shooting
associations spend a big percentage of their members' subscriptions each
year fighting cases where additional requirements, outside those required by
law, have been imposed on applicants.
In Yorkshire recently, shooters going onto farmland were being asked to ring
the police before going out to say exactly where they were going to be and
for how long 'to avoid the need for deployment of an armed response unit in
response to a call from a member of the public'. An armed response unit?
i.e. if you don't do this you can expect to have black clad officers
abseiling down on you from a helicopter! In my area, last time a gamekeeper
called the station because he heard shooting next to a wood he was
responsible for, I got a constable turn up in a Landrover, took one look at
my hide facing out from the wood over a pea field with my pigeon decoys in
it, accepted a couple of brace of pigeon from my bag, and then drove off to
reassure the gamekeeper.
It certainly isn't the fault of individual police officers, but a lot of it
is down to the attitude of the Chief Constable of the area. Although the
associations often win, the attitude of some CCs seems to be that if they
make the whole system as complex and difficult as possible some people will
simply give up. In their view that can only be a good thing.
Mentalguy2k8
May 16, 2013, 7:45:10 AM5/16/13
to
news:fff9p8lciqq23e54f...@4ax.com...
Because they need to check your criminal record. Who else would you suggest
you go to? Your local butcher, florist?
you go to? Your local butcher, florist?
Mentalguy2k8
May 16, 2013, 7:52:52 AM5/16/13
to
"Ophelia" <Oph...@elsinore.me.ku.invalid> wrote in message
news:avju5o...@mid.individual.net...
>> You don't ask a Policeman for permission to own a gun any more than you
>> ask a bank teller for permission to withdraw money from your account.
>> It's the information that they can access which determines, according to
>> strict criteria, whether you're "allowed" to do either, not their
>> personal opinion.
> In Yorkshire recently, shooters going onto farmland were being asked to
> ring the police before going out to say exactly where they were going to
> be and for how long 'to avoid the need for deployment of an armed response
> unit in response to a call from a member of the public'. An armed response
> unit? i.e. if you don't do this you can expect to have black clad officers
> abseiling down on you from a helicopter!
But isn't that criticism a little unfair? What else are the Police supposed
> ring the police before going out to say exactly where they were going to
> be and for how long 'to avoid the need for deployment of an armed response
> unit in response to a call from a member of the public'. An armed response
> unit? i.e. if you don't do this you can expect to have black clad officers
> abseiling down on you from a helicopter!
to do if they get reports of gunshots and aren't aware of any legal "shoots"
going on?
It's yet another situation where the Police are damned either way. If
someone had reported gunshots when Derrick Bird was running amok and the
Police said "oh it's probably just Ophelia bagging some pigeons, ignore it",
they'd be criticised. If they took it seriously but sent an unarmed PCSO,
they'd be criticised. There are legions of people out there who, with the
benefit of hindsight, will only ever see these things as the Police
over-or-under-reacting to every single incident.
AlanG
May 16, 2013, 8:03:57 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 12:45:10 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
Why?
I have no objections to anyone who has served their sentence being
allowed to participate fully in society.
> Who else would you suggest
>you go to? Your local butcher, florist?
Gun shop.
Anyone passing a test need only display their licence of competency
and buy a gun
I have no objections to anyone who has served their sentence being
allowed to participate fully in society.
> Who else would you suggest
>you go to? Your local butcher, florist?
Anyone passing a test need only display their licence of competency
and buy a gun
Ophelia
May 16, 2013, 8:45:37 AM5/16/13
to
news:kn2h3i$p39$1...@dont-email.me...
But there is a need for common sense. If shots are being fired, or a call
from the public says someone is walking down the street with a gun in their
hand, in a city, town or village that is one thing, if a simple glance at
the map shows that the report is of someone on farmland then it is clearly a
different situation.
The requirement to call in before going shooting is not a requirement in
law; to try to push it by the excuse that a report of someone shooting on
farmland might precipitate the deployment of an armed response team, which
is a waste of taxpayers' money and the team's time when they might be needed
elsewhere, is totally bogus and an attempt to intimidate the shooters. The
response of sending a PC with the gamekeeper was entirely appropriate, he
checked the situation, looked at my SGC and permission letter from the
farmer on whose land I was shooting and satisfied himself that there was no
illegal activity taking place. I didn't and don't have a problem with that.
Nor do I with an armed response team being deployed to the situation in a
built up area. If there is *reasonable* doubt as to the safety of an officer
sent to investigate then it should be an appropriate team that responds. The
problems arise when unnecessary requirements are imposed to deter what is
lawful activity, or as sometimes happens, because the person responding does
not know the law well enough and makes it up!
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
from the public says someone is walking down the street with a gun in their
hand, in a city, town or village that is one thing, if a simple glance at
the map shows that the report is of someone on farmland then it is clearly a
different situation.
The requirement to call in before going shooting is not a requirement in
law; to try to push it by the excuse that a report of someone shooting on
farmland might precipitate the deployment of an armed response team, which
is a waste of taxpayers' money and the team's time when they might be needed
elsewhere, is totally bogus and an attempt to intimidate the shooters. The
response of sending a PC with the gamekeeper was entirely appropriate, he
checked the situation, looked at my SGC and permission letter from the
farmer on whose land I was shooting and satisfied himself that there was no
illegal activity taking place. I didn't and don't have a problem with that.
Nor do I with an armed response team being deployed to the situation in a
built up area. If there is *reasonable* doubt as to the safety of an officer
sent to investigate then it should be an appropriate team that responds. The
problems arise when unnecessary requirements are imposed to deter what is
lawful activity, or as sometimes happens, because the person responding does
not know the law well enough and makes it up!
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
Andy Wainwright
May 16, 2013, 9:50:39 AM5/16/13
to
outlaw guns only outlaws will have them.
Thing is, after Dunblane they not only banned handguns but spent a lot
of money turning schools into near fortresses.
Yet no money was put into improving accessibility of mental health
services- the guy who shot those kids did so for medical reasons as
opposed to moral ones. In addition, stigmatisation of serious mental
illness prevents those who need the help the most from seeking it.
Better resources for mental health also means less unemployment, as with
other illness, more satisfactory curing of the afflicted allows people
to go back to work.
Bill
May 16, 2013, 11:29:09 AM5/16/13
to
>All guns represent a real risk to third parties. It's what they're for.
You don't actually know how a firearm is described in British law do
you...
Bill
May 16, 2013, 11:31:46 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:03:57 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
>I have no objections to anyone who has served their sentence being
>allowed to participate fully in society.
I do.
I wouldn't want some bank robber who has done his time to have the
freedom to buy firearms.
Neither would I like the friendly local pyromaniac to be able to buy
explosives or fuses.
wrote:
>I have no objections to anyone who has served their sentence being
>allowed to participate fully in society.
I wouldn't want some bank robber who has done his time to have the
freedom to buy firearms.
Neither would I like the friendly local pyromaniac to be able to buy
explosives or fuses.
Bill
May 16, 2013, 11:36:18 AM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 12:27:53 +0100, "Ophelia"
<Oph...@elsinore.me.ku.invalid> wrote:
>
>In Yorkshire recently, shooters going onto farmland were being asked to ring
>the police before going out to say exactly where they were going to be and
>for how long 'to avoid the need for deployment of an armed response unit in
>response to a call from a member of the public'. An armed response unit?
>i.e. if you don't do this you can expect to have black clad officers
>abseiling down on you from a helicopter!
Well in North Yorkshire that's the normal procedure as we have an
<Oph...@elsinore.me.ku.invalid> wrote:
>
>In Yorkshire recently, shooters going onto farmland were being asked to ring
>the police before going out to say exactly where they were going to be and
>for how long 'to avoid the need for deployment of an armed response unit in
>response to a call from a member of the public'. An armed response unit?
>i.e. if you don't do this you can expect to have black clad officers
>abseiling down on you from a helicopter!
awful lot of townie tourists who've never actually seen a gun before
and all of four ARV's to cover a county of some three and a half
thousand square miles and some urban hill walker phoning the cops on
his mobile because he's seen a couple of wildfowlers with shotguns
dressed in cammo gear isn't unheard of...
Bill
May 16, 2013, 12:02:17 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:29:09 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
That should be 'English and Scottish Law'.
wrote:
AlanG
May 16, 2013, 12:07:19 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:31:46 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:03:57 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I have no objections to anyone who has served their sentence being
>>allowed to participate fully in society.
>
>I do.
>
>I wouldn't want some bank robber who has done his time to have the
>freedom to buy firearms.
If he is still considered a danger then he should not be released
You don't want to rehabilitate offenders?
wrote:
>On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:03:57 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I have no objections to anyone who has served their sentence being
>>allowed to participate fully in society.
>
>I do.
>
>I wouldn't want some bank robber who has done his time to have the
>freedom to buy firearms.
You don't want to rehabilitate offenders?
>
>Neither would I like the friendly local pyromaniac to be able to buy
>explosives or fuses.
