Anti-social behaviour on a Lincolnshire waterway

[mayalld]

Gun safes have to be securely bolted to the wall and floor. I have already asked my fire arms officer if they can be fitted to a boat and she has said yes, which I'll admit I was surprised about. She even said they can go in caravans...

 

Please print a copy of this thread, hand it to your firearms officer, and see if you still have a certificate.

[Ritchard]

Just a short snippet i have found about applying for a shot gun ticket on

 

here

 

It throws up one or two issues with our friends plans.

 

"BEFORE the Chief Officer of Police can grant or renew a shotgun certificate he must be satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a shotgun without danger to the public safety or to the peace."

 

Surely one look at this forum would be a no then, on top of that the potential security risks of guns onboard boats, they are not the most secure of premises to install a gun cabinet in.

 

"Regardless of the reason for issue, you must install your own security. We will not issue your certificate unless you have installed security at your home address."

 

This implies that the boat would have to be registered as your home address. Easier said than done if you have no home, residential mooring. (I know CCers and the like manage but we are talking about the police here would they accept that?)

 

You also have to reapply if you are moving the guns to a new address so simply fitting the cabinet in the boat and moving the guns will not suffice.

 

 

 

Much the same as when they get guns?

 

 

 

How difficult is it to steal a boat, thus you fire arms?

 

I had four interviews for my Shotgun Cert. and quite frankly I think the chief of firearms and my local firearms officer know I am not a threat to the publics safety. Using them for self protection is not frowned upon by the police providing there is no other option.

 

As for securing the gun safe, I can weld a cabinet to the bulkhead - in a house it would be bolted. So I think on a boat it would be secured more safely. I have already asked if CCers can have gun safes and it is not an issue according to my firearms officer.

 

And of course I know I need to reapply/inform them if I move the gun safe, its not more dificult to steal a boat than it is to break into a house and steal the gun safe. I'd imagine a stihl saw would be handy in both cases - of course the hard bit is finding a boat/house with a gun safe and then finding where the safe has been hidden.

 

I must admit I was shocked when my firearms officer said they could be secured in a caravan....thankfully only static ones tho!

[soldthehouse]

Hmmm! Looking forward to meeting that group no time soon.

 

I've spun enough wool for mittens now; hands up, who wants a pair?

Any mittens for kittens?

http://boldt.us/8440-3/funny_picture_kittens_in_a_teacup

[carlt]

Any mittens for kittens?

http://boldt.us/8440-3/funny_picture_kittens_in_a_teacup

How long do you infuse for, to get a reasonable brew?

[mayalld]

I had four interviews for my Shotgun Cert. and quite frankly I think the chief of firearms and my local firearms officer know I am not a threat to the publics safety. Using them for self protection is not frowned upon by the police providing there is no other option.

 

Given that you have made public admissions that you illegally discharged weapons over a canal, having illegally prevented members of the public from passing, and made statements that you intend to use the gun to menace people you don't like the look of, I suspect that they don't know the full story.

 

Of course, I could be wrong, so let us put it to the test...

 

What is your real name, so that I can send a copy of all this to your local police for their files.

[Morat]

This thread is full of so much horseshit it is unbelievable. Before it turns completely into "I hate guns and arrogant gun owners" vs "I love guns and I don't care what you think" let's consider options for people being stoned.

 

The criteria for the legal use of lethal force in self defence is being in fear for your life. You can't use lethal force in defence of property, although you can use it in defence of your family/friends.

 

That is how I was taught during training for a tour of Belfast and the UK law hasn't been changed since.

 

Warning shots are a waste of time, you're either in fear of your life or you aren't. If you're not in fear of your life then you're simply discharging a firearm in a public place and you'll swiftly find that firearms offences trump pretty much everything else in a public order situation. A shouted warning is a better option.

 

If you ARE in fear of your life, you may shoot someone in self defence. It doesn't matter whether you think guns are the root of all evil or whether you read Guns and Ammo in the toilet. That is the law. Of course, in the case of being stoned, at range, by kids you're going to have to convince the jury that you really were in fear of your life.

 

My only experience of being stoned on a canal was while boating through Birmingham late one afternoon. About 10 children of early teen age were playing on a very large building site that had a huge pile of hardcore which they decided would look better bouncing off my boat than in its tidy pile. Luckily they hadn't managed to climb the 10ft chainlink fence onto the canal bank so they were trying to lob apple sized stones over the fence and were generally too weak to manage it effectively. Some stones did hit the boat, some came very near me but it was a hire boat, I've had a lot worse thrown at me in the past and I didn't bother doing anything apart from putting the throttle up to the limiter and staying on the far side of the cut.

