Quote of the Day: Scotland’s Useless Firearms Edition

Chief Inspector Lindsay Tulloch (courtesy shetlandtimes.co.uk)

“What we’ve been finding is that a lot of people have been sitting with weapons – shotguns and firearms – that they don’t use, and can’t really justify having.” – Chief Inspector Lindsay Tulloch [above back left] in Hand over your guns, says chief inspector [via shetlandtimes.co.uk] [h/t SS]

comments

  1. avatar Soccerchainsaw says:

    And just who gets to determine what constitutes “justified”?

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      “And just who gets to determine what constitutes “justified”?”

      The late Elmore Leonard. Or Timothy Olyphant. Maybe Nick Searcy.

      (Sorry. Couldn’t help myself.)

  2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I couldn’t live in a nanny state (country) like that.
    Not being able to enjoy freedom. Some “authority figure” making decisions for me.
    Worse than a nursing home!

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      But the scotch is *phenomenal*…

      🙂

      1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

        Real men don’t drink Scotch, they drink Irish
        And the difference between Irish and Scottish nationalist is that the former don’t care about stupid gun laws.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Bad news, I’m a mutt of Irish, British, French, German and other linage…

          But I am 50 percent Irish on dad’s side.

          A true Heinz 57.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      …says Tom in Oregon?

  3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    “What we’ve been finding is that a lot of police officers have been sitting with weapons – shotguns and firearms – that they don’t use, and can’t really justify having.”

    There, FTFY, chief.

  4. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Do read the comments below the article. Seems across the pond pro gun avocates are rigorous in their debate.

    1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      Yup.

    2. avatar vioshi says:

      But even then, they have their Fudds.

  5. Justify? How about self defense?

    1. avatar Capybara says:

      But self-defense is against the law in the U.K. I was there in June and they favor attackers and criminals over there, you are supposed to cower and submit to your attacker. If you defend yourself and hurt the delicate flower criminal, guess who is prosecuted? It’s the most backwards, assinine thinking I have ever seen.

      1. avatar Bill Kohnke says:

        Should make it that much easier for the ‘wogs’ to takeover.

      2. avatar William Burke says:

        Would you happen to know if it’s legal there to stab yourself fatally with a sharp object, so as to deny your attacker the pleasure of killing you?

      3. avatar Brian says:

        its starting to happen here in the US now, too.
        Family goes on TV sayin “Muh baby di’int deserv to git no shot. Not by no white man or nuffin. He waz a gud keed, never done noffin to hurt nuttin. Hurs sum pikshurs of heem when he waz a baby.”
        Then the police come on TV and say “Here’s a picture of your innocent baby we took 3 nights ago when we picked him up for assault and battery and armed robbery.”

        1. avatar God says:

          And, of course, stupid and uneducated rednecks immediately jump to stereotypes. Thanks for keeping the faith. Hopefully a FEMA camp is in your near future.

        2. avatar Brian says:

          Prove me wrong then.

      4. Hi Capybara,

        As a gun owning Brit, I tend to come across a whole lot of commentary on here that (slightly) misunderstands our laws.

        One of the most common misconceptions is that “self defence is illegal”, and “you have to just give in”.

        This is 100% inaccurate.

        It is illegal to possess any weapon, or indeed any object at all for the purpose of self defence, but if you are attacked you are entitled under common law to use force in self defence. This runs up to and including deadly force in a DGU.

        The key point on self defence, under UK law, is that any use of force must be:
        • minimal
        • reasonable
        • proportionate

        In other words:

        1) if you can resolve a situation using non-lethal or less-lethal means then you should do so (minimal);

        2) you must not use force unless there is a genuine reason to do so, usually interpreted as meaning that there is an immediate deadly/serious harm occurring or about to occur unless you act, and there is no other means of preventing it (reasonable); and

        3) you should use force proportionate to that you are acting against (proportionate)

        The third test (proportionality) is probably the most difficult to argue for. The intent of that test is to make it clear that beating someone with a length of rebar because they used harsh language is not ok. However my concern is that it may be interpreted to penalise a citizen who (for example) grabs a kitchen knife and uses it while defending him/herself against a physically stronger, but unarmed, home invader.

        In practice, the courts have tended to use what most on this forum would recognise as common sense. In other words, proportionate is not usually interpreted to mean equivalent, or identical. If you are clearly under threat of serious or deadly harm, and use deadly force in self defence, it shouldn’t matter that you carried out a successful, lethal DGU against an attacker who was “only” armed with a knife.

        Given the low number of gun owners, and the fact that almost all guns in legal circulation are long guns, kept locked in a safe when not in use, DGU is highly uncommon.

        TTAG readers commonly cite the case of Tony Martin, a farmer who shot and killed one / wounded another during a home invasion. This is however a bad case to use: the shotgun was illegally in Mr Martin’s possession, he set an ambush, shot the invaders in the back, got off the nursed charge, and served about the same time in jail for manslaughter as the surviving invader did for burglary… In my view he got off very lightly, while simultaneously harming the argument that a legitimate DGU should not alarm LE or the courts unduly.

        A better example is the case of Andrew Ferrie. This is the only recent (since Labour lost power) case that I know of, involving legal DGU in the UK. In this instance a couple were burgled by several men, in September 2012, and the homeowner got his 12ga. out, loaded it, issued a verbal warning, and then fired twice at the intruders – wounding two of them. The intruders ran away, and Andrew Ferrie rang the Police to notify them of the incident. He was arrested for wounding (grievous bodily harm), questioned, and released without charge. Admittedly, it took the Police three days to satisfy themselves he had no charge to answer, but the key point is that the law sided with the right person – and indeed it didn’t even go to a charge.

        So, going back to my main point – with the greatest of respect, you’re wrong to say that self defence is illegal. But under our laws (which I am not arguing in favour of) self defence would not be a valid reason to keep hold of those old guns.

        Cheers!

  6. avatar Geoff PR says:

    Why is it I hear the faint, distant echo of:

    “Bring out your dead! *clang*… Bring out your dead! *clang*…”

    1. avatar Mk10108 says:

      My chuckle for the day….

      But I’m not dead….It’s against regulations…awe but can you help me….thwack.

      What makes him a King…hasn’t got shit on his clothes.

  7. avatar Dean Carpenter says:

    I love it when the anti’s use the “shire” tactic. Just gentle folk tending their gardens, having a pint and a pipe. Only weapon needed is a rake to chase the rabbit away from the carrots.
    Meanwhile the worldwide production and distribution of illegal drugs goes unchecked as do the related gang wars and predation of the general population by the addicts.

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        Yes, but in the the Hobbits scoured the Shire because they had weapons hidden back in case there was ever a need. Seems to me that they succeed where no one in the UK would. They surrendered their right to contest tyranny when they meekly handed over any tools to allow them to fight.

  8. avatar vad varo says:

    Dear Scotland

    You don’t want to defend yourself? That’s delusional.

    You don’t want me to defend myself? That’s evil.

    Sincerely,

    Vad Varo

    1. avatar 'liljoe says:

      I’m stealing that line!

    2. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Brilliant!

  9. avatar CTstooge says:

    McSheeple

  10. avatar Another Robert says:

    I guess they really are peasants, aren’t they? certainly as far as the chief is concerned.

  11. avatar Dave says:

    They have even carried this ridiculousness to registering air guns. Holy cow. I can just see it know; the masked thief runs into the bank with his Daisy Air Rifle or paint ball gun and demands all the money. Just how far do you think that will go? Yeah Yeah, I know. There are air pistols that look awful real.
    SO anyway, the moral of the story to living in bonnie Scotland is; if you are going to own weapons then make sure you take them out for a bit of sport shooting every once in a while. That way, the Chief Inspector cannot claim you are sitting on them with no justification.

  12. avatar Ralph says:

    So let me get this straight. If I have a gun and don’t use it, I’m unjustified in having it. But if i have a gun and do use it, I’m unjustified in having it.

    One question, laddie: Ur ye a bampot ur blooter’d?

  13. avatar Blacque Jacque Shellacque says:

    The Shetland Times article also mentions upcoming legislation “requiring those with air weapons to gain a licence.” So that would be, what . . ?

    An Air Arms TX200?
    A Daisy BB gun?
    A Wham-O Air Blaster?

    How do they feel about slingshots, blowguns, or just picking up stones and skipping them across the lake (sorry, “loch”)?

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Blacque Jacque Shellacque says:”

      Jonathan Blacque, perchance?

  14. avatar ThomasR says:

    I’m Scottish on my Grand Mothers side.

    Along with German, French and factor X.

    Which explains the current state of Nanny Statism of England and Western Europe.

    All those with any gumption and desire to be free came the states.

    It’s called evolution and survival of the fittest.

    Now with the reawakening of our respect for the freedom the second amendment represents, we might still have enough gumption bred into our genes to keep rolling back the forces of tyranny.

  15. avatar Paelorian says:

    What, do I have to defend my life from a criminal every day in order to justify having one? I’m not Charles Bronson in Death Wish. I avoid violence, it rarely if ever happens, and if it happened frequently I’d change my lifestyle or move to avoid it.

    And as Ralph states above, these are the same dirtbags that will try to crucify you if you shoot at a group of criminals that has forced themselves into your home in the dead of night. Just ask Tony Martin. No matter the situation, you are in their view unjustified as a firearm owner. Because they believe firearms ownership by private individuals of the common people is always inherently unjustified.

    1. Hi Paelorian,

      I commented above at greater length, but let me just pick up on one point here – as a gun owning Brit (English, not Scottish)…

      Tony Martin is a bad example that is often wheeled out here on TTAG. There are good grounds to criticise our firearm laws, but that’s the wrong case to choose. Here’s why:

      Tony Martin
      Farmer Tony Martin shot and killed one intruder / wounded another during a home invasion. Having been burgled several times before he set up an ambush, armed himself with a shotgun that he acquired illegally, shot the invaders in the back, got off the murder charge, and served about the same time in jail for manslaughter as the surviving invader did for burglary…

      In my view he got off very lightly, while simultaneously harming the argument that a legitimate DGU (no other option, legal gun, etc.) should not be treated like a gangbanger drive-by…!

      A better example is the case of Andrew Ferrie. This is the only recent case that I know of, involving legal DGU in the UK. In this instance a couple were burgled by several men, in September 2012, and the homeowner got his 12ga. out, loaded it, issued a verbal warning, and then fired twice at the intruders – wounding two of them. The intruders ran away, and Andrew Ferrie rang the Police to notify them of the incident. He was arrested for wounding (grievous bodily harm), questioned, and released without charge. Admittedly, it took the Police three days to satisfy themselves he had no charge to answer, but the key point is that the law sided with the right person – and indeed it didn’t even go to a charge.

  16. Has everyone forgotten William Wallace? I think the celtic phrase is “pog ma hone.” mrpresident2016.com

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email