The local pyromaniac can probably make her own
>Neither would I like the friendly local pyromaniac to be able to buy
>explosives or fuses.
Bill
May 16, 2013, 12:16:56 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:07:19 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>You don't want to rehabilitate offenders?
>>
>>Neither would I like the friendly local pyromaniac to be able to buy
>>explosives or fuses.
>
>The local pyromaniac can probably make her own
Doubtful.
It takes a level of sophistication to make effective fuses, which is
why so many pyromaniacs have burnt fingers...
wrote:
>On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:31:46 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:03:57 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have no objections to anyone who has served their sentence being
>>>allowed to participate fully in society.
>>
>>I do.
>>
>>I wouldn't want some bank robber who has done his time to have the
>>freedom to buy firearms.
>
>If he is still considered a danger then he should not be released
If he's 'done his time' then he's released.
>On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:31:46 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:03:57 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have no objections to anyone who has served their sentence being
>>>allowed to participate fully in society.
>>
>>I do.
>>
>>I wouldn't want some bank robber who has done his time to have the
>>freedom to buy firearms.
>
>If he is still considered a danger then he should not be released
>You don't want to rehabilitate offenders?
>>
>>Neither would I like the friendly local pyromaniac to be able to buy
>>explosives or fuses.
>
>The local pyromaniac can probably make her own
It takes a level of sophistication to make effective fuses, which is
why so many pyromaniacs have burnt fingers...
AlanG
May 16, 2013, 12:18:49 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:36:18 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
That's down the hysteria promoted by the police and press. I recall
one incident a few years ago when an armed response team turned up at
a house where the guy was using a pistol drill to fix something to his
roof. Then there was the plod in the helicopter threatening to shoot a
local landowner who was quite legally shooting across his own land.
The police threatened to give him problems with his licence if he
complained.
Since there are a few million legally owned guns including paintball,
airsoft and air weapons that can be used lawfully in ones own garden
the hysteria is unnecessary. And that is without the toy guns children
play with.
I will admit the situation is not as bad as it used to be. When a
friend was shooting squirrels in his back garden he received only a
knock on the door and an enquiry from the policeman as to what he was
using. When he offered to demonstrate that it was a lawfully held air
weapon the plod left.
wrote:
one incident a few years ago when an armed response team turned up at
a house where the guy was using a pistol drill to fix something to his
roof. Then there was the plod in the helicopter threatening to shoot a
local landowner who was quite legally shooting across his own land.
The police threatened to give him problems with his licence if he
complained.
Since there are a few million legally owned guns including paintball,
airsoft and air weapons that can be used lawfully in ones own garden
the hysteria is unnecessary. And that is without the toy guns children
play with.
I will admit the situation is not as bad as it used to be. When a
friend was shooting squirrels in his back garden he received only a
knock on the door and an enquiry from the policeman as to what he was
using. When he offered to demonstrate that it was a lawfully held air
weapon the plod left.
Ophelia
May 16, 2013, 12:21:53 PM5/16/13
to
"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:40v9p8l4ftir03qf7...@4ax.com...
which it obviously isn't accepted as such because I shoot in various places
around North Yorkshire (Ripon/Harrogate/Richmond/Hawes/Helmsley/etc) and
regularly on one farm and neither the farmer nor any of the other shooters
suggested that I should do that. The problem of townies in the country is
the same everywhere but they don't all impose their own requirements on
shooters. Which club do you belong to there btw?
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
Ophelia
May 16, 2013, 12:12:19 PM5/16/13
to
AlanG
May 16, 2013, 12:31:13 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:16:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
> which is
>why so many pyromaniacs have burnt fingers...
Know many promaniacs?
wrote:
>On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:07:19 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:31:46 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:03:57 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have no objections to anyone who has served their sentence being
>>>>allowed to participate fully in society.
>>>
>>>I do.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't want some bank robber who has done his time to have the
>>>freedom to buy firearms.
>>
>>If he is still considered a danger then he should not be released
>
>If he's 'done his time' then he's released.
Then he should have all the rights of anyone else
>On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:07:19 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:31:46 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:03:57 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have no objections to anyone who has served their sentence being
>>>>allowed to participate fully in society.
>>>
>>>I do.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't want some bank robber who has done his time to have the
>>>freedom to buy firearms.
>>
>>If he is still considered a danger then he should not be released
>
>If he's 'done his time' then he's released.
>
>>You don't want to rehabilitate offenders?
>>>
>>>Neither would I like the friendly local pyromaniac to be able to buy
>>>explosives or fuses.
>>
>>The local pyromaniac can probably make her own
>
>Doubtful.
>
>It takes a level of sophistication to make effective fuses,
No it doesn't
>>You don't want to rehabilitate offenders?
>>>
>>>Neither would I like the friendly local pyromaniac to be able to buy
>>>explosives or fuses.
>>
>>The local pyromaniac can probably make her own
>
>Doubtful.
>
>It takes a level of sophistication to make effective fuses,
> which is
>why so many pyromaniacs have burnt fingers...
Bill
May 16, 2013, 1:14:48 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:31:13 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
>On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:16:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:07:19 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:31:46 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:03:57 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have no objections to anyone who has served their sentence being
>>>>>allowed to participate fully in society.
>>>>
>>>>I do.
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't want some bank robber who has done his time to have the
>>>>freedom to buy firearms.
>>>
>>>If he is still considered a danger then he should not be released
>>
>>If he's 'done his time' then he's released.
>
>Then he should have all the rights of anyone else
So paedos get off the register then?
>On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:16:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:07:19 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:31:46 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:03:57 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have no objections to anyone who has served their sentence being
>>>>>allowed to participate fully in society.
>>>>
>>>>I do.
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't want some bank robber who has done his time to have the
>>>>freedom to buy firearms.
>>>
>>>If he is still considered a danger then he should not be released
>>
>>If he's 'done his time' then he's released.
>
>Then he should have all the rights of anyone else
Bill
May 16, 2013, 1:17:17 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:21:53 +0100, "Ophelia"
I don't these days, I shoot over private land.
However my wife needs lessons and I'm considering going to Cottondale
for them.
However my wife needs lessons and I'm considering going to Cottondale
for them.
AlanG
May 16, 2013, 1:27:14 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:14:48 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
If they are considered dangerous they should be locked up
wrote:
>On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:31:13 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:16:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:07:19 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:31:46 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:03:57 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have no objections to anyone who has served their sentence being
>>>>>>allowed to participate fully in society.
>>>>>
>>>>>I do.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wouldn't want some bank robber who has done his time to have the
>>>>>freedom to buy firearms.
>>>>
>>>>If he is still considered a danger then he should not be released
>>>
>>>If he's 'done his time' then he's released.
>>
>>Then he should have all the rights of anyone else
>
>So paedos get off the register then?
Yep.
>On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:31:13 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:16:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:07:19 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 16:31:46 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 16 May 2013 13:03:57 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have no objections to anyone who has served their sentence being
>>>>>>allowed to participate fully in society.
>>>>>
>>>>>I do.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wouldn't want some bank robber who has done his time to have the
>>>>>freedom to buy firearms.
>>>>
>>>>If he is still considered a danger then he should not be released
>>>
>>>If he's 'done his time' then he's released.
>>
>>Then he should have all the rights of anyone else
>
>So paedos get off the register then?
If they are considered dangerous they should be locked up
Bill
May 16, 2013, 1:35:14 PM5/16/13
to
Ophelia
May 16, 2013, 1:35:27 PM5/16/13
to
news:u25ap8tru8s8qro06...@4ax.com...
We have private land to shoot over too. I much prefer it and it's always
good to bag summat for supper:)
> However my wife needs lessons and I'm considering going to Cottondale
> for them.
Hope she enjoys it:)
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
good to bag summat for supper:)
> However my wife needs lessons and I'm considering going to Cottondale
> for them.
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
Cassandra
May 16, 2013, 3:06:57 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 12:07:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
If you went down B&Q and asked for advice on which hammer was best for
causing fatal injuries you'd have a serious personality disorder.
Gun nuts debate this all the time
wrote:
causing fatal injuries you'd have a serious personality disorder.
Gun nuts debate this all the time
Cassandra
May 16, 2013, 3:06:59 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 08:14:21 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:17:14 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>own a gun. Rather I should have the absolute right to own one as long
>as I have passed a test of safe use and law regarding use. That right
>should only be removeable by a court on grounds of incompetence or
>real risk to a third party just like driving a car.
and no one who has passed a driving test ever gets prosecuted for
breaking the laws on driving a car...
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:17:14 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 May 2013 19:14:33 +0100, Andy Wainwright
>><andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Again, not socialist/commie stuff this. Another rightist I'll quote is
>>>Michael Portillo- "Politics should be about setting people free rather
>>>than locking them up".
>>>
>>>Just wish we'd have political leaders that would show some balls and
>>>push a pro-freedom agenda.
