• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Reply to: Shoot A Terrorist

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Shoot A Terrorist"

Collapse

  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    Only for those folk outside cities and large towns linky

    Devon and Cornwall Crime Commissioner says in extreme circumstances gun owners should be allowed to shoot terrorists.
    Absolutely, for example terrorists letting their dogs worry sheep!

    FFS. A gag is pretty lame when it turns out two or three people have already made it!

    But seriously, wasn't an Islamist terrorist cell discovered in Ilfracombe recently?
    Last edited by OwlHoot; 13 June 2017, 16:36.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladyuk
    replied
    Originally posted by Elliegirl View Post
    Armed police officers are highly trained and yet still make the occasional mistake. Every time there's a fatal shooting an investigation follows. And a crime commissioner is proposing some random bloke/blokess be allowed to shoot a 'terrorist' or someone who happens to be in the vicinity at the time and happens to be brown. Can I suggest we invest in training more of the people who are supposed to protect us instead?
    People won't be able to shoot

    a 'terrorist' or someone who happens to be in the vicinity at the time and happens to be brown.
    They will however continue to be able to use reasonable force to stop a crime. I really can't see the problem with this.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    And no!!!!!!!!!!

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...ot-and-killed/

    Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.

    While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn’t, Branas speculates. Supporters of the Second Amendment shouldn’t worry that the right to bear arms is under threat, however. “We don’t have an answer as to whether guns are protective or perilous,” Branas says. “This study is a beginning.”
    Its bad enough when you are caught with an offensive table leg by the Police can you imagine being anywhere near an armed SpurterScot or AssGuru in a tense situation????

    Leave a comment:


  • Mordac
    replied
    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    I thought they were sheep worriers?
    No, that's Plaid Cymru.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elliegirl
    replied
    Armed police officers are highly trained and yet still make the occasional mistake. Every time there's a fatal shooting an investigation follows. And a crime commissioner is proposing some random bloke/blokess be allowed to shoot a 'terrorist' or someone who happens to be in the vicinity at the time and happens to be brown. Can I suggest we invest in training more of the people who are supposed to protect us instead?

    Leave a comment:


  • Elliegirl
    replied
    Originally posted by diseasex View Post
    Yep. I applaud this idea.
    Of course you do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    replied
    Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
    It's all very well saying you can just shoot a terrorist but all the police find is a corpse and hear what you tell them. They can't just slap you on the back and sing "For he's a jolly good fellow", they need to investigate it.
    It's bit late now. Oops.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlasterBates
    replied
    It's all very well saying you can just shoot a terrorist but all the police find is a corpse and hear what you tell them. They can't just slap you on the back and sing "For he's a jolly good fellow", they need to investigate it.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by diseasex View Post
    Maybe, but if you survive you are facing long and painfull prosecution
    Not necessarily.

    You can use reasonable force against someone, kill them, and not be prosecuted.

    Though I've only heard it for stabbing someone to death with a knife not shooting them.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladyuk View Post
    They already are allowed to use reasonable force.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...in_English_law
    The Torygraph article I linked to pointed that out.

    Leave a comment:


  • quackhandle
    replied
    Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
    This idea could only ever come from some country bumpkin in Cornwall; as if a terrorist is going to wander around empty fields in the middle of nowhere, so that a Farmer could hunt him down with a shotgun.

    A farmer or hobby marksman is not going to be wandering around Woolworths, or stirring his soup in a restaurant with a rifle when the terrorist strikes.

    Im were worrin' the sheep, Jethro.



    qh

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladyuk
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    Only for those folk outside cities and large towns linky

    Devon and Cornwall Crime Commissioner says in extreme circumstances gun owners should be allowed to shoot terrorists.
    They already are allowed to use reasonable force.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...in_English_law

    Leave a comment:


  • MrMarkyMark
    replied
    Tally Ho, maybe the Conservatives can push this through as national policy and then the hunt will have something useful to contribute to the country.

    Sorted.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    Originally posted by oscarose View Post
    Enough is enough...

    Of country bumpkins shooting anything that moves? Hear, hear...

    Leave a comment:


  • diseasex
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    It's called "reasonable force". This is old linky but in English Common law you can defend yourself using reasonable force.

    So shooting a terrorist if you happen to have a gun legally is reasonable force. The immediate problem you face is that the police would try and take you out afterwards.
    Maybe, but if you survive you are facing long and painfull prosecution

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X