Gun Culture

Friday, September 28, 2007

Police Federation Defends It’s Monopoly

From an article in The Times

Jan Berry, chairman of the federation, expressed surprise at the latest review of self-defence law and said that nothing should be done that encourages vigilantism by the public.
“It is irresponsible for a government, either current or shadow, to use such a potentially dangerous subject to demonstrate a proactive stance on crime – not least the danger of raising public expectation when the reality is not achievable,” she said. “We need commonsense laws that protect the law-abiding public against a minority of offenders but we don’t want this to act as a green light to use excessive force nor to encourage people to take the law into their own hands.”

How tiresome.  That old saw “taking the law into their own hands”.
It’s our fucking law you bastards!
The police are merely the people we employ to help us out, the servants not the masters.  Although it seems that the Police have forgotten this somewhere along the line.
People using force to defend themselves, their property and their society from thieves and ruffians is not vigilantism - it is merely maintainance of the Queen’s Peace.  Our Common Law duty no less.  I’m sick and tired of these mouthpieces and their sanctimonious, patronising, lecturing bollocks.
Vigilantism?  How is protecting yourself vigilantism?  Where true vigilantism does occur it is mostly because the criminal justice system has let them down, where people know a wrong doer will not receive appropriate (or sometimes any) punishment.

Self Defence Review Sham

Jack Straw is trumpeting his proposed changes to the law concerning self defence and defence of property.  It is, as you might expect, a right load of old crap.
We are apparently to move from the current situation requiring any force used to be “reasonable” to a homeowner or person under threat to this:

He must show he feared immediate attack, had no escape and the response must be proportionate to the threat.

To me, that sounds even worse than the current situation.  Under the proposed situation one must show that you fear immediate attack, how are you to do this?  The wording makes it sound as though it is not enough to say that you feared attack, you must show (i.e. prove) that you feared immediate attack.  Further you are required to show you cannot escape.  How is this helpful?  Requiring the individual to flee rather than stand their ground and defend their property merely gives (another) green light to robbers.  Far from helping the Have-a-go-hero this would effectively make ‘having a go’ illegal.  Say you are walking down the street and you see a girl being robbed or sexually assaulted, you pitch in and help.  Stop right there guv’nor, clearly you were not under immediate threat of attack and clearly you could have escaped.  Pick up a stone and whack him over the head?  Not unreasonable you might think, but proportionate?  Lawyerly types will spend endless billable hours arguing that point.
What if you are in your home at dark o’thirty?  An intruder is downstairs.  Under this law you could not arm yourself and repel boarders, no siree Bob.  At best you must cower in your bedroom.  Is he coming up the stairs?  Keep cowering.  He’s coming in the room?  Get out of the window.  He’s coming towards you?  Can you show he was going to attack you?  Perhaps he might just be coming to shake your hand to congratulate you on such a nice home. 
Possibly the worst aspect is the word “proportionate”.  This will enshrine into law the biggest problem current with self defence.  The idea that you must play fair and by Queensbury rules, that you must not have an advantage over any robber or attacker.  An attacker has his bare hands and you use a stick - not proportionate mate.
Of course the usual crowd of sandal wearers have been wheeled out to condemn the idea of homeowners actually defending themselves, the usual bullshit about ‘escalating the violence’ and the business about burglars feeling the need to ‘tool up’ - what makes you believe that they don’t already?  So few are actually caught - who would ever know.

No, this proposal falls far short of what is required.  Which is quite simply that if you are in your home an intruder is fair game.  If you are in the street you should be able to stand your ground.  Self defence tools should be available to the law abiding.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Public Spirit?  Get in the back of the van!

Another example of great policing as reported in The Daily Express:

HERO driver Graeme Deacon did not think twice when he saw a woman in a blazing car after a motorway pile-up –he ran across three lanes of traffic and pulled her to safety.
But soon after police arrived, he says he was threatened with CS gas, grappled to the ground, handcuffed and put in a cell.

All for the crime of wanting to get to work after performing his selfless act.