>>>
>>Is that an agenda that allows me to own pistols again?
>
>><andrewricha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Again, not socialist/commie stuff this. Another rightist I'll quote is
>>>Michael Portillo- "Politics should be about setting people free rather
>>>than locking them up".
>>>
>>>Just wish we'd have political leaders that would show some balls and
>>>push a pro-freedom agenda.
>>>
>>Is that an agenda that allows me to own pistols again?
>
>It should be.
>
>I'm not against gun controls but they should be more like the permits
>to drive a car. I should not have to ask a policeman for permission to
>
>I'm not against gun controls but they should be more like the permits
>own a gun. Rather I should have the absolute right to own one as long
>as I have passed a test of safe use and law regarding use. That right
>should only be removeable by a court on grounds of incompetence or
>real risk to a third party just like driving a car.
and no one who has passed a driving test ever gets prosecuted for
breaking the laws on driving a car...
Bill
May 16, 2013, 5:24:55 PM5/16/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:06:57 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
(Cassandra) wrote:
>If you went down B&Q and asked for advice on which hammer was best for
>causing fatal injuries you'd have a serious personality disorder.
>
>Gun nuts debate this all the time
Can you:
(Cassandra) wrote:
>If you went down B&Q and asked for advice on which hammer was best for
>causing fatal injuries you'd have a serious personality disorder.
>
>Gun nuts debate this all the time
1. Define 'gun nut' please.
2. Tell me where you've ever heard such a conversation in the UK.
AlanG
May 17, 2013, 2:37:29 AM5/17/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 19:06:57 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
gun leaping out at you from behind the bushes
AlanG
May 17, 2013, 2:39:08 AM5/17/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 18:35:14 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
Its the way we used to work before the state introduced the 1953
offensive weapons law.
offensive weapons law.
AlanG
May 17, 2013, 2:43:39 AM5/17/13
to
There are instances of drivers being banned.
Or are you implying that there would be thousands of gun owners coming
before the courts on petty infringements?
Norman Wells
May 17, 2013, 4:07:38 AM5/17/13
to
AlanG
May 17, 2013, 5:06:28 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 09:07:38 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
If you really believe that you should ask Corley for the address of
his doctor
wrote:
his doctor
Cynic
May 17, 2013, 8:07:23 AM5/17/13
to
>>>Neither would I like the friendly local pyromaniac to be able to buy
>>>explosives or fuses.
>>The local pyromaniac can probably make her own
>Doubtful.
>It takes a level of sophistication to make effective fuses, which is
>why so many pyromaniacs have burnt fingers...
Rubbish. I knew how to make a very effective fuse before I left high
>>>explosives or fuses.
>>The local pyromaniac can probably make her own
>Doubtful.
>It takes a level of sophistication to make effective fuses, which is
>why so many pyromaniacs have burnt fingers...
school - it's pretty common knowlege.
You simply stick a few matches into one end of a cigarette and light
the other end. Good for time delays of up to 10 minutes or so.
--
Cynic
Bill
May 17, 2013, 8:13:16 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:39:08 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
And up to about 1970 you could buy a shotgun license over the Post
Office counter for five shillings.
So what?
Office counter for five shillings.
So what?
AlanG
May 17, 2013, 8:25:39 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:13:16 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
Ten shillings.
No age restrictions either and you could buy shotguns mail order from
Kays catalogue alongside air rifles, bows and fishing rods
>
>So what?
New way is a bad way
No age restrictions either and you could buy shotguns mail order from
Kays catalogue alongside air rifles, bows and fishing rods
>
>So what?
New way is a bad way
Bill
May 17, 2013, 8:44:08 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:25:39 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
Well my first one was 5/-
>No age restrictions either
Age restriction was what it is now, 13.
and you could buy shotguns mail order from
>Kays catalogue
I bought a pistol mail order in 1971 (from Fultons), although I had a
license...
>>
>>So what?
>
>New way is a bad way
So all innovation is wrong?
Don't be silly.
Shotgun licenses were brought in because people started robbing banks
with them.
Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
>No age restrictions either
Age restriction was what it is now, 13.
and you could buy shotguns mail order from
>Kays catalogue
license...
>>
>>So what?
>
>New way is a bad way
Don't be silly.
Shotgun licenses were brought in because people started robbing banks
with them.
Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
Bill
May 17, 2013, 8:44:46 AM5/17/13
to
<The correct answer is 'not very'>
Cynic
May 17, 2013, 8:59:11 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:44:46 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>Rubbish. I knew how to make a very effective fuse before I left high
>>school - it's pretty common knowlege.
>>
>>You simply stick a few matches into one end of a cigarette and light
>>the other end. Good for time delays of up to 10 minutes or so.
>
>And how reliable is that?
>
><The correct answer is 'not very'>
On the contrary. IME it is very reliable (so long as you don't use
hand-rolled ciggies). Factory made cigrarettes seldom go out if left
unattended in free air - the tobacco is deliberately treated to ensure
that they stay alight. But if you want to increase the reliability,
you can trivially set up several such fuses - the probability that
they all fail would then be miniscule.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>Rubbish. I knew how to make a very effective fuse before I left high
>>school - it's pretty common knowlege.
>>
>>You simply stick a few matches into one end of a cigarette and light
>>the other end. Good for time delays of up to 10 minutes or so.
>
>And how reliable is that?
>
><The correct answer is 'not very'>
hand-rolled ciggies). Factory made cigrarettes seldom go out if left
unattended in free air - the tobacco is deliberately treated to ensure
that they stay alight. But if you want to increase the reliability,
you can trivially set up several such fuses - the probability that
they all fail would then be miniscule.
--
Cynic
Bill
May 17, 2013, 9:11:45 AM5/17/13
to
AlanG
May 17, 2013, 9:27:46 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:44:08 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
I'm fairly sure I bought one under 13
>
>Don't be silly.
Nor you
>
>Shotgun licenses were brought in because people started robbing banks
>with them.
Then the solution should be to punish the criminals not the law
abiding user. Sadly the former solution seems to be getting used more
often
abiding doesn't work or there would be no armed crime
>
>
> and you could buy shotguns mail order from
>>Kays catalogue
>
>I bought a pistol mail order in 1971 (from Fultons), although I had a
>license...
>
>>>
>>>So what?
>>
>>New way is a bad way
>
>So all innovation is wrong?
Don't put words into my mouth
>
> and you could buy shotguns mail order from
>>Kays catalogue
>
>I bought a pistol mail order in 1971 (from Fultons), although I had a
>license...
>
>>>
>>>So what?
>>
>>New way is a bad way
>
>So all innovation is wrong?
>
>Don't be silly.
Nor you
>
>Shotgun licenses were brought in because people started robbing banks
>with them.
abiding user. Sadly the former solution seems to be getting used more
often
>
>Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
Nowadays they use stolen or imported ones. Obviously punishing the law
>Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
abiding doesn't work or there would be no armed crime
Ophelia
May 17, 2013, 9:42:53 AM5/17/13
to
news:9b9cp81e8ug5lluao...@4ax.com...
Or even certificates ... and did the certificates ever make a difference to
people using a shotgun while robbing a bank? ;)
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
people using a shotgun while robbing a bank? ;)
--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
Cynic
May 17, 2013, 10:14:55 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:11:45 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
spirits very well indeed - which is what most arsonists use.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>>>Rubbish. I knew how to make a very effective fuse before I left high
>>>>school - it's pretty common knowlege.
>>>>You simply stick a few matches into one end of a cigarette and light
>>>>the other end. Good for time delays of up to 10 minutes or so.
>>>And how reliable is that?
>>><The correct answer is 'not very'>
>>On the contrary. IME it is very reliable (so long as you don't use
>>hand-rolled ciggies). Factory made cigrarettes seldom go out if left
>>unattended in free air - the tobacco is deliberately treated to ensure
>>that they stay alight. But if you want to increase the reliability,
>>you can trivially set up several such fuses - the probability that
>>they all fail would then be miniscule.
>It's also a lousy way to ignite anything but black powder.
I can assure you that it will ignite petrol and other flammable
>>>>Rubbish. I knew how to make a very effective fuse before I left high
>>>>school - it's pretty common knowlege.
>>>>You simply stick a few matches into one end of a cigarette and light
>>>>the other end. Good for time delays of up to 10 minutes or so.
>>>And how reliable is that?
>>><The correct answer is 'not very'>
>>On the contrary. IME it is very reliable (so long as you don't use
>>hand-rolled ciggies). Factory made cigrarettes seldom go out if left
>>unattended in free air - the tobacco is deliberately treated to ensure
>>that they stay alight. But if you want to increase the reliability,
>>you can trivially set up several such fuses - the probability that
>>they all fail would then be miniscule.
>It's also a lousy way to ignite anything but black powder.
spirits very well indeed - which is what most arsonists use.
--
Cynic
Bill
May 17, 2013, 11:09:06 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:27:46 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
criminals to be able to buy shotguns over the counter.