 

Infact there was nothing else I could do - calling the police would have been a waste of their time and mine. Sometimes you just have to accept that you are not Bruce Willis and life is sometimes hurtful.

 

On the other hand, I couldn't help noticing that every boat has a fantastic weapon for repelling boarders, right under the hand of the helmsman.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Morat

[Ritchard]

Given that you have made public admissions that you illegally discharged weapons over a canal, having illegally prevented members of the public from passing, and made statements that you intend to use the gun to menace people you don't like the look of, I suspect that they don't know the full story.

 

Of course, I could be wrong, so let us put it to the test...

 

What is your real name, so that I can send a copy of all this to your local police for their files.

 

I broke BW bye laws unknowingly - which I believe is a £100 fine. Members of the public were more than happy to wait and actually quite enjoyed watching.

 

And I think you will find that I have not stated I would use the gun to menace people I dont like the look of but rather to protect myself and those on board from immient serious danger. If youths are chucking house bricks Im not going to sit there waiting to get hit, I will stop them.

[soldthehouse]

How long do you infuse for, to get a reasonable brew?

Its down to personal taste really. A KIT KAT is essential with any cuppa!

[Machpoint005]

I've flipped through this red-hot thread with some interest, and it seems that

(1) the best way to deal with anti-social youth gatherings is to engage them in conversation;

(2) failing that, and given an assault by missiles, it's definitely not a plan to throw or propel things back at them, for all the reasons stated;

(3) I'm amazed nobody has suggested photographing the alleged miscreants frm the safety of the boat, preferably with a nice long telephoto lens ... tends to disperse them fairly rapidly.

[Naughty Cal]

I broke BW bye laws unknowingly - which I believe is a £100 fine. Members of the public were more than happy to wait and actually quite enjoyed watching.

 

And I think you will find that I have not stated I would use the gun to menace people I dont like the look of but rather to protect myself and those on board from immient serious danger. If youths are chucking house bricks Im not going to sit there waiting to get hit, I will stop them.

 

I am sure you will have told your local firearms officer that you broke the law with your gun though wont you? After all withholding vital pieces of information like that would be an offence also.

 

I may do a little experiment with this and ask our local firearms officer here in South Yorkshire what his thoughts would be and maybe link him to this post so that he could tell us what his thoughts would be on issuing Ritchard a licence to hold firearms.

[Ritchard]

This thread is full of so much horseshit it is unbelievable. Before it turns completely into "I hate guns and arrogant gun owners" vs "I love guns and I don't care what you think" let's consider options for people being stoned.

 

The criteria for the legal use of lethal force in self defence is being in fear for your life. You can't use lethal force in defence of property, although you can use it in defence of your family/friends.

 

That is how I was taught during training for a tour of Belfast and the UK law hasn't been changed since.

 

Warning shots are a waste of time, you're either in fear of your life or you aren't. If you're not in fear of your life then you're simply discharging a firearm in a public place and you'll swiftly find that firearms offences trump pretty much everything else in a public order situation.

 

If you ARE in fear of your life, you may shoot someone in self defence. It doesn't matter whether you think guns are the root of all evil or whether you read Guns and Ammo in the toilet. That is the law. Of course, in the case of being stoned, at range, by kids you're going to have to convince the jury that you really were in fear of your life.

 

My only experience of being stoned on a canal was while boating through Birmingham late one afternoon. About 10 children of early teen age were playing on a very large building site that had a huge pile of hardcore which they decided would look better bouncing off my boat than in it's tidy pile. Luckily they hadn't managed to climb the 10ft chainlink fence onto the canal bank so they were trying to lob apple sized stones over the fence and were generally too weak to manage it effectively. Some stones did hit the boat, some came very near me but it was a hire boat, I've had a lot worse thrown at me in the past and I didn't bother doing anything apart from putting the throttle up to the limiter and staying on the far side of the cut.

 

Infact there was nothing else I could do - calling the police would have been a waste of their time and mine. Sometimes you just have to accept that you are not Bruce Willis and life is sometimes hurtful.

 

On the other hand, I couldn't help noticing that every boat has a fantastic weapon for repelling boarders, right under the hand of the helmsman.

 

You undoubtly did the right thing. And I would probably have done the same, however my point still stands that if I feel that there is serious immient danger to my self or others on my boat I would use a gun. As for firing a warning shot, you are more than likely legally correct. But it seems fair to me as I would need to impress upon those whom are posing serious immient danger that I would use the gun if they continue to advance on myself/others on the boat.

 

 

I am sure you will have told your local firearms officer that you broke the law with your gun though wont you? After all withholding vital pieces of information like that would be an offence also.