I was told to stop or else I would be arrested for the equivalent of jaywalking. The carriageway was empty. I could have crawled across on my hands and knees. There was absolutely no risk.
“The police officer said, ‘You’ll wait as long as it takes, whether it’s
five minutes or two hours’.
“I went to walk off and three officers grabbed me, pushed me down to the floor, hit the back of my legs with a baton, rammed my face into the gravel and handcuffed me. “One of the officers then said, ‘Shut up or I’ll spray you with CS gas’.

Fucking scum.

Illegal guns same as legitimate guns to Gordon

From Gordon the Moron’s speech to conference:

amongst the vast majority of us there is an abhorrence of guns in our society

Not illegal guns.  Just guns.

No-one who sells drugs to our children or uses guns has the right to stay in our country

Not illegal guns.  Just guns.
No doubt some apologists would say that the illegal part was implicit and unnecessary, they are quite wrong.  Gordon the Moron hates the private ownership of guns and will not be happy until State enforcement have the absolute monopoly on gun ownership, illegal gun ownership and gun crime being simply a useful tool to facilitate this.

Maddie Sighting Shite

There seems to be a Scum theme this morning.
Front page is a picture of a blonde girl on holiday in Morroco.
IS THIS MADDIE?  MADDIE PIC SENSATION!  The headlines scream.

The girl’s hair is cut in the same style as Maddie’s with a fringe across her forehead

The girl looks bugger all like Madeline, plus if we are to enter cloud fucking cuckoo land and fondly imagine the wee girl living in a family situation going on jolly days out - would we not expect that the family would have attempted to change the girls looks somewhat?  Dyed her hair, changed the style?  The chance of them keeping the same hairstyle on the highest profile missing person in Europe are remote beyond all possibility.
Are we to have this bollocks everytime someone abroad sees a little blonde girl?  If we are assuming the parents didn’t kill her and dispose of her, is it not cruel to splash every blonde girls seen in the world as a MADDIE PIC SENSATION?
Don’t buy the Scum.

Clarkson a traitor

Ho hum.
Kim Du Toit often talks about how just because you agree with people on one set of issues it does not then follow that you must agree with them on a particular set of other issues.
I always previously thought of Jeremy Clarkson as One Of Us because of his view on such things as political correctness and such like, so I was more than surprised to find out that he is in fact a traitorous scum bag who wants to rip up our constitution and sign us up to the United States of Europe.

I also like the idea of a giant European state tempering American stupidity and Chinese economic might.

This is a point of view usually pitched by sandal wearing, beardie yoghurt knitters.
Let me tell you what this super state would mean.
War.
Yup, sooner or later the posturing and bullshitting of this superstate would lead to conflict with one or both of the powers JC mentions.  It will start with economic conflict and sooner or later end up with a big fucking scrap. 
JC and chums imagine a level headed mediator.  The reality might be something a bit more like this:

14 year old - too young for trial

Absolutely hopping mad this morning!
Flicking through The Scum in the canteen and saw this article regarding a young girl shot with an air rifle.  The bastard that did it will not face charges because, according to the CPS

Although an adult ought to know that one should never pull a trigger of a gun if there is anyone in front of him, such sensible considerations may not be expected of a youth

What the fuck?  We aren’t talking about a toddler, we’re talking a 14 year old!  What does this case say to any young thugs out there?  “Shoot away boys, you won’t get charged”.
As Lorna’s dad says:

The CPS is saying they don’t believe a 14-year-old can be held responsible for pulling a trigger. To me, that lets off the boy that shot Rhys Jones dead in Liverpool as well.

At 14 (or much younger even) you damned well know that shooting an airgun at someone could cause serious injury, even death.  Do you know what else?  Ignorance is no fucking excuse!
This little bastard should be charged with attempted murder, as should every little bastard who thinks it’s a game to shoot airguns at people.  If the CPS haven’t the common sense to charge him then the family should take out a private prosecution, what’s more BASC or The CA should offer to pay the costs of doing so in order to show that we the legitimate gun using community deplore this kind of thuggery just as much (if not more) than the general public.
This just shows what shite all the talk of cracking down on gun crime really is.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Cavalry Arms Girls