It is what's known as 'a technical fix' and didn't really cause me any
problems.
>>Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
>
>Nowadays they use stolen or imported ones. Obviously punishing the law
>abiding doesn't work or there would be no armed crime
Armed crime is falling.
wrote:
>>Shotgun licenses were brought in because people started robbing banks
>>with them.
>
>Then the solution should be to punish the criminals not the law
>abiding user. Sadly the former solution seems to be getting used more
>often
The introduction of a licensing system did remove the ability of
>>with them.
>
>Then the solution should be to punish the criminals not the law
>abiding user. Sadly the former solution seems to be getting used more
>often
criminals to be able to buy shotguns over the counter.
It is what's known as 'a technical fix' and didn't really cause me any
problems.
>>Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
>
>Nowadays they use stolen or imported ones. Obviously punishing the law
>abiding doesn't work or there would be no armed crime
Bill
May 17, 2013, 11:11:30 AM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:42:53 +0100, "Ophelia"
<Oph...@elsinore.me.ku.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9b9cp81e8ug5lluao...@4ax.com...
<Oph...@elsinore.me.ku.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:9b9cp81e8ug5lluao...@4ax.com...
>Or even certificates ... and did the certificates ever make a difference to
>people using a shotgun while robbing a bank? ;)
Fairly obviously, yes.
>people using a shotgun while robbing a bank? ;)
I remember at the time a man I used to shoot with playing Hell over it
because he claimed it made him a target for burglars and he'd have to
lock his guns away.
The requirement to lock shotguns away didn't actually come in for well
over a decade. Mine decorated a wall until about 1984/5.
AlanG
May 17, 2013, 12:29:05 PM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:09:06 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>
>>>Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
>>
>>Nowadays they use stolen or imported ones. Obviously punishing the law
>>abiding doesn't work or there would be no armed crime
>
>Armed crime is falling.
Armed police numbers are increasing
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:27:46 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:44:08 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Shotgun licenses were brought in because people started robbing banks
>>>with them.
>>
>>Then the solution should be to punish the criminals not the law
>>abiding user. Sadly the former solution seems to be getting used more
>>often
>
>The introduction of a licensing system did remove the ability of
>criminals to be able to buy shotguns over the counter.
And anyone else
>On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:27:46 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:44:08 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Shotgun licenses were brought in because people started robbing banks
>>>with them.
>>
>>Then the solution should be to punish the criminals not the law
>>abiding user. Sadly the former solution seems to be getting used more
>>often
>
>The introduction of a licensing system did remove the ability of
>criminals to be able to buy shotguns over the counter.
>
>It is what's known as 'a technical fix' and didn't really cause me any
>problems.
Known as 'fuck you I'm alright Jack'
>It is what's known as 'a technical fix' and didn't really cause me any
>problems.
>
>>>Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
>>
>>Nowadays they use stolen or imported ones. Obviously punishing the law
>>abiding doesn't work or there would be no armed crime
>
>Armed crime is falling.
Cassandra
May 17, 2013, 1:33:27 PM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 07:43:39 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
No, there would be thousands of gun owners coming
before the courts on major infringements.
Gun nuts like to have it both ways - claim Police persecution when
they get their firearms taken away for "petty" infringements, then
blame the Police for ignoring "petty" infringements when one of them
goes postal.
before the courts on major infringements.
Gun nuts like to have it both ways - claim Police persecution when
they get their firearms taken away for "petty" infringements, then
blame the Police for ignoring "petty" infringements when one of them
goes postal.
Cassandra
May 17, 2013, 4:31:01 PM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 10:06:28 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
Thinking armed criminals lurk behind every corner is delusional...or
makes you a member of the NRA
makes you a member of the NRA
Cassandra
May 17, 2013, 4:31:17 PM5/17/13
to
On Thu, 16 May 2013 22:24:55 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"in the UK"
No need to resort to weasel words
Our Yank cousins show us the true meaning of gun culture
wrote:
No need to resort to weasel words
Our Yank cousins show us the true meaning of gun culture
Bill
May 17, 2013, 5:28:32 PM5/17/13
to
Your point?
Bill
May 17, 2013, 5:29:36 PM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:29:05 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
Why would you have a problem?
>>>>Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
>>>
>>>Nowadays they use stolen or imported ones. Obviously punishing the law
>>>abiding doesn't work or there would be no armed crime
>>
>>Armed crime is falling.
>
>Armed police numbers are increasing
Cite please.
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:09:06 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:27:46 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:44:08 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Shotgun licenses were brought in because people started robbing banks
>>>>with them.
>>>
>>>Then the solution should be to punish the criminals not the law
>>>abiding user. Sadly the former solution seems to be getting used more
>>>often
>>
>>The introduction of a licensing system did remove the ability of
>>criminals to be able to buy shotguns over the counter.
>
>And anyone else
I have never had a problem getting a license.
>On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:09:06 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:27:46 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:44:08 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Shotgun licenses were brought in because people started robbing banks
>>>>with them.
>>>
>>>Then the solution should be to punish the criminals not the law
>>>abiding user. Sadly the former solution seems to be getting used more
>>>often
>>
>>The introduction of a licensing system did remove the ability of
>>criminals to be able to buy shotguns over the counter.
>
>And anyone else
Why would you have a problem?
>>>>Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
>>>
>>>Nowadays they use stolen or imported ones. Obviously punishing the law
>>>abiding doesn't work or there would be no armed crime
>>
>>Armed crime is falling.
>
>Armed police numbers are increasing
Bill
May 17, 2013, 5:30:39 PM5/17/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:33:27 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
(Cassandra) wrote:
>No, there would be thousands of gun owners coming
>before the courts on major infringements.
Cite please, and keep it UK court cases please as that's what we're
(Cassandra) wrote:
>No, there would be thousands of gun owners coming
>before the courts on major infringements.
discussing.
AlanG
May 18, 2013, 3:50:16 AM5/18/13
to
AlanG
May 18, 2013, 3:56:44 AM5/18/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:29:36 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
firearm. I think anyone showing competency should be allowed to own as
many as they like both for sporting and self defence (if the feel the
need). Just like it was before the government got scared of a mass Red
rebellion
streets now than there were prior to licencing being introduced. Back
then they didn't even have police cars with a box of guns in the back.
Even as late as the 1970s a police officer was rarely armed with
anything more than a baton.
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:29:05 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:09:06 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:27:46 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:44:08 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Shotgun licenses were brought in because people started robbing banks
>>>>>with them.
>>>>
>>>>Then the solution should be to punish the criminals not the law
>>>>abiding user. Sadly the former solution seems to be getting used more
>>>>often
>>>
>>>The introduction of a licensing system did remove the ability of
>>>criminals to be able to buy shotguns over the counter.
>>
>>And anyone else
>
>I have never had a problem getting a license.
>
>Why would you have a problem?
My problem is having to ask a policeman for permission to own a
>On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:29:05 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:09:06 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 14:27:46 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:44:08 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Shotgun licenses were brought in because people started robbing banks
>>>>>with them.
>>>>
>>>>Then the solution should be to punish the criminals not the law
>>>>abiding user. Sadly the former solution seems to be getting used more
>>>>often
>>>
>>>The introduction of a licensing system did remove the ability of
>>>criminals to be able to buy shotguns over the counter.
>>
>>And anyone else
>
>I have never had a problem getting a license.
>
>Why would you have a problem?
firearm. I think anyone showing competency should be allowed to own as
many as they like both for sporting and self defence (if the feel the
need). Just like it was before the government got scared of a mass Red
rebellion
>
>
>>>>>Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
>>>>
>>>>Nowadays they use stolen or imported ones. Obviously punishing the law
>>>>abiding doesn't work or there would be no armed crime
>>>
>>>Armed crime is falling.
>>
>>Armed police numbers are increasing
>
>Cite please.
It is an undeniable fact that there are more armed police on the
>
>>>>>Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
>>>>
>>>>Nowadays they use stolen or imported ones. Obviously punishing the law
>>>>abiding doesn't work or there would be no armed crime
>>>
>>>Armed crime is falling.
>>
>>Armed police numbers are increasing
>
>Cite please.
streets now than there were prior to licencing being introduced. Back
then they didn't even have police cars with a box of guns in the back.
Even as late as the 1970s a police officer was rarely armed with
anything more than a baton.
AlanG
May 18, 2013, 3:57:49 AM5/18/13
to
Cassandra
May 18, 2013, 4:54:41 AM5/18/13
to
On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:30:39 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:33:27 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
>(Cassandra) wrote:
>
>>No, there would be thousands of gun owners coming
>>before the courts on major infringements.
>
>Cite please,
A cite from the future ? that would involve time travel.
> and keep it UK court cases please as that's what we're
>discussing.
No, we're discussing what happens when you give everyone who wants one
uncontrolled access to guns.
wrote:
>On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:33:27 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
>(Cassandra) wrote:
>
>>No, there would be thousands of gun owners coming
>>before the courts on major infringements.