 

I may do a little experiment with this and ask our local firearms officer here in South Yorkshire what his thoughts would be and maybe link him to this post so that he could tell us what his thoughts would be on issuing Ritchard a licence to hold firearms.

 

I shall bring it up the next time I speak to her, because I have a feeling that while it is illegal to shoot over the canal or from the canal (illegal as in it breech's BW bye laws), I think it may be legal to shoot from the none towpath side with your back to the canal. What happens on shoots where the canal runs right through the sporting ground? Firearms officers are more than happy to answer questions and clarify the law as it is not a simple black and white jobby with all the bye laws! They are more concerned that one is a safe holder of s shot gun cert. and rightly so.

 

As for issuing me with a firearms license, I dont think that would ever happen - rifles have far more stringent controls than shot guns and I would need to prove that I have the land to use one (which I do) and jump through a variety of different hoops. Im tempted to go for one, but I think its perhaps more hassle than its worth - especially seeing as I do not enjoy shooting rifles

[Naughty Cal]

You undoubtly did the right thing. And I would probably have done the same, however my point still stands that if I feel that there is serious immient danger to my self or others on my boat I would use a gun. As for firing a warning shot, you are more than likely legally correct. But it seems fair to me as I would need to impress upon those whom are posing serious immient danger that I would use the gun if they continue to advance on myself/others on the boat.

 

You have hit the nail on the head there.

 

You feel the need to appear powerful to a group of children. What a sad existance you must lead if that is the case.

 

More and more i am feeling as though i will contact SY police and lodge a formal complaint. I dont believe that you are safe to be the owner of a potentially lethal weapon and i am sure that they will feel the same. The behaviour you are displaying here is not the behaviour of a supposedly sensible adult who is in charge of a deadly weapon.

[twbm]

Gosh.

 

If you're full time liveaboard then just maybe you'd get the security approved. If you're just cruising why would you have the gun on your boat? Do you have pre-arranged shoots conveniently situated along the waterways system? Or would it be on the offchance you needed to mete out justice and vengeance on people attacking you with hand propelled mostly inaccurate missiles? If the latter, then a degree of premeditation creeps in - which may give you some difficulties in the friendly recorded chat you're going to be having after you're arrested.

 

Meanwhile, back at the OP: Photgraphing or videoing the miscreants is as good a deterrent as any. But do it from a distance so you don't lose the phone / camera.

[Ritchard]

You have hit the nail on the head there.

 

You feel the need to appear powerful to a group of children. What a sad existance you must lead if that is the case.

 

More and more i am feeling as though i will contact SY police and lodge a formal complaint. I dont believe that you are safe to be the owner of a potentially lethal weapon and i am sure that they will feel the same. The behaviour you are displaying here is not the behaviour of a supposedly sensible adult who is in charge of a deadly weapon.

 

 

Read what I have said Phylis, I have said that if I felt I was in immient serious danger with no other option I would not hesitate to use a gun to protect myself or others. Its not about looking 'powerful' to a group of children its about being quite clear that if I have no other option I would use it. Some chap said on another thread that he was once in the situation where a teenager was on his boat roof waving the boat pole around - if I were in the same situation and had my gun on board it would undoubtadly be in my hands by that point. If the lad then advanced on me or others and I felt the threat was sufficient enough then I would shoot him to wound. But in all liklihood as soon as the lad saw that I was armed and not your average bend over and take it wooly mitten liberal he'd run off for a change of trousers.

 

There is nothing illegal nor irresponsible about that, its simply looking after oneself. However am I fairly sure that it would be tested in court, and knowing that I would still do it but be very sure about it.

 

Gosh.

 

If you're full time liveaboard then just maybe you'd get the security approved. If you're just cruising why would you have the gun on your boat? Do you have pre-arranged shoots conveniently situated along the waterways system? Or would it be on the offchance you needed to mete out justice and vengeance on people attacking you with hand propelled mostly inaccurate missiles? If the latter, then a degree of premeditation creeps in - which may give you some difficulties in the friendly recorded chat you're going to be having after you're arrested.

 

Meanwhile, back at the OP: Photgraphing or videoing the miscreants is as good a deterrent as any. But do it from a distance so you don't lose the phone / camera.

 

I plan to be a full time liveaboard, just testing it out at the moment. As such there is no gun nor gun safe on my boat atm, but I plan to have one on their once I have refitted out. I am quite lucky in that my shoot backs onto a local canal so yes it would be quite nice and novel to moor up and see if I could get something fresh for the pot

[twbm]

Edited - changed my mind about the post.