Enthused by the fanatastic video that Mr Free Market showed from Cavalry Arms, I had a looksee over at their site to check out some of their products.  Oh alright, you got me.  It was to see if there were any more vids featuring good looking women with guns.  Some videos here or see You Tube user Sinstral Rifleman, but there were some ace shots of tidy women with big guns, and some firearms too.  What could be a finer sight than a sexy confident women exercising her right to bear arms?
A wee sample:

Gorgeous.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Stasi in action in Dundee

It’s a free country

What do people mean when they say this?  I suspect they don’t really know, because if they had thought about it then they would realise that it most certainly isn’t a free country.
In a free country one would expect to be able to criticise an elected official without two uniforms turning up on your doorstep and telling you to desist from emailing said official.
Jake Reid was disgusted at Dundee’s Lord Provost’s lack of etiquette when the Queen visted the city, so he emailed him to tell him so.  Nothing wrong with that.  Mr Reid then sent a follow up when no reply was forthcoming.  Nothing wrong with that either.

Out of the blue, there is a knock at my door and the police are standing there, complete with a riot police van. The cops asked me if I had sent two e-mails to the lord provost.
I told them that I had and they told me not to send him any more e-mails. But I said, ‘Don’t tell me not to write to an elected official’.

Damned fucking right.  How. Very. Dare. They.  Bastards.  At least when I was visited by the plod over this blog they acknowledged that they couldn’t tell me to stop the blog (even though there was most definitely and unspoken “But....").
Mr Reid has since received an apology from the Deputy Divisional Commander, and one hopes that the two officers concerned and the supervisor who sent them out got the bollocking of their fucking worthless lives.
This is truely a police state.  Not as bad as some places for sure, but a police state no less.

Bicycle Police Banned

Am I in some kind of strange dream or parallel universe?  Will I wake up one day in a sane world?
I suspect not, but the latest madness from police land is that PC Copper is not allowed to ride his bike anymore.  When plod on mountain bikes were rolled out a few years back I must admit to being a bit sceptical of their usefullness, but it seems that they indeed had a place.
However following a fatal accident involving a cycling PCSO in GMP area, the Greater Manchester Police have stopped their cycle patrols saying that officers do not have the right training to negotiate a busy city.  Sounds a bit familiar?
It seems that their officers must now take some kind of cycling proficiency test.  Can we expect to see them taking lessons at the local primary?  Have the officers taken a walking proficiency test?
Yet another example of the overbearing menace of elifinsafety that is making it impossible to do any damned thing in this bloody country.

OAP Beaten In Her Own Home

I make no apologies for repeating myself on this topic.
Liberal tossers will tell you that “most burglars are just kids” and that burglars “will just run away when confronted”.
Annie ‘Nancy’ Williams knows that this is just not true.  You simply don’t know an intruders intentions when he enters your home, all we can say is that the intruder does not respect the rule of law or the sanctity of your home.  We know that his intentions are most unlikely to be benevolent to say the least.
The scum who commited this atrocity did so safe in the knowledge that Nancy was defenceless.  Nancy would not have a pepper spray, a taser or a firearm tucked away - because if she had then the law would have come down on her nearly as hard as this scum did.  The scum knew that the criminal justice system was on his side.
It is no good the twats in Parliament bleating on about “reasonable force” when the scales are tipped so far in favour of the wrongdoer, what on Earth chance did Nancy have of applying “reasonable force” as the Guardianistas and their paramilitary wing aka the Police Service understand it?  Absolutely none whatsoever.
A reminder of Home Office policy as reported here?

12 January 2005

The ‘reasonable force’ law on defending the home is ‘sound’ and will not be amended, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has announced.

In a written Ministerial statement he accepted that the law on self defence needed greater explanation.

Information will be published soon which spells out what homeowners are allowed to do within the law to protect their homes.

Mr Clarke added:

“Concerns have been raised about the ability of householders to use reasonable force to defend themselves, their families, their homes and their property. After consultation I have concluded that the current law is sound but needs to be better explained to all concerned.

“I have come to the conclusion that this guidance and clarification will ensure that the current law is properly understood and implemented; and that therefore no change in the law is required.”

Remember this bollocks?

Last night Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald confirmed the law IS on the side of homeowners. Only those who carry out revenge attacks on burglars or set traps for them will face charges.