>
>Cite please,
> and keep it UK court cases please as that's what we're
>discussing.
uncontrolled access to guns.
Cassandra
May 18, 2013, 4:58:13 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:57:49 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
Should Thomas Hamilton have had his guns taken away for petty offences
that wouldn't be consider offences in the US ?
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation thinks so.
that wouldn't be consider offences in the US ?
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation thinks so.
AlanG
May 18, 2013, 5:42:20 AM5/18/13
to
walk into a gunshop and buy a gun there was very little armed crime.
It is a fact that massacres by a lone gunman only came after the
strict regulation of firearms where they were restricted to those the
police deemed worthy citizens
AlanG
May 18, 2013, 5:45:33 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:58:13 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
Which offences were they?
We aren't in the USA.
>
>The British Association for Shooting and Conservation thinks so.
The BASC operate on the principle of I'm alright Jack. They want gun
ownership to be restricted to those 'they' deem worthy.
We aren't in the USA.
>
>The British Association for Shooting and Conservation thinks so.
ownership to be restricted to those 'they' deem worthy.
Bill
May 18, 2013, 8:47:28 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:56:44 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
live.
I think anyone showing competency should be allowed to own as
>many as they like both for sporting and self defence (if the feel the
>need). Just like it was before the government got scared of a mass Red
>rebellion
Interestingly, nobody else much does, and they tend not to be people
who hold licenses.
>>>>>>Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nowadays they use stolen or imported ones. Obviously punishing the law
>>>>>abiding doesn't work or there would be no armed crime
>>>>
>>>>Armed crime is falling.
>>>
>>>Armed police numbers are increasing
>>
>>Cite please.
>
>It is an undeniable fact that there are more armed police on the
>streets now than there were prior to licencing being introduced. Back
>then they didn't even have police cars with a box of guns in the back.
>Even as late as the 1970s a police officer was rarely armed with
>anything more than a baton.
In fact in the 'sixties and 'seventies almost all detective officers
and about 25% of uniformed officers were qualified 'shots' and
firearms were held at every police station for issue when necessary.
This system meant that 'qualified officers' were not as highly trained
as today and that a lot more policemen carried arms, but turned up a
lot later as they had to get to their police station to draw them.
Now there are far fewer firearms in use by the police and they're used
by far more highly trained officers.
wrote:
>>>>The introduction of a licensing system did remove the ability of
>>>>criminals to be able to buy shotguns over the counter.
>>>
>>>And anyone else
>>
>>I have never had a problem getting a license.
>>
>>Why would you have a problem?
>
>My problem is having to ask a policeman for permission to own a
>firearm.
You never actually see a policeman these days, well, not where I
>>>>criminals to be able to buy shotguns over the counter.
>>>
>>>And anyone else
>>
>>I have never had a problem getting a license.
>>
>>Why would you have a problem?
>
>My problem is having to ask a policeman for permission to own a
>firearm.
live.
I think anyone showing competency should be allowed to own as
>many as they like both for sporting and self defence (if the feel the
>need). Just like it was before the government got scared of a mass Red
>rebellion
who hold licenses.
>>>>>>Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nowadays they use stolen or imported ones. Obviously punishing the law
>>>>>abiding doesn't work or there would be no armed crime
>>>>
>>>>Armed crime is falling.
>>>
>>>Armed police numbers are increasing
>>
>>Cite please.
>
>It is an undeniable fact that there are more armed police on the
>streets now than there were prior to licencing being introduced. Back
>then they didn't even have police cars with a box of guns in the back.
>Even as late as the 1970s a police officer was rarely armed with
>anything more than a baton.
and about 25% of uniformed officers were qualified 'shots' and
firearms were held at every police station for issue when necessary.
This system meant that 'qualified officers' were not as highly trained
as today and that a lot more policemen carried arms, but turned up a
lot later as they had to get to their police station to draw them.
Now there are far fewer firearms in use by the police and they're used
by far more highly trained officers.
Bill
May 18, 2013, 8:48:31 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:54:41 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
(Cassandra) wrote:
>On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:30:39 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:33:27 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
>>(Cassandra) wrote:
>>
>>>No, there would be thousands of gun owners coming
>>>before the courts on major infringements.
>>
>>Cite please,
>
>A cite from the future ? that would involve time travel.
And a change in the law that is actually unimaginable.
>On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:30:39 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 17:33:27 GMT, cassandr...@hotmail.com
>>(Cassandra) wrote:
>>
>>>No, there would be thousands of gun owners coming
>>>before the courts on major infringements.
>>
>>Cite please,
>
>A cite from the future ? that would involve time travel.
Can you do six impossible things before breakfast?
>
>> and keep it UK court cases please as that's what we're
>>discussing.
>
>No, we're discussing what happens when you give everyone who wants one
>uncontrolled access to guns.
Bill
May 18, 2013, 8:49:44 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:42:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
>It is a fact that massacres by a lone gunman only came after the
>strict regulation of firearms where they were restricted to those the
>police deemed worthy citizens
The police do not restrict licenses to those they consider 'worthy
citizens'.
They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
wrote:
>It is a fact that massacres by a lone gunman only came after the
>strict regulation of firearms where they were restricted to those the
>police deemed worthy citizens
citizens'.
They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
Bill
May 18, 2013, 8:51:33 AM5/18/13
to
>Should Thomas Hamilton have had his guns taken away for petty offences
>that wouldn't be consider offences in the US ?
>
>The British Association for Shooting and Conservation thinks so.
More to the point, Hamilton had been reported to the police by his
>that wouldn't be consider offences in the US ?
>
>The British Association for Shooting and Conservation thinks so.
shooting club for being a person unsuitable to own firearms.
In other words, the people he shot with didn't want him to own a gun.
Bill
May 18, 2013, 8:58:56 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:45:33 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
>The BASC operate on the principle of I'm alright Jack. They want gun
>ownership to be restricted to those 'they' deem worthy.
Lie
wrote:
>The BASC operate on the principle of I'm alright Jack. They want gun
>ownership to be restricted to those 'they' deem worthy.
AlanG
May 18, 2013, 9:18:54 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:47:28 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:56:44 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:29:36 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>
>>>>>The introduction of a licensing system did remove the ability of
>>>>>criminals to be able to buy shotguns over the counter.
>>>>
>>>>And anyone else
>>>
>>>I have never had a problem getting a license.
>>>
>>>Why would you have a problem?
>>
>>My problem is having to ask a policeman for permission to own a
>>firearm.
>
>You never actually see a policeman these days, well, not where I
>live.
They all hang around in the station round the corner
>
> I think anyone showing competency should be allowed to own as
>>many as they like both for sporting and self defence (if the feel the
>>need). Just like it was before the government got scared of a mass Red
>>rebellion
>
>Interestingly, nobody else much does, and they tend not to be people
>who hold licenses.
The 'I'm alright Jack ' syndrome.
Fostered by decades of propaganda
I know different forces had different regulations at least up to the
late 70s
> and
>firearms were held at every police station for issue when necessary.
Only when necessary is the operative word. In this area that usually
meant some beast was running wild across a housing estate
>
>This system meant that 'qualified officers' were not as highly trained
>as today and that a lot more policemen carried arms, but turned up a
>lot later as they had to get to their police station to draw them.
I doubt many police ever carried arms except as and when required.
>
>Now there are far fewer firearms in use by the police and they're used
>by far more highly trained officers.
Now behind a paywall but here is a copy
http://www.shootforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=17489&start=0
I've seen news footage of police at airports. They are bloody
dangerous to anyone around them. If I had carried a weapon like that
when I was in the army I would have been on a charge. Rule one is
don't allow your weapon to point at anyone you aren't prepared to
kill.
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 08:56:44 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 17 May 2013 22:29:36 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>
>>>>>The introduction of a licensing system did remove the ability of
>>>>>criminals to be able to buy shotguns over the counter.
>>>>
>>>>And anyone else
>>>
>>>I have never had a problem getting a license.
>>>
>>>Why would you have a problem?
>>
>>My problem is having to ask a policeman for permission to own a
>>firearm.
>
>You never actually see a policeman these days, well, not where I
>live.
>
> I think anyone showing competency should be allowed to own as
>>many as they like both for sporting and self defence (if the feel the
>>need). Just like it was before the government got scared of a mass Red
>>rebellion
>
>Interestingly, nobody else much does, and they tend not to be people
>who hold licenses.
Fostered by decades of propaganda
>
>>>>>>>Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nowadays they use stolen or imported ones. Obviously punishing the law
>>>>>>abiding doesn't work or there would be no armed crime
>>>>>
>>>>>Armed crime is falling.
>>>>
>>>>Armed police numbers are increasing
>>>
>>>Cite please.
>>
>>It is an undeniable fact that there are more armed police on the
>>streets now than there were prior to licencing being introduced. Back
>>then they didn't even have police cars with a box of guns in the back.
>>Even as late as the 1970s a police officer was rarely armed with
>>anything more than a baton.
