- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You live in a safe area though, why do you need one?
There's a lot of breakins etc and not all our towns and cities are safe, particularly at night.
You live in a safe area though, why do you need one?
When I had a big burglary those drawn batons worked much better than any gun would have done. And I had six of them at my property.
I can assure you I do. I find armed police re-assuring, they make me feel safe.
How would a gun not work in this case, if the intruder doesn't respond to the police with guns, they can open fire.
A false sense of security if you ask me (how often do you hear of someone with a gun saving the day v someone with a gun causing harm), but fair enough.
P.s. In the case which you referred to at the start of this thread a bystander got shot. No details of how serious or anything but still, someone innocent got shot. You say the Police having guns saved them in this case, I imagine two trained police should have been able to disarm and subdue one armed (most likely, untrained mad man) without the need to firing rounds of into the surrounding crowd. Perhaps its general Police training and their general physical condition that we need to address. Given the job spec you would have thought it was important to be in shape? When I was recently in the US a vast majority of the Police clearly were not. Just a point to note.
Now I know your just being devisive,
Close proximity inside the proximity where they could be around any corner really doesn't work that great for firearms.How would a gun not work in this case, if the intruder doesn't respond to the police with guns, they can open fire.
Close proximity inside the proximity where they could be around any corner really doesn't work that great for firearms.
Unlike popular belief and rumours I do not live in a Palace
Have you considered the possibility that negligent discharges in the police are very rare because they frequently get downgraded to accidental discharges - in much the same way that burglaries end up as thefts and assaults on police officers (to quote you) often don't get reported at all?
Hasn't there been a very recent case where a police gun was fired and a young girl was injured? And another where an officer managed to pepper spray several kids?
Hasn't there been a very recent case where a police gun was fired and a young girl was injured? And another where an officer managed to pepper spray several kids?
I maybe way off here, but isn't it something to do with in case they are "called to arms",I understand that In Switzerland and Norway it is compulsory, or nearly so, for the citizen to have a firearm - not the most lawless of countries
Let the experts decide. Or are all the experts stupid?
I understand that In Switzerland and Norway it is compulsory, or nearly so, for the citizen to have a firearm - not the most lawless of countries
Axeman could take another swing. Being able to shoot the perp dead saved their lives. There can be no doubt about it. You just don't like guns.
I don't shoot at bits of cardboard, haven't done that for a very long time, but that isn't relevant anyway.And you were involved in the investigations were you Garry?
No is the answer. So, boiling it down Garry, it's simply what you think and nothing more, supported by no evidence and no qualifications?
Lets be very clear here, you are a member of a gun club. Nothing more. Your training and experience of firearms is just that. So your qualifications to judge, given that you have no evidence of circumstances, did not examine the firearm and are not technically qualified as a gunsmith, is you hold whatever form of firearms certificate you do.
Oh and an inability to read investigation reports, which even if you have the qualifications and experience to comment, makes your conclusions flawed.
So, given that you have no qualification, knowledge or experience and you can't comprehend simple English, your opinion counts for sod all Garry.
Now please go and shot at bits of cardboard and leave the subject to be investigated, instead of spouting the usual rubbish.
From 2003 to 2007 recent accidents involving police firearms include:
• A civilian control room operator was shot in the abdomen during a firearms awareness course in Kidlington, Oxfordshire, last year. A Thames Valley Police firearms officer had been showing staff his Glock pistol, unaware it was loaded.
• A Sussex police officer accidentally shot a 48-year-old PC in the body at the range at Gatwick police station in August 2007. Body armour saved him from serious injury.
• A trainee firearms officer shot a Met instructor in the thigh as he was setting up a target in a mock-up of a night-time alley in 2003.
• A diplomatic protection officer in Central London shot himself in the leg getting into a car in September 2007.
• A firearms officer from West Mercia Police shot himself in the leg and foot in January 2006 after his gun became caught in his clothing.
• An airport security officer from the Met shot the top of his thumb off when he put it in front of his MP5 sub-machine gun during training in 2005.
An improperly trained police firearms instructor shot and nearly killed a former champion rifle marksman during a gun-awareness training exercise, a court heard yesterday.
PC David Micklethwaite, 52, who has admitted breaching health and safety rules, mistakenly loaded a Magnum .44 revolver with a live round he had plucked from an old Quality Street tin. He then pulled the trigger while pointing it at a civilian colleague on one of his classroom courses.
At the cost of injuring an innocent bystander!
These things happen.
It's as simple as that, isn't it.The police don't want it + Most of the public don't want it = It's not going to happen.
I maybe way off here, but isn't it something to do with in case they are "called to arms",
should the need arise? just something in the back of my mind.
Not just the back, the whole areaScary place, the back of your mind
I thought it was something like that.But yes, IIRC Swiss men between 20 - 30 carry out national military service (some exceptions, I think).
After that they are required to retain their military issue forearms in their homes.
But not ammunition.
Might be wrong....haven't checked
And you were involved in the investigations were you Garry?
No is the answer. So, boiling it down Garry, it's simply what you think and nothing more, supported by no evidence and no qualifications?
Lets be very clear here, you are a member of a gun club. Nothing more. Your training and experience of firearms is just that. So your qualifications to judge, given that you have no evidence of circumstances, did not examine the firearm and are not technically qualified as a gunsmith, is you hold whatever form of firearms certificate you do.
Oh and an inability to read investigation reports, which even if you have the qualifications and experience to comment, makes your conclusions flawed.
So, given that you have no qualification, knowledge or experience and you can't comprehend simple English, your opinion counts for sod all Garry.
Now please go and shot at bits of cardboard and leave the subject to be investigated, instead of spouting the usual rubbish.
When I was shooting "action pistol" many years ago, before the ban,Bernie,
You're being a bit harsh on Gary, extremely basic-basic procedures were not followed.
When taking possession of the gun at the beginning of the shift the person handing over the fiream should of showed the Officer that the chamber was empty,
You're being a bit harsh on Gary, extremely basic-basic procedures were not followed.
I am in fact pretty experienced with various types of firearm - a little experience of assault rifles and heavy machine guns, some experience of semi auto pistols and revolvers and a lot of experience of shotguns and rifles. I have been shooting since I was 15 or 16, that's over 50 years and currently fire more than 7000 shotgun cartridges per year, plus rifle bullets.Nick
Actually, no I am not. He constantly makes allegations, which he has no evidence of support, apart from his assertion he is an 'expert'. That would be fine, if he made his comments as opinion, but he doesn't, he puts them forward as if they have some form validity.
Now, obviously, he's no expert on firearms at all, he's simply a holder of various licenses, he's not a gunsmith and he's certainly never been allowed near any form of investigation. And yet, although unqualified, with no access at all to any form of evidence, he feels he can state things as factual.
Now, I don't doubt there's some failings in the Notts case, but unlike Garry, I'd prefer to wait for a proper investigation to be carried out before I leap to unsupported conclusion.
The problem with internet sites is that self appointed experts like Garry perpetuate fiction, you only have to look at his miss representation of the facts around Stockwell as an example.
Another being his conclusion about ND's being covered up. Now, I can assure you he's talking utter crap. I worked at a Station where at the time 60% of officers were armed, so I have an idea of what happens when a police firearm goes off. Garry does not. I know that the weapon is immediately sealed and taken to 2 experts, one usually an ATO from the army and one the manufacturer. They test the weapon, and while they are doing that, the officer is interviewed, under caution, along with any witnesses. I know of 2 incidents, one H&K found a fault is the weapon that caused it to go off in exactly the circumstances the officer described. The other, the officer, although the weapon was faulty and the person handing it him had apparently cleared it went off, the officer was disciplined.
Challenging him to produce his evidence is therefore perfectly valid, he's making the allegation, not me, it's for him to prove it.
Now, I and I suspect you already know he has nothing to support that allegation, and really he's no expert on the subject, however thats not a defence to his libelous allegations.
As for not having any evidence, this is the reverse of the truth, but I can't disclose that evidence at this time. This evidence takes the form of documents that the police were forced to disclose following a court order. It is in their own documents so is irrefutable. All that I can say on this subject is that some of these documents are evidence of police misconduct, lies and cover ups that their own professional standards department was "unable" to find.
Obviously you have absolutely no understanding of the rules of the High Court. Just wait until the case is over, all will be revealed.None of which Garry answers my point.
I asked you to provide the evidence that supports the allegations you made. Stop mudding the waters with a load flannel, very little of which I believe.
Is utter rubbish Garry, I've heard that all before, it's the second most childish answer in the world, I know, but it's a secret. Grow up sunshine.