He said: “As long as someone hasn’t stepped over that line into retribution or revenge, it is difficult to perceive of a level of violence that would not be regarded as reasonable by a prosecutor.

“This is something the intruder brings on himself. I don’t think we need to be too squeamish about the situation.”

Weasel words, as worthless as the hot air from his lying gob.
If I were to store my gun in a means that it was easily accessible for home defence then I should be in breach of my conditions which require secure storage.  If the police thought that I were holding firearms with intention of using them against intruders then I would find my licence revoke as fast as you like.  If one were to apply for an FAC or SGC for home defence then you would be refused immediately.
Without the tools of self defence, any claims that self defence is permissable are just empty words.

Friday, September 21, 2007

A to the K at a train station

What would you think, faced with the above?
Personally I’d shit myself.  Whilst I’d take a wager that this was just a replica or an airsoft gun, there is still the possibility that it could have been the real McCoy.
I regularly pour scorn on ARVs being sent out to boys with toy guns as scaremongering and unnecessary but this is a tough call.  The gun looks real, but would a crim with connections enough to buy the real thing just pull it out and casually point it at a crane driver?  I doubt it, but then I’m not sure I’d bet public safety on it.
So props from me to the individual at GMP who made the call just to send out someone to check it out, rather than the full on hard stop with SMGs and helicopters.

A careful assessment was made by a senior, experienced officer as to whether an armed response vehicle [ARV] should be deployed.  As there was little information and no immediate threat to life it was decided that an ARV was not necessary. However, as a precaution, plain clothes officers were sent to further assess the situation.

Not so good was the fact that the crane driver who was the subject of the brandishing didn’t get a visit until a week later.
Some news sources are reporting the incident as if the youth has got away scot free but apparently a 15 year old has been arrested.

Save you from drowning? Sorry, we haven’t been trained.

One would expect a copper or PCSO to be the sort of person that want’s to help people, not a standby and watch kind of person.
How then do we come to the situation where two PCSOs stood and watched a child drown in a pond?  Not the raging sea or river in flood but a pond.
Not only did these useless excuses for humanity do nothing but ‘call it in’ but their in-action has been defended by their bosses.

PCSOs are not trained to deal with major incidents such as this.
Both ourselves and the fire brigade regularly warn the public of the dangers of going into unknown stretches of water so it would have been inappropriate for PCSOs, who are not trained in water rescue, to enter the pond.

Fucking useless bastards.
First off, they bloody well should be trained in water rescue.  They’ll be telling us next that they receive no first aid training either.
Secondly they should be sacked as they clearly do not have ‘the right stuff’, training or otherwise they should have been in that water like a rat up a drainpipe.  I’ve been defending the PCSOs in the past but if this is an example of the breed then I might be reviewing my stance.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Cameron Back Pedalling

I see that ‘Dave’ is busy back pedalling on the suggestion from a Tory policy review group that out of town shopping centres should not have free parking.  ‘Dave’ is trying to distance himself from the suggestion from Waffle-Arse Gummer and Eco Nutter Zac Goldsmiths review group saying that it was a suggestion to the Tory Party not a suggestion from the Tory Party.
Bollocks.
This was a Party review group with party MPs and A list candidates not some report from Greenpeace or Archfruitbat Monboit.  If Cameron didn’t know that this was going to be a proposal made public then he bloody well should have.  So either he is an incompetent tit or so far up his own ringpiece he genuinely thought that the electorate would applaud this dumbassed idea.
Either way he is a fucking twat.  I can’t decide whether he is more of a Ted Heath (may he burn in hell) or a Neil Kinnock.  At least Heath actually won an election which I really cannot see this fuckwit doing.

Britney Spears - Still Hot

’Everyone’ (i.e. the media) is talking about Britney’s crap performance at some MTV show or other.  Viacom are busy making sure that you can’t watch the performance on You Tube for reasons best known to themselves.  However if you feel inclined you can still view the ‘performance’ here.  Having seen the video and the stills in the red tops I can confirm that Britney is still smokin’ hot and I would shag her at the drop of her knickers.  Her singing?  Who gives a shit?