>
>In fact in the 'sixties and 'seventies almost all detective officers
>and about 25% of uniformed officers were qualified 'shots'
Where?
>>>>>>>Before that professional criminals used WWII souvenirs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nowadays they use stolen or imported ones. Obviously punishing the law
>>>>>>abiding doesn't work or there would be no armed crime
>>>>>
>>>>>Armed crime is falling.
>>>>
>>>>Armed police numbers are increasing
>>>
>>>Cite please.
>>
>>It is an undeniable fact that there are more armed police on the
>>streets now than there were prior to licencing being introduced. Back
>>then they didn't even have police cars with a box of guns in the back.
>>Even as late as the 1970s a police officer was rarely armed with
>>anything more than a baton.
>
>In fact in the 'sixties and 'seventies almost all detective officers
>and about 25% of uniformed officers were qualified 'shots'
I know different forces had different regulations at least up to the
late 70s
> and
>firearms were held at every police station for issue when necessary.
meant some beast was running wild across a housing estate
>
>This system meant that 'qualified officers' were not as highly trained
>as today and that a lot more policemen carried arms, but turned up a
>lot later as they had to get to their police station to draw them.
>
>Now there are far fewer firearms in use by the police and they're used
>by far more highly trained officers.
http://www.shootforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=17489&start=0
I've seen news footage of police at airports. They are bloody
dangerous to anyone around them. If I had carried a weapon like that
when I was in the army I would have been on a charge. Rule one is
don't allow your weapon to point at anyone you aren't prepared to
kill.
AlanG
May 18, 2013, 9:23:37 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:49:44 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:42:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>It is a fact that massacres by a lone gunman only came after the
>>strict regulation of firearms where they were restricted to those the
>>police deemed worthy citizens
>
>The police do not restrict licenses to those they consider 'worthy
>citizens'.
Well yes they do.
They issue licences to those they consider suitable.
>
>They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
Who are the police to make that distinction?
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:42:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>It is a fact that massacres by a lone gunman only came after the
>>strict regulation of firearms where they were restricted to those the
>>police deemed worthy citizens
>
>The police do not restrict licenses to those they consider 'worthy
>citizens'.
They issue licences to those they consider suitable.
>
>They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
AlanG
May 18, 2013, 9:24:20 AM5/18/13
to
Bill
May 18, 2013, 9:41:20 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:18:54 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
>I've seen news footage of police at airports. They are bloody
>dangerous to anyone around them. If I had carried a weapon like that
>when I was in the army I would have been on a charge. Rule one is
>don't allow your weapon to point at anyone you aren't prepared to
>kill.
I spend a fair bit of time at UK airports and have actually taken the
time to chat with armed officers.
They're quite amenable to a chat in the security areas as long as you
don't stand in their sight lines while you lace your shoes up again
after the usual ritual humiliation by the security wonks.
I find their 'manual of arms' and 'safety drills' to be exemplary.
They're also remarkably observant and well trained.
I was pleasantly surprised.
wrote:
>I've seen news footage of police at airports. They are bloody
>dangerous to anyone around them. If I had carried a weapon like that
>when I was in the army I would have been on a charge. Rule one is
>don't allow your weapon to point at anyone you aren't prepared to
>kill.
time to chat with armed officers.
They're quite amenable to a chat in the security areas as long as you
don't stand in their sight lines while you lace your shoes up again
after the usual ritual humiliation by the security wonks.
I find their 'manual of arms' and 'safety drills' to be exemplary.
They're also remarkably observant and well trained.
I was pleasantly surprised.
Bill
May 18, 2013, 9:42:10 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:23:37 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
>
>Who are the police to make that distinction?
They have a set of rules that are applied.
If you disagree with their decision you can appeal
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:49:44 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:42:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>It is a fact that massacres by a lone gunman only came after the
>>>strict regulation of firearms where they were restricted to those the
>>>police deemed worthy citizens
>>
>>The police do not restrict licenses to those they consider 'worthy
>>citizens'.
>
>Well yes they do.
>They issue licences to those they consider suitable.
Lie.
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:49:44 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:42:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>It is a fact that massacres by a lone gunman only came after the
>>>strict regulation of firearms where they were restricted to those the
>>>police deemed worthy citizens
>>
>>The police do not restrict licenses to those they consider 'worthy
>>citizens'.
>
>Well yes they do.
>They issue licences to those they consider suitable.
>>They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
>
>Who are the police to make that distinction?
If you disagree with their decision you can appeal
Bill
May 18, 2013, 9:42:37 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:24:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:58:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:45:33 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The BASC operate on the principle of I'm alright Jack. They want gun
>>>ownership to be restricted to those 'they' deem worthy.
>>
>>Lie
>
>Truth.
Cite please.
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:58:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:45:33 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The BASC operate on the principle of I'm alright Jack. They want gun
>>>ownership to be restricted to those 'they' deem worthy.
>>
>>Lie
>
>Truth.
AlanG
May 18, 2013, 9:51:01 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:41:20 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:18:54 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I've seen news footage of police at airports. They are bloody
>>dangerous to anyone around them. If I had carried a weapon like that
>>when I was in the army I would have been on a charge. Rule one is
>>don't allow your weapon to point at anyone you aren't prepared to
>>kill.
>
>I spend a fair bit of time at UK airports and have actually taken the
>time to chat with armed officers.
>
>They're quite amenable to a chat in the security areas as long as you
>don't stand in their sight lines while you lace your shoes up again
>after the usual ritual humiliation by the security wonks.
>
>I find their 'manual of arms' and 'safety drills' to be exemplary.
I find the sight of them sweeping the pointy end across the crowd
bloody scary
>
>They're also remarkably observant and well trained.
Their training seems to be missing a bit.
>
>I was pleasantly surprised.
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:18:54 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I've seen news footage of police at airports. They are bloody
>>dangerous to anyone around them. If I had carried a weapon like that
>>when I was in the army I would have been on a charge. Rule one is
>>don't allow your weapon to point at anyone you aren't prepared to
>>kill.
>
>I spend a fair bit of time at UK airports and have actually taken the
>time to chat with armed officers.
>
>They're quite amenable to a chat in the security areas as long as you
>don't stand in their sight lines while you lace your shoes up again
>after the usual ritual humiliation by the security wonks.
>
>I find their 'manual of arms' and 'safety drills' to be exemplary.
bloody scary
>
>They're also remarkably observant and well trained.
>
>I was pleasantly surprised.
AlanG
May 18, 2013, 9:55:06 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:42:10 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
>>
>>Who are the police to make that distinction?
>
>They have a set of rules that are applied.
Made by themselves and added to in case those pesky reds managed to
get a revolution going
>
>If you disagree with their decision you can appeal
But in a free country it should be the other way round.
The state should have to show good reason in a court why someone who
has passed a course on safety and law should not own a firearm
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:23:37 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:49:44 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:42:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is a fact that massacres by a lone gunman only came after the
>>>>strict regulation of firearms where they were restricted to those the
>>>>police deemed worthy citizens
>>>
>>>The police do not restrict licenses to those they consider 'worthy
>>>citizens'.
>>
>>Well yes they do.
>>They issue licences to those they consider suitable.
>
>Lie.
Truth
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:23:37 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:49:44 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:42:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>It is a fact that massacres by a lone gunman only came after the
>>>>strict regulation of firearms where they were restricted to those the
>>>>police deemed worthy citizens
>>>
>>>The police do not restrict licenses to those they consider 'worthy
>>>citizens'.
>>
>>Well yes they do.
>>They issue licences to those they consider suitable.
>
>Lie.
>>>They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
>>
>>Who are the police to make that distinction?
>
>They have a set of rules that are applied.
get a revolution going
>
>If you disagree with their decision you can appeal
The state should have to show good reason in a court why someone who
has passed a course on safety and law should not own a firearm
AlanG
May 18, 2013, 9:57:00 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:42:37 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
evident. I see no signs of any campaign to change things
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:24:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:58:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:45:33 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>The BASC operate on the principle of I'm alright Jack. They want gun
>>>>ownership to be restricted to those 'they' deem worthy.
>>>
>>>Lie
>>
>>Truth.
>
>Cite please.
Since they officially support the current arrangement that seems self
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:24:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:58:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:45:33 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>The BASC operate on the principle of I'm alright Jack. They want gun
>>>>ownership to be restricted to those 'they' deem worthy.
>>>
>>>Lie
>>
>>Truth.
>
>Cite please.
evident. I see no signs of any campaign to change things
Bill
May 18, 2013, 10:16:02 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:51:01 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>They're also remarkably observant and well trained.
>
>Their training seems to be missing a bit.
Your post says you saw a story on TV, so I imagine all you saw was
stock footage or possibly a training exercise.
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:41:20 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:18:54 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've seen news footage of police at airports. They are bloody
>>>dangerous to anyone around them. If I had carried a weapon like that
>>>when I was in the army I would have been on a charge. Rule one is
>>>don't allow your weapon to point at anyone you aren't prepared to
>>>kill.