Edited July 27, 2010 by twbm

[Jparry]

Indeed I must be because I wont bend over and let delinquents shaft me. Letting them get away with it doesnt stop them....turning the other cheek doesnt work...if it did Jesus wouldn't have been nailed to a tree. (Not only have I upset the anti gun nuts now, but I've also upset the religious nuts, go me!)

Youve lost the plot

[Lady Muck]

I've flipped through this red-hot thread with some interest, and it seems that

(3) I'm amazed nobody has suggested photographing the alleged miscreants frm the safety of the boat, preferably with a nice long telephoto lens ... tends to disperse them fairly rapidly.

 

I think I mentioned it. I've done it before. I stopped a gang of teenagers from wrecking our shower blocks. I asked them to stop, because alot of people use them. I said if they refused I'd be calling the police. I took photos and sent them to the cops. I've never seen them around here again.

 

I stopped a man flytipping. I made him put everything back in his car. I just told him I lived here, lots of families come here at the weekend, did he have kids, would he want to walk them through a rubbish dump? Could he not go to the tip five minutes drive away?

 

I stopped a gang of kids throwing concrete blocks in the canal, explained to them that it costs me alot of money to keep the boat and that I was not happy to be paying to clear their mess up.

 

No need to lose my rag, infact definately don't lose your rag. Just to explain why I'm not happy about it. Yes it takes alot of guts to stand up to teenagers, but not many people seem to be brave enough to do it anymore. Having a dialogue with someone who is intimidating takes alot more guts than to shoot at them, but you get much better results, so it is worth it.

[cotswoldsman]

I love this part of Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine for anyone who has never seen the film it is about guns in USA

[Ritchard]

I think I mentioned it. I've done it before. I stopped a gang of teenagers from wrecking our shower blocks. I asked them to stop, because alot of people use them. I said if they refused I'd be calling the police. I took photos and sent them to the cops. I've never seen them around here again.

 

I stopped a man flytipping. I made him put everything back in his car. I just told him I lived here, lots of families come here at the weekend, did he have kids, would he want to walk them through a rubbish dump? Could he not go to the tip five minutes drive away?

 

I stopped a gang of kids throwing concrete blocks in the canal, explained to them that it costs me alot of money to keep the boat and that I was not happy to be paying to clear their mess up.

 

No need to lose my rag, infact definately don't lose your rag. Just to explain why I'm not happy about it. Yes it takes alot of guts to stand up to teenagers, but not many people seem to be brave enough to do it anymore. Having a dialogue with someone who is intimidating takes alot more guts than to shoot at them, but you get much better results, so it is worth it.

 

I quite agree a kind word is always the first option, however as I have stated if someone; youth or not is coming at me, and they continue to do so after being given a warning and they look like a threat and that they could do some serious damage I wouldnt have any qualms about shooting them in self defence. Im hardly going to shoot someone for fly tipping - even if it does make me very mad, as quite simply they are not an immient threat to my safety.

[Guest wanted]

Read what I have said Phylis, I have said that if I felt I was in immient serious danger with no other option I would not hesitate to use a gun to protect myself or others. Its not about looking 'powerful' to a group of children its about being quite clear that if I have no other option I would use it. Some chap said on another thread that he was once in the situation where a teenager was on his boat roof waving the boat pole around - if I were in the same situation and had my gun on board it would undoubtadly be in my hands by that point. If the lad then advanced on me or others and I felt the threat was sufficient enough then I would shoot him to wound. But in all liklihood as soon as the lad saw that I was armed and not your average bend over and take it wooly mitten liberal he'd run off for a change of trousers.

 

There is nothing illegal nor irresponsible about that, its simply looking after oneself. However am I fairly sure that it would be tested in court, and knowing that I would still do it but be very sure about it.

 

 

 

I plan to be a full time liveaboard, just testing it out at the moment. As such there is no gun nor gun safe on my boat atm, but I plan to have one on their once I have refitted out. I am quite lucky in that my shoot backs onto a local canal so yes it would be quite nice and novel to moor up and see if I could get something fresh for the pot

 

 

So you would shoot at somebody who was drunk on top of your boat and waving around the pole. I think you are sadly delusional about how the law works in this county and I really hope that you are not representative of all gun owners.

 

If not wanting to fire a gun at somebody makes me (in your offensive words) an average bend over and take it wooly mitten liberal then I am happy to be so. You are a person who see's the gun as the ultimate decider, the top of the chain, I see it as humans ultimate weakness and even worse in the hands of a liability such as yourself.

[journeyperson]

Read what I have said Phylis, I have said that if I felt I was in immient serious danger with no other option I would not hesitate to use a gun to protect myself or others. Its not about looking 'powerful' to a group of children its about being quite clear that if I have no other option I would use it. Some chap said on another thread that he was once in the situation where a teenager was on his boat roof waving the boat pole around - if I were in the same situation and had my gun on board it would undoubtadly be in my hands by that point. If the lad then advanced on me or others and I felt the threat was sufficient enough then I would shoot him to wound. But in all liklihood as soon as the lad saw that I was armed and not your average bend over and take it wooly mitten liberal he'd run off for a change of trousers.

 

There is nothing illegal nor irresponsible about that, its simply looking after oneself. However am I fairly sure that it would be tested in court, and knowing that I would still do it but be very sure about it.

 

That bothers me, coming from someone who owns a gun and sees it as an aid to self-defence. I am under the impression that police and soldiers are taught that you can't shoot to wound, that if you need to stop someone, you aim for the mass of the body otherwise you are likely to miss.

[Ritchard]

So you would shoot at somebody who was drunk on top of your boat and waving around the pole. I think you are sadly delusional about how the law works in this county and I really hope that you are not representative of all gun owners.

 

If not wanting to fire a gun at somebody makes me (in your offensive words) an average bend over and take it wooly mitten liberal then I am happy to be so. You are a person who see's the gun as the ultimate decider, the top of the chain, I see it as humans ultimate weakness and even worse in the hands of a liability such as yourself.

 

Read what I posted, a drunk chap on the roof first of all is not a threat, they have terrible balance - rock the boat and they would fall in. If the kid wasnt drunk and started threatening/mouthing off and then advanced on me and I thought there were serious risk of harm to me or others I would shoot yes. But like I have said before, once the chap had seen the gun and seen I was in no mood for his shenigans I am fairly confident he would be off like a shot for a new pair of trousers and to find somewhere else to hassle people.

 

That bothers me, coming from someone who owns a gun and sees it as an aid to self-defence. I am under the impression that police and soldiers are taught that you can't shoot to wound, that if you need to stop someone, you aim for the mass of the body otherwise you are likely to miss.

 

A shot gun at 55 ft (the length of my boat) if shot in the chest area would be unlikely to kill out right (with standard supreme game no 6 cartridges). It would be far nicer to shoot at his legs and stop him from being a threat that way. Anything further than 100ft would sting like hell but leave no lasting mark, yes I have been shot at that range. Not fun. Certainly a brown trouser moment! Of course within 20 to 30ft they can be rather messy.

[RLWP]

I cannot believe that you are seriously describing how much or little you would injure someone with a shotgun on an internet forum.

 

Richard

[journeyperson]

I cannot believe that you are seriously describing how much or little you would injure someone with a shotgun on an internet forum.

 

Richard

 

Frightening and morbid. I don't think it's enough for gun laws to talk about the security of the gun cabinet from thieves, I think it needs to be inaccessible to the owner.

[stagedamager]

Read what I posted, a drunk chap on the roof first of all is not a threat, they have terrible balance - rock the boat and they would fall in. If the kid wasnt drunk and started threatening/mouthing off and then advanced on me and I thought there were serious risk of harm to me or others I would shoot yes. But like I have said before, once the chap had seen the gun and seen I was in no mood for his shenigans I am fairly confident he would be off like a shot for a new pair of trousers and to find somewhere else to hassle people.

 

 

 

A shot gun at 55 ft (the length of my boat) if shot in the chest area would be unlikely to kill out right (with standard supreme game no 6 cartridges). It would be far nicer to shoot at his legs and stop him from being a threat that way. Anything further than 100ft would sting like hell but leave no lasting mark, yes I have been shot at that range. Not fun. Certainly a brown trouser moment! Of course within 20 to 30ft they can be rather messy.

I am absolutely DISGUSTED by what i am reading, i really hope you are writing this to get a rise out of people, because if that is the case, then you can't be serious in what you are putting in print. Whilst i agree about protecting if the need arises, there are other ways, NOT INVOLVING FIREARMS, which have been posted in this thread, but have fallen on what are obviously deaf ears.I like to write on this forum, as it gives me a chance to chat about topics, which i enjoy chatting about, and very rarely, in my opinion write out of turn, however on this occasion, i am compelled to say that, i feel that your type of writing is obviously not welcomed, as it appears you offending people by what you are writing. That is not what boating is about, protection yes, warning shots, and shooting people in the chest, NO. Please go away, i'm sure there are forums in the pulic domain, where you can go and pretend to be Yosemite Sam, and go and jump around firing your guns in the air, in a virtual world of course.

Regards

Dan