>>
>>I spend a fair bit of time at UK airports and have actually taken the
>>time to chat with armed officers.
>>
>>They're quite amenable to a chat in the security areas as long as you
>>don't stand in their sight lines while you lace your shoes up again
>>after the usual ritual humiliation by the security wonks.
>>
>>I find their 'manual of arms' and 'safety drills' to be exemplary.
>
>I find the sight of them sweeping the pointy end across the crowd
>bloody scary
I've never seem them do that.
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:41:20 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:18:54 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've seen news footage of police at airports. They are bloody
>>>dangerous to anyone around them. If I had carried a weapon like that
>>>when I was in the army I would have been on a charge. Rule one is
>>>don't allow your weapon to point at anyone you aren't prepared to
>>>kill.
>>
>>I spend a fair bit of time at UK airports and have actually taken the
>>time to chat with armed officers.
>>
>>They're quite amenable to a chat in the security areas as long as you
>>don't stand in their sight lines while you lace your shoes up again
>>after the usual ritual humiliation by the security wonks.
>>
>>I find their 'manual of arms' and 'safety drills' to be exemplary.
>
>I find the sight of them sweeping the pointy end across the crowd
>bloody scary
>>They're also remarkably observant and well trained.
>
>Their training seems to be missing a bit.
stock footage or possibly a training exercise.
Bill
May 18, 2013, 10:17:53 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:55:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
wrote:
members) who get their shotgun licenses with no problems.
>>If you disagree with their decision you can appeal
>
>But in a free country it should be the other way round.
>
>The state should have to show good reason in a court why someone who
>has passed a course on safety and law should not own a firearm
OK, stand for election and get the law changed.
wrote:
>>>>They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
>>>
>>>Who are the police to make that distinction?
>>
>>They have a set of rules that are applied.
>
>Made by themselves and added to in case those pesky reds managed to
>get a revolution going
I know a number of very left wing people (Including a couple of SWP
>>>
>>>Who are the police to make that distinction?
>>
>>They have a set of rules that are applied.
>
>Made by themselves and added to in case those pesky reds managed to
>get a revolution going
members) who get their shotgun licenses with no problems.
>>If you disagree with their decision you can appeal
>
>But in a free country it should be the other way round.
>
>The state should have to show good reason in a court why someone who
>has passed a course on safety and law should not own a firearm
Bill
May 18, 2013, 10:18:24 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:57:00 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
Thought so.
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:42:37 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:24:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:58:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:45:33 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The BASC operate on the principle of I'm alright Jack. They want gun
>>>>>ownership to be restricted to those 'they' deem worthy.
>>>>
>>>>Lie
>>>
>>>Truth.
>>
>>Cite please.
>
>Since they officially support the current arrangement that seems self
>evident. I see no signs of any campaign to change things
So you were just lying.
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:42:37 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:24:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:58:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:45:33 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The BASC operate on the principle of I'm alright Jack. They want gun
>>>>>ownership to be restricted to those 'they' deem worthy.
>>>>
>>>>Lie
>>>
>>>Truth.
>>
>>Cite please.
>
>Since they officially support the current arrangement that seems self
>evident. I see no signs of any campaign to change things
Thought so.
AlanG
May 18, 2013, 11:08:35 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:16:02 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
It was widely commented on in this NG
>
>>>They're also remarkably observant and well trained.
>>
>>Their training seems to be missing a bit.
>
>Your post says you saw a story on TV, so I imagine all you saw was
>stock footage or possibly a training exercise.
Several live reports.
Plus the SAS bit you snipped
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:51:01 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:41:20 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:18:54 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've seen news footage of police at airports. They are bloody
>>>>dangerous to anyone around them. If I had carried a weapon like that
>>>>when I was in the army I would have been on a charge. Rule one is
>>>>don't allow your weapon to point at anyone you aren't prepared to
>>>>kill.
>>>
>>>I spend a fair bit of time at UK airports and have actually taken the
>>>time to chat with armed officers.
>>>
>>>They're quite amenable to a chat in the security areas as long as you
>>>don't stand in their sight lines while you lace your shoes up again
>>>after the usual ritual humiliation by the security wonks.
>>>
>>>I find their 'manual of arms' and 'safety drills' to be exemplary.
>>
>>I find the sight of them sweeping the pointy end across the crowd
>>bloody scary
>
>I've never seem them do that.
I have seen a good number of newsreel shots of them doing just that.
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:51:01 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:41:20 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:18:54 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've seen news footage of police at airports. They are bloody
>>>>dangerous to anyone around them. If I had carried a weapon like that
>>>>when I was in the army I would have been on a charge. Rule one is
>>>>don't allow your weapon to point at anyone you aren't prepared to
>>>>kill.
>>>
>>>I spend a fair bit of time at UK airports and have actually taken the
>>>time to chat with armed officers.
>>>
>>>They're quite amenable to a chat in the security areas as long as you
>>>don't stand in their sight lines while you lace your shoes up again
>>>after the usual ritual humiliation by the security wonks.
>>>
>>>I find their 'manual of arms' and 'safety drills' to be exemplary.
>>
>>I find the sight of them sweeping the pointy end across the crowd
>>bloody scary
>
>I've never seem them do that.
It was widely commented on in this NG
>
>>>They're also remarkably observant and well trained.
>>
>>Their training seems to be missing a bit.
>
>Your post says you saw a story on TV, so I imagine all you saw was
>stock footage or possibly a training exercise.
Plus the SAS bit you snipped
AlanG
May 18, 2013, 11:13:22 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:17:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
They don't get to own a shotgun as a right. It is now a gift of the
police. A gift of public servants
back several decades of propaganda by the state and the press? I will
likely be dead in another 10 years. Life's too short
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:55:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:42:10 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>>>They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
>>>>
>>>>Who are the police to make that distinction?
>>>
>>>They have a set of rules that are applied.
>>
>>Made by themselves and added to in case those pesky reds managed to
>>get a revolution going
>
>I know a number of very left wing people (Including a couple of SWP
>members) who get their shotgun licenses with no problems.
So?
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:55:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:42:10 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>>>They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
>>>>
>>>>Who are the police to make that distinction?
>>>
>>>They have a set of rules that are applied.
>>
>>Made by themselves and added to in case those pesky reds managed to
>>get a revolution going
>
>I know a number of very left wing people (Including a couple of SWP
>members) who get their shotgun licenses with no problems.
They don't get to own a shotgun as a right. It is now a gift of the
police. A gift of public servants
>
>>>If you disagree with their decision you can appeal
>>
>>But in a free country it should be the other way round.
>>
>>The state should have to show good reason in a court why someone who
>>has passed a course on safety and law should not own a firearm
>
>OK, stand for election and get the law changed.
Do you really think that any single person would succeed in turning
>>>If you disagree with their decision you can appeal
>>
>>But in a free country it should be the other way round.
>>
>>The state should have to show good reason in a court why someone who
>>has passed a course on safety and law should not own a firearm
>
>OK, stand for election and get the law changed.
back several decades of propaganda by the state and the press? I will
likely be dead in another 10 years. Life's too short
AlanG
May 18, 2013, 11:14:55 AM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:18:24 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
situation?
thought not
>
>Thought so.
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:57:00 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:42:37 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:24:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:58:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:45:33 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The BASC operate on the principle of I'm alright Jack. They want gun
>>>>>>ownership to be restricted to those 'they' deem worthy.
>>>>>
>>>>>Lie
>>>>
>>>>Truth.
>>>
>>>Cite please.
>>
>>Since they officially support the current arrangement that seems self
>>evident. I see no signs of any campaign to change things
>
>So you were just lying.
Can you cite any campaigns by the BASC to change the current
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:57:00 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:42:37 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:24:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:58:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:45:33 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>The BASC operate on the principle of I'm alright Jack. They want gun
>>>>>>ownership to be restricted to those 'they' deem worthy.
>>>>>
>>>>>Lie
>>>>
>>>>Truth.
>>>
>>>Cite please.
>>
>>Since they officially support the current arrangement that seems self
>>evident. I see no signs of any campaign to change things
>
>So you were just lying.
situation?
thought not
>
>Thought so.
Bill
May 18, 2013, 4:43:40 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:08:35 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
Have you ever been in an international airport where armed police have
been on duty?
been on duty?
Bill
May 18, 2013, 4:45:11 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:13:22 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
You have the right of appeal against any refusal to grant a license.
>>>>If you disagree with their decision you can appeal
>>>
>>>But in a free country it should be the other way round.
>>>
>>>The state should have to show good reason in a court why someone who
>>>has passed a course on safety and law should not own a firearm
>>
>>OK, stand for election and get the law changed.
>
>Do you really think that any single person would succeed in turning
>back several decades of propaganda by the state and the press? I will
>likely be dead in another 10 years. Life's too short
Your refusal to engage in a democratic means to change things to be
the way you wish them to be is noted.
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:17:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:55:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:42:10 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
>>>>>
>>>>>Who are the police to make that distinction?
>>>>
>>>>They have a set of rules that are applied.
>>>
>>>Made by themselves and added to in case those pesky reds managed to
>>>get a revolution going
>>
>>I know a number of very left wing people (Including a couple of SWP
>>members) who get their shotgun licenses with no problems.
>
>So?
>They don't get to own a shotgun as a right. It is now a gift of the
>police. A gift of public servants
No it isn't you loon.
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:17:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:55:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:42:10 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>>They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
>>>>>
>>>>>Who are the police to make that distinction?
>>>>
>>>>They have a set of rules that are applied.
>>>
>>>Made by themselves and added to in case those pesky reds managed to
>>>get a revolution going
>>
>>I know a number of very left wing people (Including a couple of SWP
>>members) who get their shotgun licenses with no problems.
>
>So?
>They don't get to own a shotgun as a right. It is now a gift of the
>police. A gift of public servants
You have the right of appeal against any refusal to grant a license.
>>>>If you disagree with their decision you can appeal
>>>
>>>But in a free country it should be the other way round.
>>>
>>>The state should have to show good reason in a court why someone who
>>>has passed a course on safety and law should not own a firearm
>>
>>OK, stand for election and get the law changed.
>
>Do you really think that any single person would succeed in turning
>back several decades of propaganda by the state and the press? I will
>likely be dead in another 10 years. Life's too short
the way you wish them to be is noted.
Bill
May 18, 2013, 4:52:47 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:14:55 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
You need an organisation called 'The Sportsman's Association
http://www.sportsmansassociation.co.uk/
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:18:24 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:57:00 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:42:37 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:24:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:58:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:45:33 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The BASC operate on the principle of I'm alright Jack. They want gun
>>>>>>>ownership to be restricted to those 'they' deem worthy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Lie
>>>>>
>>>>>Truth.
>>>>
>>>>Cite please.
>>>
>>>Since they officially support the current arrangement that seems self
>>>evident. I see no signs of any campaign to change things
>>
>>So you were just lying.
>
>Can you cite any campaigns by the BASC to change the current
>situation?
Have you worked out what 'BASC' actually stands for yet?
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:18:24 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:57:00 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:42:37 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:24:20 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 13:58:56 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 10:45:33 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The BASC operate on the principle of I'm alright Jack. They want gun
>>>>>>>ownership to be restricted to those 'they' deem worthy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Lie
>>>>>
>>>>>Truth.
>>>>
>>>>Cite please.
>>>
>>>Since they officially support the current arrangement that seems self
>>>evident. I see no signs of any campaign to change things
>>
>>So you were just lying.
>
>Can you cite any campaigns by the BASC to change the current
>situation?
You need an organisation called 'The Sportsman's Association
http://www.sportsmansassociation.co.uk/
AlanG
May 19, 2013, 3:37:13 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:43:40 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
irrrelevant when newsreel shots are wifely available
AlanG
May 19, 2013, 3:37:44 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:45:11 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:13:22 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:17:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:55:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:42:10 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Who are the police to make that distinction?
>>>>>
>>>>>They have a set of rules that are applied.
>>>>
>>>>Made by themselves and added to in case those pesky reds managed to
>>>>get a revolution going
>>>
>>>I know a number of very left wing people (Including a couple of SWP
>>>members) who get their shotgun licenses with no problems.
>>
>>So?
>>They don't get to own a shotgun as a right. It is now a gift of the
>>police. A gift of public servants
>
>No it isn't you loon.
Fuck off moron
>On Sat, 18 May 2013 16:13:22 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:17:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:55:06 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 18 May 2013 14:42:10 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>They deny them to people they consider unworthy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Who are the police to make that distinction?
>>>>>
>>>>>They have a set of rules that are applied.
>>>>
>>>>Made by themselves and added to in case those pesky reds managed to
>>>>get a revolution going
>>>
>>>I know a number of very left wing people (Including a couple of SWP
>>>members) who get their shotgun licenses with no problems.
>>
>>So?
>>They don't get to own a shotgun as a right. It is now a gift of the
>>police. A gift of public servants
>
>No it isn't you loon.
Bill
May 19, 2013, 8:12:27 AM5/19/13
to
On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:37:13 +0100, AlanG <inv...@invalid.co.uk>
Newsreel shots can be, and often are, posed.
I realise that you can't actually afford an air ticket, but why not
go along to an airport and look for yourself.
I realise that you can't actually afford an air ticket, but why not
go along to an airport and look for yourself.
Cynic
May 20, 2013, 8:50:13 AM5/20/13
to
>I spend a fair bit of time at UK airports and have actually taken the
>time to chat with armed officers.
>
>They're quite amenable to a chat in the security areas as long as you
>don't stand in their sight lines while you lace your shoes up again
>after the usual ritual humiliation by the security wonks.
>
>I find their 'manual of arms' and 'safety drills' to be exemplary.
>
>They're also remarkably observant and well trained.
>
>I was pleasantly surprised.
You have obviously had a different experience to myself. I have seen
>time to chat with armed officers.
>
>They're quite amenable to a chat in the security areas as long as you
>don't stand in their sight lines while you lace your shoes up again
>after the usual ritual humiliation by the security wonks.
>
>I find their 'manual of arms' and 'safety drills' to be exemplary.
>
>They're also remarkably observant and well trained.
>
>I was pleasantly surprised.
many examples of appalling safety practices amongst armed police at
airports. In one case I observed a police officer resting his finger
on the trigger of his weapon.
--
Cynic
Big Les Wade
May 20, 2013, 9:20:39 AM5/20/13
to
Mentalguy2k8 <Mental...@gmail.com> posted
>
>But isn't that criticism a little unfair? What else are the Police
>supposed to do if they get reports of gunshots and aren't aware of any
>legal "shoots" going on?
Assess the risk, depending on the details provided by the report.
>It's yet another situation where the Police are damned either way. If
>someone had reported gunshots when Derrick Bird was running amok and
>the Police said "oh it's probably just Ophelia bagging some pigeons,
>ignore it", they'd be criticised. If they took it seriously but sent an
>unarmed PCSO, they'd be criticised.
So what? You write as if the police's only legitimate aim in life is to
avoid being criticised by anyone at all. It isn't. Its aim is, or should
be, to take reasonable and proportionate action to prevent and detect
crime and preserve order. Criticism is only to be feared if it is
justifiable criticism of inappropriate actions.
--
Les
>
>But isn't that criticism a little unfair? What else are the Police
>supposed to do if they get reports of gunshots and aren't aware of any
>legal "shoots" going on?
Assess the risk, depending on the details provided by the report.
>It's yet another situation where the Police are damned either way. If
>someone had reported gunshots when Derrick Bird was running amok and
>the Police said "oh it's probably just Ophelia bagging some pigeons,
>ignore it", they'd be criticised. If they took it seriously but sent an
>unarmed PCSO, they'd be criticised.
So what? You write as if the police's only legitimate aim in life is to
avoid being criticised by anyone at all. It isn't. Its aim is, or should
be, to take reasonable and proportionate action to prevent and detect
crime and preserve order. Criticism is only to be feared if it is
justifiable criticism of inappropriate actions.
--
Les
Bill
May 20, 2013, 11:49:53 AM5/20/13
to
Cynic
May 20, 2013, 1:20:13 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:49:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>You have obviously had a different experience to myself. I have seen
>>many examples of appalling safety practices amongst armed police at
>>airports. In one case I observed a police officer resting his finger
>>on the trigger of his weapon.
>I assume you reported him and received an incident number.
You surely jest. Apart from anything else I was not prepared to miss
my flight by tying myself up in a fruitless quest that would end with
the complete exoneration of the officer concerned.
--
Cynic
wrote:
>>You have obviously had a different experience to myself. I have seen
>>many examples of appalling safety practices amongst armed police at
>>airports. In one case I observed a police officer resting his finger
>>on the trigger of his weapon.
>I assume you reported him and received an incident number.
my flight by tying myself up in a fruitless quest that would end with
the complete exoneration of the officer concerned.
--
Cynic
Bill
May 20, 2013, 3:49:02 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:20:13 GMT, cyni...@yahoo.co.uk (Cynic) wrote:
>On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:49:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>You have obviously had a different experience to myself. I have seen
>>>many examples of appalling safety practices amongst armed police at
>>>airports. In one case I observed a police officer resting his finger
>>>on the trigger of his weapon.
>
>>I assume you reported him and received an incident number.
>
>You surely jest.
End of story then...
>On Mon, 20 May 2013 16:49:53 +0100, Bill <black...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>You have obviously had a different experience to myself. I have seen
>>>many examples of appalling safety practices amongst armed police at
>>>airports. In one case I observed a police officer resting his finger
>>>on the trigger of his weapon.
>
>>I assume you reported him and received an incident number.
>
>You surely jest.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages