history of British gun banning [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

Urban Jedi

11-17-2002, 07:29 PM

Yes, sometimes we venture into these forums to see what you lot are chatting about.
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Firstly: this topic appears to be about the right of the Englishman to defend himself, not about going to war and asking the US for guns. So what the ripostes against the UK are about, I dont know.

Secondly: the article is embellished and exaggerated somewhat. Its obviously written from a US point of view, and I think that the issue of guns is something we will always look at differently. I didnt grow up with guns, and had never seen a real gun until I joined the police. I do believe that we should have the inalienable right to defend our homes and families, and ourselves, but I wouldnt be comfortable with people carrying weapons around with them all day.

I dont have any answers, and I think the article brings up some valid points. But we are an old-fashioned lot and dont think we'll ever change our attitude. I think it will take a lot to have our police carry guns, especially bearing in mind that if we are off duty (where we are duty bound to act in our capacity as a police officer when required) we would be in serious s**t if we were found carrying our ASP or CS spray. Go figure.

Watchman

11-17-2002, 07:38 PM

Urban Jedi :

Glad to see that yall "check up" on us once in awhile :D

Perhaps you can clear this up for me, do ALL the cops in Britain carry guns ?

I was under the impression that only specialized units did.

I can understand your concern about people carrying weapons around escpecially since you're not used to them. Being an instructor that helps people do just that,it dosest bother me a bit :D

Urban Jedi

11-18-2002, 03:46 AM

Watchman:

Only specialist firearms officers carry guns in the UK. These comprise armed response vehicles, specialist firearms teams (SWAT), diplomatic protection officers, royalty protection officers, close protection officers, robbery squad officers and some covert teams.

The run of the mill frontline beat officer is unarmed, and carries an ASP and CS spray.

Oficers who attend the increasing number of firearms incidents in the UK must wait for armed colleagues before dealing with the incident. Firearms incidents are happening so often, in many parts of London, including where I work, the wearing of overt body armour is compulsory.

MacLeod

11-18-2002, 09:31 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by shooter1201:
But whenever...and there have been a few of those over the years....someone invites England to a WAR, she's screaming bloody murder, pleading with the USA to send her GUNS. Go figure..........<hr /></blockquote>You've lost me on this one,

As far as I know when we've pitched up for a fight we bring our own weapons (guns) and BUY at great cost some missiles from the US.

As for screaming bloody murder we only do that as were running towards the enemy dodging friendly fire.

Mac

Sparky

11-18-2002, 10:58 AM

The gun violence is so bad that alot of you guys are required to wear body armor...

But at the same time it isn't bad enough that they will train you and issue you one to at least carry on duty????

Talk about your mixed messages!

Bill R

11-18-2002, 11:03 AM

MacLeod,
As far as I know when we've pitched up for a fight we bring our own weapons (guns) and BUY at great cost some missiles from the US.

WWI, the P14 Enfield. I do believe y'all bought them though.

WWII all kinds of armaments from small arms to aircraft. I don't think y'all really paid for all that stuff. Then again we (the US) didn't expect you to.

MacLeod

11-18-2002, 12:59 PM

Sparky,

The majority of Amrour issued to UK cops is stab proof and issued to defend against knife attack. That said our armour is level 2 ballistic aswell.

The real ballistic vests are only issued to AFO's when they are at a firearms incident.

Bill R,

I've never heard of the P14 Enfield but would like to know more.

As far as I was aware the UK did purchase arms from the US during WW2 but I don't think we got any freebees. We also did not participate in the post war redevelopement plan whereby the US heavily subsidised the rebuilding of war torn europe.

My post was really intended to covered the last twenty or so years.

Mac

Sig220Man

11-18-2002, 02:13 PM

I've driven all over the UK, from Southampton to Inverness, Cardiff to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and aside from a few areas of London, I never felt the need to have a gun.

While London does have a growing crime problem, the biggest city in Europe isn't representative of the rest of the UK, anymore than South Central LA represents the rest of the US.

From reading the papers and watching the BBC, the majority of crimes in the UK are those that (even in the US) you would not be justified in using deadly force upon the suspect. Crimes such as pickpocketing, vandalism, theft from motor vehicle, theft of the vehicle itself (not carjacking). The average Brit is far more likely to find his car broken into, than his wallet and mobile phone forcibly taken from him at knifepoint (or gunpoint).

I have a good friend who's a bobby in Oxfordshire, and is typical of Britain's PC's (police constables) in that he's unarmed except for chemical spray and a collapsible PR-24. We've talked a lot about life as a bobby, and I have even done a few ridealongs with him. I've half-jokingly said that the day the UK arms all of its cops is the day they'll start driving on the CORRECT side of the road :p

I say half-jokingly, because the British public (including the majority of the PC's themselves, based on some survey that was done awhile back) wants its PC's to stay unarmed, aside from those few who already have them. I think it's partly because in a time of increased participation in the European Union (or increased meddling by the EU, depending on the point of view), having unarmed cops, like driving on the wrong side of the road, is one of the last links to their historical past.

The British public seems to be rather wary of private gun ownership. They're already biased that way because of incidents like the Hungerford shooting (an incident where several people were shot, killing a Thames Valley PC), the horrible Dunblane elementary school shooting (which occurred LONG before Columbine), and when I was last there the shooting death of a controversial political candidate in the Netherlands, which dominated the news even in Britain.

As Americans, we're not exactly helping to dispel that myth either. American TV shows and movies are VERY popular in the UK, so what does Hollywood export over there? Shows like COPS. While I agree it's not representative of American policing, nor of American life (this country is not one big trailer park), if you've never been to America you won't know any better. So when high-profile incidents like Columbine, or the recent Washington DC sniper shootings, make international news then it simply fuels existing perceptions.

In reading that article, I do take one issue with it: I don't know of any police department that intentionally INFLATES its murder statistics, whether or not at the request of the FBI.

Bill R

11-18-2002, 04:34 PM

MacLeod
I've never heard of the P14 Enfield but would like to know more.

<a href="http://www.schild.freeserve.co.uk/p14.html" target="_blank">http://www.schild.freeserve.co.uk/p14.html</a>

As far as I was aware the UK did purchase arms from the US during WW2 but I don't think we got any freebees. We also did not participate in the post war redevelopement plan whereby the US heavily subsidised the rebuilding of war torn europe.

Under lend-lease lots of stuff was "loaned" and never returned. Like I said earlier the US did not expect to be reimbursed. There were arms contracts with US companies where the UK paid for arms though. While the UK paid for some things, there were some "freebies".

My post was really intended to covered the last twenty or so years.

OK. I think Shooter was referring to times further in the past when folks in the UK had a real threat of invasion.

[ 11-18-2002, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Bill R ]

CinaC

11-18-2002, 05:48 PM

England: Invasion Free since 1044.

Or is it 1066? I can't remember. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

shooter1201

11-18-2002, 06:26 PM

England....1940. They were about to get their AZZes kicked by Germany.....if not for the US of A....again. Hitler already had invasion plans for England, but put Operation Barbarosa into effect first.

Bill R

11-18-2002, 06:29 PM

Crazy, 1066 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

CinaC

11-18-2002, 06:39 PM

Shooter,

What kind of teacher are you? Germany never invaded England! :D

<blockquote>quote:<hr />if not for the US of A....again. <hr /></blockquote>Um. What? We didn't send Britain any troops in 1940, no matter what Michael Bay might want you to believe.

The closest thing to an "invasion" the UK had was all those Allied troops using the country as a staging point for the invasion of Europe. I read in one of Steven Ambrose's book that some of the rural folk who lived near US staging points had never seen black men before, and thought they were white men in camoflauge.

[ 11-18-2002, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

11-18-2002, 08:03 PM

Erm, actually the last invasion of England that I can think of off the top of my head was in 1665 near Lowestoft when the crew of a Dutch ship put ashore and raided a hamlet of it's meagre wares during the first Dutch war!

We're all really glad that you guys came over and saved us during the second world war, thanks for that. It started at 11.00am on the 3rd Septmember 1939 btw. Better late then never eh?

I assume that we must have been fighting with forks prior to the P14 rifle being made for us by you guys. Oh, that's right, the P14 was a British design made in .303 and classed as 'limited supply' and used by mostly by snipers. Oh yes, we used the British built Rifle 1 SMLE (Short Magazine Lee Enfield) Mk III. BTW, Holland & Holland and Purdy still do a nice line in firearms, to name but a few. We also build a couple of missle systems that we manage to export for a few pence.

I used to own 2 handguns. I bought them when I left the Marines. They were kept (as the law required) in a locked cabinet when not in use. As a further precaution learnt from the forces, my ammunition was kept in a seperate locked cabinet. Had someone broken into my house the last thing that would have come to mind would have been to use my guns. Was I p*ssed of when I had to give them up? Of course I was. Was I afraid that the fabric of our nation was going to tear it's self apart now there are no handguns and all our enemies swarm across our borders. No.

i don't know a whole heap about US history but it seems to me the 'right to bear arms' came about due to the fact that at the time of the document being written, the US had no army to speak of and her defence relied on private citizens who were armed 'stepping up to the plate' as you say.

I'm quite happy with a ban on handguns. I'm also more then happy not to be armed on duty. Were I required to be armed, then so be it, I would, but I think it will be a sad day if it ever happens.

Jim Burnes

11-18-2002, 09:18 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Soho bandit:

Oh yes, we used the British built Rifle 1 SMLE (Short Magazine Lee Enfield) Mk III.
.<hr /></blockquote>Soho Bandit,

That rifle, plus it's cousins are first rate weapons, and as you may know, still deadly in Afghanistan and parts.

I own a Lee-Enfield MK 1, 1910; and a Lee-Enfield No5 Jungle Carbine, stamped 1937. The 1910 is almost a smooth bore now and unsafe to shoot. The No5 is just a flat shooting target rifle now. It's too bad you folks can't have access to such articles. It can be a fine hobby.

Jim Burnes

Bill R

11-18-2002, 10:20 PM

We're all really glad that you guys came over and saved us during the second world war, thanks for that. It started at 11.00am on the 3rd Septmember 1939 btw.

We thought y'all should be able to handle things when "you've pitched up for a fight". <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Better late then never eh?

I thought that was Patton's line to Monty going across France :D

I assume that we must have been fighting with forks prior to the P14 rifle being made for us by you guys.

Never said that. Just stated that you asked for them.

[ 11-18-2002, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Bill R ]

Bob A

11-19-2002, 12:47 AM

We're all really glad that you guys came over and saved us during the second world war, thanks for that. It started at 11.00am on the 3rd Septmember 1939 btw.

And would have been over long before Dec 7 '41 had it not been for Lend/Lease. Neither the British nor the Soviets had the ability to withstand Hitler's onslaught were it not for the actions of the US, which were at times illegal, and nearly always without the knowledge of the American public.

In reading that article, I do take one issue with it: I don't know of any police department that intentionally INFLATES its murder statistics, whether or not at the request of the FBI.

That's not what the article states. The UCR statistic may or may not be deliberately inflated by the FBI or individual agencies. What was stated in the article is the way the FBI records homicides: That is, they are all considered murder.

In college, I did several research papers on gun control and spent a good amount of time in the UCR statistics reference book. They can also be found online, BTW at <a href="http://www.fbi.gov" target="_blank">www.fbi.gov</a> All the records I reviewed at the time listed each crime as well as self defense and suicide.

Before we pass judgement on the validity of this article or any other, we should take the time to verify statements contained therein, and reconcile them with known facts.

[ 11-19-2002, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: Bob A ]

Mike Tx

11-19-2002, 06:44 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />i don't know a whole heap about US history but it seems to me the 'right to bear arms' came about due to the fact that at the time of the document being written, the US had no army to speak of and her defence relied on private citizens who were armed 'stepping up to the plate' as you say.<hr /></blockquote>The right to bear arms can from direct experiance with the tyrant the colonists had just defeated in a war. It was put in the BoR to prevent future tyranny.

11-19-2002, 06:53 AM

:D :D

MacLeod

11-19-2002, 07:03 AM

Much tyranny in texas these days Mike ?

These days don't you have the largest army in the free world to protect you from tyranny ?

Mac

Mike Tx

11-19-2002, 07:30 AM

No Mac, the army does not protect us from tyranny. That is the job of the people in this country. Many are just as knowledgable about it as you are though. Not a jab at you, just a jab at people here who should know what their duty as a citizen is and don't.

[ 11-19-2002, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Mike Tx ]

CinaC

11-19-2002, 07:42 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />nor the Soviets <hr /></blockquote>Woah, what? The Nazis may have pushed further into the USSR without lend/lease, but I think this is a really inaccurate statement. *Winter* stopped the Nazis, not anything the US did.

11-19-2002, 09:42 AM

One of the reasons we asked for arms, munitions and other sundries to be built abroad was becuase we started to run out of materials to build them with. Although at the time of both wars we had a decent steel industry, because so many of the men went off to fight, the output couldn't be kept up with in either mining or production. Everything bacame recycled. If it could be used, it was. During WW2 thousands of conscripts never went to war but were sent to the coal mines to keep them open.

I find it a bit sad that so many Americans really do believe that WW2 was won by them on their own. The US didn't deafeat the Germans at Starlingrad, nor did US pilts or aircraft assist us during the Battle of Britain. We weren't invaded and Hitler was always reluctant to commit troops to an invasion of Britain, instead prefering to encourage GB into joining in with him.
On the 6th of June 1944 there were more nations involved in the landings then just the US. OK they made the largest single nation but were only part of the story. Some of this may be blamed on films such as 'Saving Private Ryan' Whilst a good film in it's own right, did anyone else see any other combatants from another Allied nation.

Going back to the original subject of gun control here in the UK, I think you'll find that a massive majority of us (public and LEO's) are happy as we are. That being the case, you should be happy for us. We need outside critisism of the way we do it about as much as you would welcome it if I started a thread about US gun culture and told you what I think you should do in your own country.

How many coppers in this country have been shot with their own weapon?

Bill R

11-19-2002, 11:52 AM

Soho,
One of the reasons we asked for arms, munitions and other sundries to be built abroad was becuase we started to run out of materials to build them with. Although at the time of both wars we had a decent steel industry, because so many of the men went off to fight, the output couldn't be kept up with in either mining or production.

Agreed.

I find it a bit sad that so many Americans really do believe that WW2 was won by them on their own.

I don't think that many Americans believe that. I do believe that prior to our actually declaring war the US was contributing with it's industrial power. I also believe that the entry of the US in the war caused a major shift of power in favor of the Allies.

The US didn't deafeat the Germans at Starlingrad, nor did US pilts or aircraft assist us during the Battle of Britain.

Both were examples of outstanding courage and willpower from the Russians and Brits. There were a few American volunteer pilots involved in the Battle of Britain but there numbers were of little consequence.

Going back to the original subject of gun control here in the UK, I think you'll find that a massive majority of us (public and LEO's) are happy as we are. That being the case, you should be happy for us.

Actually I feel sad for the minority of folks whose rights have been denied by the majority in the UK.

shooter1201

11-19-2002, 02:31 PM

CiaJ...

Of course Germany never invaded England...thanks to the USA. 1940 saw hundreds of US pilots join ranks with the British Air Corps....prior to the US's offical entry intot he war.

Hitler HAD invasion PLANS for England, but Hitler's exploits in Russia AND the entry of the US into the war CHANGED THAT.

CinaC

11-19-2002, 02:35 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />1940 saw hundreds of US pilots join ranks with the British Air Corps....prior to the US's offical entry intot he war.<hr /></blockquote>But not active duty military officers. And are you saying that without these skilled American pilots (who could clearly fly circles around everyone else and shoot down everything against them and make the RAF pilots look like schoolchildren), the RAF would have failed? I doubt that very much.

shooter1201

11-19-2002, 02:44 PM

US pilots AND US technilogical IMPROVEMENTS to the Spitfire gave Britain the 'edge' it needed over Germany.

CinaC

11-19-2002, 03:02 PM

Yep, radar had nothing to do with it. It was only the American provided pilots and technology that kept the Third Reich from overunning the United Kingdom.

Sorry, I think that's a bit insane.

shooter1201

11-19-2002, 03:29 PM

Without the SUPERIOR pilots(English and American) and SUPERIOR planes(Spitfire with US-designed/built improvements...canopies, guns and engines) to BACK UP the radar(English), Germany COULD and WOULD have invaded England...at Germany's CONVENIENCE.

11-19-2002, 04:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />1940 saw hundreds of US pilots join ranks with the British Air Corps.... <hr /></blockquote>ROYAL AIR FORCE. :D

The Germans couldn't launch Operation Sealion at will, even Rommel was brought up to try to figure it out. As I said, the Axis powers were reticent about coming over the channel, it was widely accepted that the Germans would suffer massive loses in doing so. Viable beachheads were denied them and night time air assault was ruled out because they didn't have the one thing we had in France on June 6th, an active resistance and SOE to light up LZ's for us

Bob A

11-19-2002, 10:20 PM

Geez, where to start... OK, here.

Much tyranny in texas these days Mike ?

None. People in Texas carry guns. :)

BTW, the largest army in the free world protects us just fine. It just protects us from people elsewhere who would do us harm, like red China.

The Nazis may have pushed further into the USSR without lend/lease, but I think this is a really inaccurate statement. *Winter* stopped the Nazis, not anything the US did.

You need to read more history, starting with Churchill's speaches in the US after the war. The reason the Russian winter was a factor was because of the fight the Brits put up in the air over their home. Which fight was possible because of lend lease. IOW, without US help, the Brits would not have held off the Nazis. The help they received caused Hitler to have to fight a 2 front war, instead of taking on each country one at a time. Read Sun Tzu: Never divide your forces.

L/L was one of FDR's blatant violations of international law with respect to the obligations of neutral countries to beligerent powers. Read some of what the OSS did all over the world to find out about others.

...at the time of both wars we had a decent steel industry...

It was awesome for the size of the country. However, by mid 1941, the US was turning out Liberty ships (full of Lend/Lease military hardware) every 10 days in at least 5 shipyards. This was more than twice the rate at which the German Navy could sink them.

I find it a bit sad that so many Americans really do believe that WW2 was won by them on their own.

I do too. I also find it a bit sad that people on your side of the pond cannot accept this: The US did not win WWII on its own, but the Allies in Europe almost certainly would not have won it without the US.

The US didn't deafeat the Germans at Starlingrad,

Not directly. As stated, the protracted air battle over Britain split the Wermacht's forces sufficiently to allow Von Paulus' Army at Stalingrad to be encircled without resupply by air, as was promised, because so many air assets were needed in BRITAIN.

nor did US pilts or aircraft assist us during the Battle of Britain.

Never heard of the Eagle Squadrons, eh?

Hitler was always reluctant to commit troops to an invasion of Britain, instead prefering to encourage GB into joining in with him.

Just like the US bought off Spain (sympathetic to Hitler after their revolution) and is suspected of doing in Mexico. It was a lot cheaper than a war. Hitler didn't really want the UK, he wanted the oil fields in Romania. But he knew that neither Churchill or Stalin would sit still for it, and thought Britain was a softer target than Russia.

US pilots AND US technilogical IMPROVEMENTS to the Spitfire gave Britain the 'edge' it needed over Germany.

Not true. The US was late in sending the pilots and most were inexperienced or rejects from US units. Once the US was in the war, these pilots were generally recalled to the US to serve mainly as instructors.

Aside from the RAF's jet and the ME-262, the Spitfire was as good as the ME-109 and better than the FW-190. It wasn't until the American P-51 got the Rolls Royce Merlin engine that there was a superior land based fighter plane to the Spitfire. That includes the Mitsubishi A6M "Zero".

Yep, radar had nothing to do with it. It was only the American provided pilots and technology that kept the Third Reich from overunning the United Kingdom.

If you could turn off the sarcasm for a second, you might learn something. The argument that the UK could not have prevailed without the US is not the same as the argument that the US did it on their own.

Radar was a factor, just like the Russian winter was a factor. Another factor was Hitler's arrogance. He really believed his army was invincible. If he had dedicated alll resources, it is very likely that things would have been different. In that event, I believe that the Brits would have armed the populace, and had at the germans. Wouldn't that be something? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

BTW, the radar in England was crap compared to what RCA produced in the US after the debacle in Hawaii. US radar technicians learned a great lesson from their English cousins and never forgot it again.

The Germans couldn't launch Operation Sealion at will, even Rommel was brought up to try to figure it out...

After the war most surviving Wermacht officers believed that Rommel's transfer had more to do with his failure to destroy Patton in North Africa. BTW, until the US troops got their noses bloodied there, the Nazis were pretty much having their way with all comers. It took a combination of British experience with the germans and US resources to win there.

Axis powers were reticent about coming over the channel

True, for all the reasons stated, and the fact that the germans had almost no experience in amphibious warfare, a field limited almost exlusively to US and British Marines, and Japanese Naval Infantry. IMO, Hitler attacked Britain because they felt they were a sort of warm-up for the main event (Russia) and he did not believe the US would get directly involved.

Going back to the original subject of gun control here in the UK, I think you'll find that a massive majority of us (public and LEO's) are happy as we are. That being the case, you should be happy for us.

I think most of the people here think that you guys should do what works for you. The problem is here in the US. Too many people here are constantly arguing the case that the US needs to adopt the UK model for guns. There are many problems with that, as you can see.

I also think that an argument can be legitimately made that disarming the English public has had a negligible effect on crime. Personally, I'd like to see a move toward your legal system, especially in the area of tort.

Sorry this post is so long.

[ 11-19-2002, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: Bob A ]

11-20-2002, 03:23 PM

Wow, thought of a future in the diplomatic corps? All very well argued and valid points.

Just to clear up, I'm certainly not saying that we could have won the war without the US, just that some people in the US seem to think that they were the only nation on the 'good' side. Every country that joined the Allied cause helped, be it from Fiji to the US.

Also, we didn't disarm our population really, gun ownership was very, very low. Outside the guys at the club I belonged to, I didn't know anyone else who actually owned a firearm. At a rough guess, in a town of 10,000, probably 5 or so (that's five, not 5,000 btw) may have held a firearms license. Shotguns, btw, are still available and although I don't own one (I have a son now and don't want one in the house) I do do a bit of skeet now and again. There are 3 clay pigeon / skeet venues within 10 miles of my house.

shooter1201

11-20-2002, 03:43 PM

I'm curious about your 'not wanting a gun in your house' comment.

I was raised around firearms, as was my daughter. I took her shooting at the ripe old age of 3....and actually allowed HER to fire the firearm. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> I fail to understand what makes a firearm in a house with children, 'evil'.

JRT6

11-20-2002, 05:47 PM

I didn't expect the thread drift when I posted this thread. I didn't mean for anything negative to be implied about the the UK or the cops who post on O.com. The UK has had our backs and we've had theirs going on a hundred years now.

I obviously believe the RKBA but if the Soho Bandit or anyone else dosen't care for it that's fine I don't think any less of them, were from two different cultures. The link I posted helps explain this.

I don't have a problem with anyone not liking guns, they're not for everyone, my problem is with people who want to take mine away.

[ 11-20-2002, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: JRT6 ]

Bill R

11-20-2002, 06:28 PM

JRT6,
I don't have a problem with anyone not liking guns, they're not for everyone, my problem is with people who want to take mine away.

Amen. The problem is there are people that feel like we do in the UK. They are the minority though. The majority has taken away their rights. We may become the minority here and lose our rights as our cousins in the UK have. By saying it is OK for the UK to take away the right to arms because the majority wants that, is setting ourselves up for the same treatment.

11-20-2002, 08:51 PM

Oh dear.......

I have not said anywhere that guns are evil. Please don't put words into my mouth (as it were). Maybe you should have read my other posts. I used to own 2 handguns. I was the minority. I can't say I was happy that the law was changed but it was and that's that. It wasn't changed because of 'the majority' It was changed after a series of incidents involving licensed gun owners culminating in the attack at Dunblane. Will the law stop firearms still being sold and used. No, obviously not.

I don't want a shotgun in my house because my son is 2 years old and at the moment everything is a 'gun' and he shoots anyone who steps into the house. OK, your daughter may well be switched on enough not to go near it without your permission but please don't tell me that children in the US don't gain access to their parents firearms and injure and kill others and themselves with them.

In short, I don't go shooting now enough for it to tip the balance in favour of buying a shotgun.

There is no way that the US are going to use the UK's ban as a reason for banning guns. The US has always had a gun culture, we drink tea. Has anyone heard the argument for banning capital punishment in the states that still have it on the grounds that the UK got rid of it in the 60's?

As with everything, it is always the minority who spoilit for the majority.

11-20-2002, 09:03 PM

I forgot to put this in wayyyyy back, a quote from the article:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted

shooter1201

11-20-2002, 09:28 PM

My apologies, Soho...

I tend to get 'heated' re: gun control. Check out some of my 'sparring' with Artie..LOL

Again, my apologies.

FWIW, I sent an e-mail to John Tesh(musician) today, re: a comment he made on his radio show Sunday night. He refuses to allow his kids to visit families that have guns in their homes.

I made SURE he was aware that I was a cop and a school teacher....and had MANY firearms in MY house...and that gun owners were NOT a danger. In fact, more kids die in swimming pools and car accidents than in gun accidents, every year.

ANYway... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Bob A

11-20-2002, 10:05 PM

There is no way that the US are going to use the UK's ban as a reason for banning guns.

I sure hope you're correct. There are many things we can model after the UK, but IMO, this should be the last one.

The US has always had a gun culture, we drink tea.

Exactly. But I wonder how the British gun owners felt about losing the ability to do so. They probably felt there was no way somebody would ever take theirs either.

Has anyone heard the argument for banning capital punishment in the states that still have it on the grounds that the UK got rid of it in the 60's?

Here we go again... :rolleyes: :D

Bill R

11-21-2002, 11:44 AM

Soho,
It wasn't changed because of 'the majority' It was changed after a series of incidents involving licensed gun owners culminating in the attack at Dunblane.

I'm confused by this statement. The banning of guns wasn't approved by the majority? Or, are you saying it was the fault of a minority of lawbreakers and the subsequent reaction of the majority that you have admitted won't stop gun violence?

As with everything, it is always the minority who spoilit for the majority.

There are indeed cultural differences. From our perspective the right to posess arms and to self defense come from our creator, or for those that prefer are "natural" rights. They are very basic human rights. Just as inmportant as freedom of speech and religion. To take away the right to posess arms because a minority has "spoilt" it would be like taking away free speech because some people (neo-nazis for example) misuse the right.

Has anyone heard the argument for banning capital punishment in the states that still have it on the grounds that the UK got rid of it in the 60's?

Yes.

11-21-2002, 03:45 PM

I'll try to explain it a bit better, it's a bit hard.

Neither the 'majority' nor the 'minority' have any say whether a law is passed or not when it comes to the population. We vote our politicians into parliament (the House of Commons). They are the ones who vote on laws being passed, so even if 99.9% of the population don't want law (a)passed, if the MP's vote it in, it's in. What happens quite often is something called a 3 line whip, where all the politicians from the sponsoring party will be 'asked' to ensure they vote along their party line. Even if a vote is no, it can be passed up to the House of Lords who can vote it in themselves. The Lords are not elected but do have political allegiance (especially 'honorary peers')

With the ban on handguns, there had been over the years, a few incidents involving gun owners (basically being twats and giving gun owners a bad name (the 'minority' who spoil things for the rest in this case)) When Hamilton walked into the school and committed his crime, the nation was up in arms, and that included gun owners. When it was revealed that Hamilton had been banned from being a scout master, was a bit of a nutter etc etc the local police also got a sh*t kicking. The government made what I still consider a knee jerk reaction and introduced the ban, which although it was voted in, did have it's opposers in the House of Commons.

As stated before, I don't aggree with the reason for the ban, or the ban its self, however, it is the law of the land (the law I have sworn to uphold) and that is that. I don't feel that my liberty or freedom has been trounced and again, as I stated before I think, if the ban saves one innocent life, then great. I don't see that us banning handguns will cause it to happen in the US. Nowhere in this country has it ever been written that we have a 'right to bear arms'. You have a document with it written down clear as clear.

I also don't think that the ban on hanguns has any relevence to the increase in gun crime in London. These crimes wouldn't have been committed with legally held firearms if the ban hadn't come in. It is all about the drug culture and yardie wanna be's. I wear body armour on duty but not because I'm afraid of being shot at but due to the amount of pointed and bladed weapons that are carried.

Hope that makes it a bit clearer, sorry I was confusing in the last post, was tired.

Bill R

11-21-2002, 04:16 PM

Soho,
They are the ones who vote on laws being passed, so even if 99.9% of the population don't want law (a)passed, if the MP's vote it in, it's in. What happens quite often is something called a 3 line whip, where all the politicians from the sponsoring party will be 'asked' to ensure they vote along their party line. Even if a vote is no, it can be passed up to the House of Lords who can vote it in themselves. The Lords are not elected but do have political allegiance (especially 'honorary peers')

Laws can be passed by the House of Lords without approval of the House of Commons? I was not aware of that. I confess my ignorance of UK government. If the Lords can act independently, of what importance is the House of Commons? In the US we also do not directly vote on laws. Our elected representatives do that. We do have our say at the ballot box though. If we had 99.9% of the people in opposition to a law passed, the politicians would be tossed out.

I don't feel that my liberty or freedom has been trounced and again, as I stated before I think, if the ban saves one innocent life, then great.

We'll have to differ on that Soho. I believe that posessing arms is an element of freedom. I also believe freedom is worth more than one life. Our freedom cost many lives to secure and defend.

Sparky

11-21-2002, 04:36 PM

Gun bans only take guns away from the law abiding.

Criminals will still get guns and knives and hurt people.. they are criminals. Robbery and rape is against the law already, yet these things still happen.

If my law abiding wife turns in her guns and is then stabbed to death by a rapist because she couldn't shoot the a-hole.. then the gun ban didn't save a life, it cost a life.

11-21-2002, 05:13 PM

the Lord can pretty much do what they like really, they're not elected, yet they decide on political issues, nor are they judiciary, yet deal with appeal cases.
The Commons are important becasue they deal with 99.9999% of all issues when it comes down to it. The lords very rarely will overturn something that has been voted down in the Commons. As you rightly state, the populace have the final say at the ballot box come election time but the public have a very short memory.

When I read Sparky's post, it hit me what the main difference is between our nations on guns. He writes about his wife being attacked. If you had a ban on guns she would suffer because she couldn't defend herself. Yup, aggree with that 100%. My wife couldn't defend herself if she were attacked either, with or without a gun ban. As I stated before, gun ownership per head of population was in reality very low over here before the ban. We had no concealed carry permit so no-one could carry a gun on the street and the law required us to keep firearms in a locked cabinet (and if I remember correctly, no magazines could be fitted or loaded whilst stored) so if anyone broke into my house, I wouldn't have got to them either.
The vast majority of the population had no contact with guns or experience of them, so they really weren't missed.

What I think should have happended, and most of the people I used to shoot with aggreed, was that our guns should have been kept secured at our gun clubs. This would have meant that a) everyone getting a license and buying a gun would have to join a club and b)no one could get p*ssed up and morose over splitting up with his girlfriend and decide to get his gun out and start doing some target practise in his back yard at 02.00hrs. We could shoot when we liked and gone to other clubs to shoot with movement permits. Still, never mind.

Just as an example of the small percentage of worrying people we used to get shooting (the 'minority'), I was at my club, after the ban but prior to the handing over date, getting rid of ammunition. As I was reloading, I noticed massive chips of concrete flying over the deviding wall from the range next to me. This happened again and again. Ducking out of my range, I poked my head round the corner and watched my neighbour. He was wearing a stetson and crossed 'gunslinger' belts. He had no targets fixed at the butts but was just firing his big wheels at the wall, whilst making odd "whoop" and "wayhey" noises. Very, very odd.

Sparky

11-21-2002, 05:19 PM

I think our two countries view self-defense, armed or not, differently. At least generally. It's almost a cultural thing.

In the US, the right to defend yourself is ingrained in our culture.

It also seems that the anti-gun folks in the US, are pretty much also anti-self defense.

11-21-2002, 05:26 PM

Yeah, I think that's pretty much getting to the root of it. We can defend ourselves but can't use excessive force. We do have 'immediate arming' provisions but that's for another thread...... :)

Bill R

11-21-2002, 05:33 PM

I guess it's all in how you define excessive force. When it comes to defending my home against an intruder I am under no obligation to retreat and there is a presumption that I am in fear of my life and deadly force is appropriate. In the US the wounded "youth" could have been charged with murder because his cohort was killed while they were in the act of a felony. In California I would be in trouble shooting someone running away in the driveway. In Texas it would be fine.

CinaC

11-23-2002, 12:34 AM

If the suspect is fleeing, I agree that the use of deadly force is not required.

I seem to recall hearing of a recent case - and please feel free to correct the details - where a man found his neighbor breaking into his basement. He opened fire and struck the neighbor several times. The neighbor fled, and the home owner pursued him outside, and continued to fire.

The home owner was prosecuted for every shot he fired AFTER the intruder fled, but not for any shots fired while the intruder was inside the premises.

Watchman

11-23-2002, 01:28 PM

[i]Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted

CinaC

11-23-2002, 02:01 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It also states that he shot the dude in the back while he was running away. So what ? Why should it matter ? <hr /></blockquote>The arguement could be made that while inside the home, the suspect represented a potential danger to the homeowner's life, or that of his family.

Hard to make the arguement if the suspect is shot in the back as he's running away.

To my mind, it's one thing to shoot a burglar you find in your living room. You can make the justification that you believed your life to be in danger (and truly, it might well be).

OTOH, when he's running AWAY, the suspect is no longer endangering your property, or your life. The gun owner is NOT judge, jury, and executioner. Shooting someone in the back, given the circumstances in the case above, is to my mind, murder.

[ 11-23-2002, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

Watchman

11-23-2002, 02:17 PM

The robber fully accepts the fact that his *** may get whacked when he comes into my house.

By him accepting the challenge to enter into my house illegally, he has CHOSE to accept that as fact.

So it makes NO difference if you shoot him in the back or not. HE has been in your house. ILLEGALY. He has stolen your property.

What makes you think he wont be back ? What makes you think he wont be back and this time he knows he may have to shoot you ?

HE is the enemy.If you KILL the SOB, he wont be around to kill you the next day.

The suspect is no longer endangering your property, or your life. The gun owner is NOT judge, jury, and executioner.

He is in his own house...
The guy was there,stealing his stuff.He was seen by the homeowner.

Shooting someone in the back, given the circumstances in the case above, is to my mind, murder.

Thats the difference between you and me.The typical liberal response is to assign the fault on the homeowner instead of the perpatrator. You dont know what murder is. He already chose to accept the fact that he could be killed. It aint murder, its a KILLIN. To a guy that might come back and rob you the next day or week with a gun that he might shoot you with.

That guy is the enemy.
I wound'nt hesitate to shoot an enemy soidier in the back, why should a robber, rapist,murdererer childabuser, be any different ?

So by your own statements, you think the homeowner should spend the rest of his life in jail for protecting his property ?

[ 11-23-2002, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

Jim Burnes

11-23-2002, 02:18 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C in a J:
Shooting someone in the back, given the circumstances in the case above, is to my mind, murder.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Crazy Safe at Home,

The joker could have avoided being shot in the back, by not trying to steal others property. The home owner did not select the thug, the thug choose to create the circumstance.

Jim Burnes

Watchman

11-23-2002, 02:23 PM

AMEN TO THAT !

Well stated.

Crazy...is that simple enough for ya ?

CinaC

11-23-2002, 02:40 PM

Watchman,

It's one thing to shoot the guy if he's IN your house.

FLEEING your house is another matter altogether.

My beef isn't with the homeowner protecting his property, or with firing any shots INSIDE his house at an intruder who was INSIDE his house. My beef is when the homeowner continued to shoot after both he and his property were no longer in harm's way.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The joker could have avoided being shot in the back, by not trying to steal others property. The home owner did not select the thug, the thug choose to create the circumstance. <hr /></blockquote>The home owner, in response to a situation not of his making, made a series of choices. Certainly to my mind he was justified in shooting the thug while the thug posed a clear and present danger to his life or that of his family. The home owner however, made the decision to continue shooting as the thug fled. He is responsible for the consequences of his actions.

In my mind, deadly force is not called for to protect property. If some jackass is breaking into my car in a parking garage, killing him is not warranted. If he points a gun at me, or breaks into my own home, that's another matter altogether.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The typical liberal response is to assign the fault on the homeowner instead of the perpatrator. <hr /></blockquote>Sorry, Watchman, but I really hate it when the only way you can argue stuff is by saying "oh, well, the typical liberal belief ..." The typical Conservative belief, your at least, seems to be that even the most minor of violations is worthy of a gun-shot to the back of the head.

It wouldn't surprise me to see you at some point defending the actions of a home-owner who came home to find a broken down car on the side of his property and who then executed the stranded driver for tresspassing ("well, it's the dumb car driver's fault for breaking down there - the signs said tresspassers will be shot blah blah blah, typical liberal response, blame it on the car blah blah blah").

Since it seems to be impossible for you to debate an issue without swinging words like "liberal" around, why don't you try this time around, huh? What do you view as appropriate circumstances to use deadly force? What - if anything - don't you view as appropriate circumstances to deadly force?

[ 11-23-2002, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

Watchman

11-23-2002, 02:58 PM

Crazy...

You crack me up.

Just the mention of the word "liberal" gets you foaming at the mouth.You are so predictable... :D :p

So answer this...

"So by your own statements, you think the homeowner should spend the rest of his life in jail for protecting his property ?"

WEll..do ya punk ? Do YA !
(Clint Eastwood)

Sparky

11-23-2002, 03:22 PM

C in J,

You do not have a clear understanding of the law which you are commenting on.

"Murder" is a legal term of art which requires the person comtting a homicide to do so with deliberate design and malice aforethought.

"Deliberate design" and "malice aforethought" are also terms of art which have their distinct meanings in a criminal justice context.

To kill someone when you believe that you are in serious and imminent danger is not "murder".

It is homicide, the killing of a person by another person. "Murder" is a legal term which requires criminal intent.

For example, having a stroke while driving and running over a five year old, killing them is homicide. It is not, however, "murder". The accident was not your fault. There was no intent to kill.

Whether or not deadly force is justified or not, is decided based on what the person knew at the time.

If someone points a gun at you and you shoot them, only to find out later that the gun they pointed at you was not loaded; this doesn not make it murder on your part. No one can reasonably expect you to know that you weren't exposed to a serious threat.

Likewise, a person who has been attacked in their home, even though the person is facing the other direction away from the home. they may still percieve a serous danger. They do not know if the person is getting a gun, going for help from the thugs waiting in the car, or what...

The criminal also assumes the risk of injury or death by engaging in the risky behavior. They can't complain too much if they get shot breaking into a home anymore than they could complain about the boulder that broke their neck when trespassing to swim in flooded quarry.

The homeowner, sitting peacably in their home who only shoots in response to a threat by an intruder has not formed intent. They are reacting to a perceived threat.

This cannot be "murder".

Perhaps one of the lessor "manslaughter" statutes may fit.. but again, the standard is in what was in the mind of the shooter at that time. It is not fair to judge anyone with the benefit of hindsight. Nor does doing so follow the law.

Bill R

11-23-2002, 03:34 PM

I agree with Sparky. The homeowner should have been charged with manslaughter at most. Honestly, I've seen people get 5 years for killing people with less provocation. Life for that incident is silly. I have absolutely no sympathy for the thieves. They knowingly forced their way into the mans home with the intent to commit crimes. The homeowners only intent was to defend his home. To a certain extnet, I have no problem with a man being judge, jury and executioner when someone violates his castle. I also believe the surviving thief should be charged with the death of his partner. That death was a result of their felony burglary.

CinaC

11-23-2002, 03:54 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />"So by your own statements, you think the homeowner should spend the rest of his life in jail for protecting his property ?"

WEll..do ya punk ? Do YA !<hr /></blockquote>I believe the farmer believed his own life to be at risk, which was why he shot the burglar. I don't think this requires the rest of his life behind bars. I do think that when he continued to fire as the burglar fled goes beyond self-defense, and should be treated as such.

PS: I don't "frothe." I roll my eyes at your inability to use any other word to defend your beliefs. You still haven'yt answered my question: what do you believe to be appropriate and inappropriate circumstances to employ deadly force?

Sparky:

Yes, thanks for clarifying.

Bill:

I have no problem with a person being "judge jury and executioner" when someone breaks into their home and is a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to the residents of that home (to my mind, breaking and entering into the home would constitute that type of danger).

But when someone no longer presents a clear and present danger to your life or that of your family, deadly force is not required.

Bob A

11-23-2002, 06:15 PM

OTOH, when he's running AWAY, the suspect is no longer endangering your property, or your life.

That's BS and everybody knows it. This cretin will simply go to another home and break in there. Burglars are a public menace and deserve whatever they get.

The gun owner is NOT judge, jury, and executioner.

As far as your family and home are concerned, the right to defend them with whatever means you see fit should take precedence over some dirtbag's civil rights, which, IMO, are forfeighted at the moment he commits a criminal act against a person or their home.

Shooting someone in the back, given the circumstances in the case above, is to my mind, murder.

I know this was covered as a legal term, but this mentality is the problem.

Q. How does a criminal avoid getting shot while breaking into an occupied home?

A. Don't break into the home, right? No, liberral lawyers paint targets on our front doors by making the assertion that we have no right to use force to defend something as insignificant as our property.

Isn't this an extension of the Tennessee v. Garner (SCOTUS) case? The bad guys know you can't do anything if they run, so what do they do? The RUN! Of course, this presents no danger.

These people are predators. You wouldn't let a polar bear or a lion loose to hurt people.

Watchman

11-23-2002, 06:47 PM

I roll my eyes at your inability to use any other word to defend your beliefs.

Like this ? :rolleyes:
Nah..."liberal" pretty well covers it...

You still haven'yt answered my question: what do you believe to be appropriate and inappropriate circumstances to employ deadly force?

In this case, the homeowner was not so much punished for what he did as he was punished for having the audacity to think he could use deadly force to protect his property in the great country of Britian. He was made an example, after all, we cant have the subjects thinking that they can resist and defend themselves eh? That might set a bad example to others, lets throw him in prison for the rest of his life.

In the meantime, the perp that lived gets a hefty sum to SUE the property owner for shooting his ***. Undoubtledly he will supplement his income by robbing others in the neighborhood, I mean, who gonna risk life in prison for shooting at a crook ?

Yeah...that really makes sense. :rolleyes:

CinaC

11-24-2002, 12:00 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />This cretin will simply go to another home and break in there. Burglars are a public menace and deserve whatever they get. <hr /></blockquote>Well, that depends on the circumstances. If he flees after already being shot, he's going to a hospital first, where he can probably be identified and arrested. Also, I would think that being shot at might tend to discourage people from invading any other homes (not just the one s/he was shot in).

<blockquote>quote:<hr />As far as your family and home are concerned, the right to defend them with whatever means you see fit should take precedence over some dirtbag's civil rights, which, IMO, are forfeighted at the moment he commits a criminal act against a person or their home.<hr /></blockquote>I don't disagree that if someone breaks into your home, you have a right to use whatever force you deem neccessary to protect yourself and your family. But I do think, that if in a hypothetical situation, you were to shoot a intruder twice, and he was able to retreat out of your home and is fleeing and no longer poses a current danger, doing more shooting won't accomplish a whole lot (this also depends on where you live -- if you're in a crowded development or an apartment complex, every shot you fire could go who knows where).

<blockquote>quote:<hr />A. Don't break into the home, right? No, liberral lawyers paint targets on our front doors by making the assertion that we have no right to use force to defend something as insignificant as our property. <hr /></blockquote>Bob, it's a bit more complicated then that. If you hear a noise downstairs, and you grab your gun to check it out, what happens if the burglar shoots you first? Or if you shoot one and his buddy shoots you? To my mind there are a lot of complex factors involved in making the determination to go defend your televesion and DVD collection: is confronting a potentially armed intruder worth MY life? Is it worth the lives of my family if he or they shoot me first, and decide to eliminate all the witnesses? Am I really willing to kill that kid in the parking lot ripping out my stereo?

I don't mean to say you believe this if you don't, but a lot of gun owners seem to be of the attitude that if it's their home, and they've got a gun, that they will automatically walk away from an encounter with an intruder the victor. That seems to be their justification in defending their home entertainment system or whatever. I don't know what thoughts they place on the well being of their family, but it strikes me that waiting at the top of the stairs (clearly, depending on the size of one's home) and waiting in ambush in case the intruder(s) decide to look upstairs is the smarter course of action.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />we cant have the subjects thinking that they can resist and defend themselves eh? <hr /></blockquote>Watchman, just to make sure I was thinking what I was thinking, I re-read the article on the case, and also Soho's post on the subject. See, it's interesting. The jury sided with the home-owner for EVERY SHOT FIRED INSIDE THE HOME. It was only when the home-owner went outside and prolonged the encounter, where he could no longer argue that he was acting in self-defense, that he was convicted.

Self-defense is one thing. Heat-of-the-moment "revenge" (or manslaughter, or whatever you want to call it) is another.

Watchman

11-24-2002, 03:30 PM

Self-defense is one thing. Heat-of-the-moment "revenge" (or manslaughter, or whatever you want to call it) is another.

Payback. Thats what it is.

The guy had been ripped off several times before, more than likey by the same people.

He lived in a small town, there was no law.

Can you imagine his frustration after coming home only to find that his home had been broken into and his stuff taken ?

Im sure that he felt violated,he probably was somewhat fearfull and he was most likley fed up with the situation.

Knowing that it would happen again was probably something that he was constantly aware of. It never left his thoughts, it he was always in the back of his mind.

Can you imagine opening the door and wondering if you'd been ripped off again ? Every day ? Every time you walked up to the sidewalk of your house ?

One day he got the chance. He came home and they were there...trying to take his stuff. He capped both of them. He was simply taking care of buisness, since noone else was around to do it, who better ?

What a sense of relief. At least those two punks wouldnt be robbing him again. Unfortunaltey, one of them lived.

And because one of them happen to run off and get shot in the back, the homeowner is spending the rest of his life in jail, while the robber is getting a hefty sum to sue him.

The homeowner was a threat to noone other than the perps.
The robber is already out and more than likey ripping people off again.

Crazy,even you cant rightfully say that that makes any sense.

For one time in your life, think about what it would be like if it was you in the same situation.

Mike Tx

11-24-2002, 03:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If he flees after already being shot, he's going to a hospital first, where he can probably be identified and arrested.<hr /></blockquote>Really? He's going to a hospital? How do you know?

CinaC

11-24-2002, 04:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Really? He's going to a hospital? How do you know?<hr /></blockquote>Where would you go if you'd been shot? A movie theater?

You're right, I should've said "probably" going to a hospital. Of course, this could be one of those thugs who has access to the super-secret criminal hospital hidden in the bowels of the sewer system, but let's get real.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Payback. Thats what it is.<hr /></blockquote>So deadly force is justifiable in revenge?

Sorry, I disagree. Self-defense and protection of a person's home is one thing. Watchman, I can sympathize with your version of what went through the farmer's mind, but IMHO, he stepped over that line.

If I were in that situation, Watchman, hopefully I'd know when enough is enough. That farmer didn't.

But your arguement is convincing. If I was on the jury, I'd've been hestitant at putting him for life in jail. I do believe that what he did, though, was criminal and deserving of penalty.

[ 11-24-2002, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

Mike Tx

11-24-2002, 04:42 PM

If you want to get real, stop "supposing" what criminals do. They do what they think is best at the time, and they know if they show up at a hospital shot, the police are called.

So, get real.

11-24-2002, 07:20 PM

Wow, been away for a couple of days and look, its all gone tits up on this thread...... :D

OK, I had to skim read alot of that stuff but in short here is how it is over here.

Martin was convicted of manslaughter, he did not pre-meditate the killing.

You can only use self defense in this country if you fear for your life or that of another or to protect from damage being caused to your own property, and only at the time this is occuring. In the Martin case, the 2 burglars didn't get into his house. He chased them off and let fly with the shotgun as they took off down the drive.

Martin was not in fear of his life at the time. He was also not protecting against damage to his property, As stated before, this would be OK in Texas but not in California. It ain't OK here either.

I do not aggree in any way shape or form that the other burglar is getting legal aid, nor do I believe that he is in a position to sue Martin.

This incident has no relevence to the subject to handguns being banned in the UK as Martin used his farmers shotgun, which it is still legal to own.

Watchman, are you an LEO? When people start refering to criminals as 'the enemy' that really worries me. I am a contientious copper and do my job, to keep the peace and prevent offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesties subjects. I don't judge the people I deal with and hope to god I never find myself in the position where I think that I'm working in a 'them and us' senario where 'they' are the enemy. I police with the publics consent and that's how it should be to my mind.

We are 2 different countries and do things differently and there are things that I don't like or aggree with in both, but please don't attempt to judge the way we do things over here, often using the way you do as a yard stick. On the whole, I've felt as the sole respondant from the country in question, that the points I've put across have been thought about, but it's now begining to feel like you're putting the boot in a bit.

Sparky

11-24-2002, 07:41 PM

C/J: "he's going to a hospital first, where he can probably be identified and arrested"

MikeTx has this one nailed on the head.

What you think "makes sense" as a normal person is not what happens in the real world.

I've been a cop for just over a decade. About six of them as a Detective working violent crimes.

Based on my experience working a few hundred or so shootings.. thugs aren't likely to go to the hospital if they at all feel like they can survive without it.

Several times, I've seen them drive several states away to seek medical care. This is to confuse the situation since the hospital reports all GSWs to police. I've had shot thugs who showed up at a hospital anywhere from 4 to 12 hours drive away.

This also reminds me of a case I worked where a lady shot a guy who then ran off. He then came right back with a gun and three fellow gang members who shot her dead while she was on the phone with 9-1-1.

C/J: "Self-defense is one thing. Heat-of-the-moment "revenge" (or manslaughter, or whatever you want to call it) is another."

C/J, have you ever been in that "heat of the moment" where you were in fear for your life?

What personal experience do you have with being attacked and fearing for your life?

Do you really have a reference for what races through your mind when there is some guy coming at you with a knife to rape or kill you?

11-24-2002, 08:51 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Based on my experience working a few hundred or so shootings.. thugs aren't likely to go to the hospital if they at all feel like they can survive without it.
<hr /></blockquote>And that just about sums it up. Last year, in London we didn't even have a few hundred shootings or so.
Where the Martin case happened was out in the Anglia direction where they don't even get tens of shotting incidents a year. This ain't Compton here y'know. If you are a petty criminal over here, if you get shot, you are going to the hospital, no two ways about it.

Outside Manchester, London and a couple of the other bigger cities you will not find a network to assist a wounded criminal get treatment.

Sparky

11-24-2002, 08:59 PM

SoHo,

You need to go back and read my post carefully.

I haven't worked hundreds of shootings within the past year either. That's been over the past DECADE (ten years).

Also, I made no mention of some covert, underground network to assist criminals who were wounded. They simply got on the highway and drove to a hospital in another city.

You do have highways and interstates in the UK, don't you?

11-24-2002, 09:09 PM

No, but we do have cobbled streets, fog and poor cockney accents.

I did read your post, my point was that you have worked hundreds of shooting incidents. I've worked in the most central police station in London covering over 800 bars and pubs, nightclubs and London's red light district for 7 years. My station, whilst the smallest in territory is one of the busiest in the country. I have, in 7 years, attended 3 shooting incidents. Three.

If you are a 'playa' in one of the big cities and you get cut or shot, there will be someone who will be able to sort you out. The 2 pikey's that got shot by Martin came from a village with a population of about 150. Bit hard not to spot someone wlaking round with an arse full of buckshot. Hospital is their destination. Would they have worried about the old Bill being informed about the GSW? I doubt it somehow. Would they have thought that far ahead even? I doubt it even less.

11-24-2002, 09:23 PM

Just did some checking in the local paper from where it all happened and found this:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The Winchester pump-action shotgun used by Martin is capable of firing five shots before reloading, and users need to be granted a specific firearm licence from the police.
Martin had no such licence.

His ordinary shotgun licence was revoked following an incident in 1994 when he disturbed a person apparently stealing apples from his orchard. Shots were fired and a row broke out.

Martin has also fired a shotgun at his brother Robin's house in Wisbech St Mary, Norfolk, in 1987 after an argument over some property.

And in June 1976, he fired a first world war revolver from a friend's house while in a distressed state.

The use of pump-action shotguns was widespread among farmers until the mass killings in Hungerford, carried out by Michael Ryan, forced the then Conservative Government into a rethink on the issue of gun control.

<hr /></blockquote>So, shot by a shotgun owned by somone with a revoked license, with noooooooo history of taking the odd pot shot or 2. If Martin was breaking the law by owning a banned shotgun, doesn't that make him by definition 'the enemy' as well? Being that he was committing an offence before the 2 burglars even left home?

[ 11-24-2002, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Soho bandit ]

CinaC

11-24-2002, 10:28 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Do you really have a reference for what races through your mind when there is some guy coming at you with a knife to rape or kill you? <hr /></blockquote>Sparky,

Kindly show me where I said anything to the effect that firing in self-defense, or in the interior of one's home, is wrong.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I've had shot thugs who showed up at a hospital anywhere from 4 to 12 hours drive away.<hr /></blockquote>I see, but ... they are GOING to a hospital then?

-Jeff

[ 11-24-2002, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

Bill R

11-24-2002, 10:32 PM

Soho,
Martin was convicted of manslaughter, he did not pre-meditate the killing.
Folks get life in the UK for manslaughter?

When people start refering to criminals as 'the enemy' that really worries me.

as far as I'm concerned, people that break into other peoples homes to steal are the enemy. People that break into occupied dwellings should be considered dangerous. Do you consider these kind of folks your friend?

This incident has no relevence to the subject to handguns being banned in the UK as Martin used his farmers shotgun, which it is still legal to own.

Then

So, shot by a shotgun owned by somone with a revoked license, with noooooooo history of taking the odd pot shot or 2.

Banning and requiring permission (a license) to own are in the same vein.

From your article:
His ordinary shotgun licence was revoked following an incident in 1994 when he disturbed a person apparently stealing apples from his orchard. Shots were fired and a row broke out.

Heaven forbid he "disturbed" someone trespassing and stealing his property. In California agricultural theft is a felony.

If Martin was breaking the law by owning a banned shotgun, doesn't that make him by definition 'the enemy' as well?

Banning common pump shotguns? Sounds like this has a lot in common with banning handguns. Here folks that are doing nothing to hurt others and are only exercising their God given rights are not the enemy. I can't really comment on the othere two instances of Martin's as I have very little knowledge of them.

Watchman

11-24-2002, 10:58 PM

If Martin was breaking the law by owning a banned shotgun, doesn't that make him by definition 'the enemy' as well?

Apparently your buddies on the jury thought so.
He got LIFE in prison.

Correct me if Im am wrong. His shotgun got banned because somebody far away misused theirs ?

Gun control at it finest.

The Winchester pump-action shotgun used by Martin is capable of firing five shots before reloading, and users need to be granted a specific firearm licence from the police.
Martin had no such licence.

Since I have over a dozen shotguns, forgive me if I fail to get all worked up over a man having a shotgun that shoots 5 times before reloading. In fact, some of mine shoot 9 ot 10 times before reloading.

I worked a domestic disturbance at a party awhile back. First it started out as a domestic disturbance. Then it went to a stabbing. Then it wnet to a shots fired call. By the time we got there it was over,most everyone had left except the guy that got cut. He had a slash that went across his back from one arm to the other, you could see his ribs.After interviewing what few people were left, we found out that he had fired two shots up in the air when the guy that cut him followed him on the porch. Guess what...the guy still has his shotgun.

Since people around here shoot up in the air to scare thugs off, I cant really get worked up about that either. Its a bit better than scattering badguy stuff all over the lawn, dont you think ?

And yeah, any thug that rips people off for a living and has no respect for humanity is an enemy in my book. Victimless crimes I dont get to worked up about. I'd much rather spend my time catching people that prey on others than I would throwing a guy in jail because some ****ant politician woke up one day and deceided that the common Joe couldnt be trusted with a repeating shotgun that hes owned his whole life.

But hey, Im simple. Thats just me. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

11-24-2002, 10:58 PM

Manslaughter, yes, off the top of my head I seem to recall the the max penalty is life on conviction.

'Common pump action shotguns' aren't banned. You have to have a special license for one.

To me it appeared that the subject of this thread was about the banning of handguns in the UK and the increase in gun crime. My point was that the Martin case could have happened with our without a handgun ban.

I was also picking up on the point that those commiting crimes were considered 'The enemy' by some here. I was also pointing out that Martin himself was commiting a crime first by owning a shotgun he was not permitted to have. It would appear thought that some here feel that he should have the right to own a gun and is therefore not 'the enemy' as he commits no crime in their eyes. I have news for you. It is an offence in this country to possess a shotgun, pump or otherwise, without a license. That is the law and that's how it stands. That makes Martin a criminal in my eyes as well as the little scrotes he shot. You cannot use a situation that occured in the UK and then apply US rules to it. "if he let them go they could have come back armed and shot him" No they couldn't. They were crap pikey tealeaves who wouldn't have a) had the guts to have done that and b) wouldn't have know where to get one from, let alone fire it. This is not the US. Things happen differently here.

Watchman

11-24-2002, 11:00 PM

Things happen differently here.

Thank God for that.

Watchman

11-24-2002, 11:04 PM

SoHo:

Just out of curiosity,
When gunownership is deemed illegal, will you help to round them up ?

11-24-2002, 11:08 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If Martin was breaking the law by owning a banned shotgun, doesn't that make him by definition 'the enemy' as well?

Apparently your buddies on the jury thought so.
He got LIFE in prison.
<hr /></blockquote>They found him guilty for breaking the law of this land.

I don't think they called him 'the enemy' any time.

I get the feeling that no matter what I write here, the comeback is always going to be the same.

If you don't like any form of gun control, then don't come and live in the UK. I live in a world where I can honestly say that as an LEO I don't have to consider as my primary concern whether the subject of my next stop is going to shoot me.

(9 & 10 shot pump action shotguns, jeez, even when I was a Marine we only had 7 shot for room clearing.)

11-24-2002, 11:12 PM

Who do you mean 'gunownership'?

We don't 'round' people up either, the Nazis did that. When the handgun ban came in I took my guns to the local police station and handed them in within the time period that was set. Police firearms teams were ready to go and get them by force if anyone wanted to get silly over it. No one did. That's how it happens over here.

Watchman

11-24-2002, 11:18 PM

Ooops...

Sorry about that. I meant the guns, not the people.

I realize that yall dont have the gun culture we have here, so I would expect everyone there to just give em up and make it easy on you.

I dont beleive it would be so easy here.

BTW, one of my shotguns is a semi auto. Remington 1100 actually. I like it to squirrel hunt with. Dont have to load it so often.Its the one I use when we are hunting out of a boat.

CinaC

11-24-2002, 11:19 PM

Americans = Love Guns.
British = Don't.

British = Love Tea & Crumpets.
Americans = Don't.

11-24-2002, 11:25 PM

Which is probably the best way to close a thread if ever I saw one.

I'm off for some sliced black bear on toast. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Sparky

11-24-2002, 11:44 PM

C/J:

"If the suspect is fleeing, I agree that the use of deadly force is not required."

"OTOH, when he's running AWAY, the suspect is no longer endangering your property, or your life. The gun owner is NOT judge, jury, and executioner. Shooting someone in the back, given the circumstances in the case above, is to my mind, murder."

"It was only when the home-owner went outside and prolonged the encounter, where he could no longer argue that he was acting in self-defense, that he was convicted."

You say that self defense is okay. But the point I am trying to make is that the definition of self-defense for this person at the time they feel threatened is not the same definition as the one you ponder up while sitting here on the computer.

The point is that he could very reasonable argue that at that moment, under extreme stress and fear, he felt that he was in serious danger.

It is very easy to sit in comfort and safety and second guess with the benfit of time and calm consideration.

However, when YOU are in danger, things are not so clear cut.

Any abscence of intent is not murder.

Manslaughter (generaly speaking) is the voluntary killing of another, but without malice aforethought. An example of this would be the guy who comes home to find his wife in bed with the pool cleaner. He goes into a rage and beats the guy to death with a nine iron. He either intended to kill, or he assaulted with intent to seriously injure in such a way that was likely to produce death.

The situation of a man shooting a thug who has attacked him is not manslaughter.

Criminally negligent homicide (again, generally speaking) is the causing of death through gross negligence when the person was aware of the extreme risk. An example of this would be playing William Tell while drunk in a bar, but instead of shooting the apple off your frineds head, you shoot him in the head killing him.

Again... not a self defense situation.

Now, these are your criminal applications of negligence. There are plenty of other types which are all civil, not criminal. One can be liable without being criminally responsible.

"Shooting someone in the back, given the circumstances in the case above, is to my mind, murder."

What you have keyed on is that the shooting took place outside the home. However, a person does not cease being a threat simply because they are no longer in your house.

It's not YOUR mind that matters in this instance, it's what was in the mind of the homeowner.

"The home owner, in response to a situation not of his making, made a series of choices. Certainly to my mind he was justified in shooting the thug while the thug posed a clear and present danger to his life or that of his family. The home owner however, made the decision to continue shooting as the thug fled. He is responsible for the consequences of his actions."

You have also keyed in on the fact that the person was shot in the back. However, it is very possible that the thug was facing the homeowner when he pulled the trigger, turning as he fired. It is also possible that, even if he was already turned and running away, that the homeowner still felt very much afraid. His attacker was still alive and well. The attacker had just been brazen enough to break into his home.

Sure, we may wish that we or anyone else may have the calmness and presence of mind to possibly not fire if the thug is running away. But, are we going to take that chance when our life, or the lives of our family is at stake?

Or will we possibly take advantage and make sure that the thug is no longer a threat?

Who knows? You don't really know until you are in that situation.

you have to place yourself in the place of the homeowner and what they were experiencing at the time.

"I see, but ... they are GOING to a hospital then? "

Go back and read my post again. I did not purport that NO criminals went to the hospital, just that it certainly wasn't a given.

I've seen easily as many thugs not go to the hospital at all. It all depends on how serious the injury is.

Even when it's fairly serious, they don't neccessarily hurry to seek medical help.

It's not as simple as, "Oh. They're shot. Well then they will go to the hospital."

This is really a moot arguement anyway.

The jury in this case heard all of the evidence and adjudicated the man guilty.

The only thing I take issue with is that you seem to write it off so readily, as if it's a given that if the entrance wound was in the back, and the shooting took place in the yard instead of the living room, then it just must be murder, or manslaugher, or something.

It is not that clear cut of an issue. Each case is different. And in each case, you have to examine the evidence. If the evidence supports self-defense, then you have to put yourself in the mind of the shooter

it is not about whether or not you think that wouldn't have been in fear, but rather it's about whether or not they reasonably were.

Bob A

11-25-2002, 12:09 AM

If he flees after already being shot...

Crazy, if I shoot his azz, he won't flee. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

But I do think, that if in a hypothetical situation, you were to shoot a intruder twice, and he was able to retreat out of your home and is fleeing and no longer poses a current danger,

Correct. Any intruder who receives a well placed double tap from Senor Glock is not a threat.

Also, I would think that being shot at might tend to discourage people from invading any other homes

Being shot will likely deter all manner of little activities! The list may even include breathing. The likelihood of being shot while committing burglary is the deterrent. It won't stop some folks, but others will wait until the occupant leaves.

This was the whole point of the original thread. The ability of a property owner to use a gun to defend their home is a deterrent. The same holds true for people in public.

this also depends on where you live -- if you're in a crowded development or an apartment complex, every shot you fire could go who knows where).

Definitely. Any officer on this board will tell you one of the first things likely to be covered in a range safety class. Never allow the muzzle of your weapon to cover anything you aren't willing to destroy!

If you discharge a weapon, you are responsible for it. In my view, there are no accidental discharges. This is bad terminology, and these types of shootings are negligent discharges.

However, there are safeguards for this. Have the code require Glasers or some safety round. Shooting into a crowd is a bad idea, even for a well trained tactical marksman.

Bob, it's a bit more complicated then that. If you hear a noise downstairs, and you grab your gun to check it out, what happens if the burglar shoots you first? Or if you shoot one and his buddy shoots you?

IMO, it's not complicated at all. It seems as you are suggesting that some of equate the use of deadly force with a license to be reckless with a gun. Hardly. I used to wear a badge also, and even though we cleared leather under certain conditions as a precaution, using that weapon was and is a last reasonable resort.

BTW, I had a situation reasonably at a neighbor's home where something like this happened. He knew I was carrying and asked what I thought he should do. I told him to get everybody in one room and stay there, and call the police. Unless the person tried to force their way in the house, there was no reason to out any of us in danger for the exact reasons you mentioned.

I don't sanction vigilante acts, and I don't advocate jumping straight through the force continuum over the TV set. I do think that the option should be there for the victim.

What I do know is that when it was common to hang horse thieves in this country, the only places where rustling was common were the ones where the thieves believed they had a good chance of getting away with it.

In those times property owners had a lot of latitude in dealing with thieves. Today, it seems that the property owner's hands are tied except in the most terrible cases, and the offenders will probably not get caught. In the unlikely event that they are caught, the court system is more likely to punish the homeowner than the burglar.

Anybody else see something wrong with that? What do the BGs have to lose?

CinaC

11-25-2002, 12:20 AM

Bob-A,

Very nice post.

Like I said, I personally have no problem with using deadly force inside one's home. If someone attempted to force entry into my apartment, I would have little choice but to fall back to my weapon -- I have an efficiency (one big room, with a kitchenette on the far wal) ... even so, I have to be cautious because I've got apartments literally all around mine (and except for my west wall, which is made of brick, I doubt they could stop a bullet).

Bill R

11-25-2002, 12:21 PM

Soho,
'Common pump action shotguns' aren't banned. You have to have a special license for one.

YOU referred to the shotgun as being banned.

If Martin was breaking the law by owning a banned shotgun, doesn't that make him by definition 'the enemy' as well?

Manslaughter, yes, off the top of my head I seem to recall the the max penalty is life on conviction.

Y'all don't really look at manslaughter any different than murder, huh? You don't execute murderers so presumably the max penalty would be life.

I was also picking up on the point that those commiting crimes were considered 'The enemy' by some here. I was also pointing out that Martin himself was commiting a crime first by owning a shotgun he was not permitted to have. It would appear thought that some here feel that he should have the right to own a gun and is therefore not 'the enemy' as he commits no crime in their eyes. I have news for you. It is an offence in this country to possess a shotgun, pump or otherwise, without a license. That is the law and that's how it stands. That makes Martin a criminal in my eyes as well as the little scrotes he shot.

Agreed, by your rules Martin would be a criminal. He would not however, be my enemy. Who the heck was he harming by posessing a shotgun without a license? The "little scrotes" on the other hand were seeking out others to victimize. Big difference in my book. Yes, both broke the law. One wasn't bothering other folks though. Which would you rather have going on in your neighborhood, people not having licenses or burglaries?

Things happen differently here.

Amen.
edited to remove an uncalled for offensive comment.

[ 11-25-2002, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Bill R ]

11-25-2002, 03:52 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Agreed, by your rules Martin would be a criminal. <hr /></blockquote>No, not by my rules, by the law of the land. The law that applies to everyone in this country, all the time, not just when they feel like it or when it suits them. The law I swore to uphold.
I would be just as concerned about someone possessing a shotgun without a license as I would someone who commited burglaries. Both break the law and could be a risk to me and mine.

As far as me using the word 'banned', that is pure semantics. I apologise, I should have used the phrase 'the shotgun Martin was not lawfully permited to own'

As I said before, if you don't like the way we run our country, you don't have to come here.

Bill R

11-25-2002, 04:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Soho bandit:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Agreed, by your rules Martin would be a criminal. <hr /></blockquote>No, not by my rules, by the law of the land. The law that applies to everyone in this country, all the time, not just when they feel like it or when it suits them. The law I swore to uphold.
I would be just as concerned about someone possessing a shotgun without a license as I would someone who commited burglaries. Both break the law and could be a risk to me and mine.

<hr /></blockquote>I apologize for the "your" not being clear. I meant your as in the UK not your personal rules. I fail to see how someone not having a license is as great a risk to you as a burglar who actually goes out and invades people's homes. You can be assured that as I do not like the laws in the UK, I have no intention of going there. My ancestors left a very long time ago and for that I am thankful.

1689 English Bill of Rights:
That the subjects which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

[ 11-25-2002, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: Bill R ]

11-25-2002, 05:51 PM

A very interesting thread. Soho, I guess you now know (if you didn't before) that our American friends have very different attitudes towards guns. As the volume of posts indicates, any suggestion that having lots of guns might not be a good idea will get some people very excited.

Personally, I'd love to work in an environment where I didn't need my pistol.

Bob A

11-25-2002, 06:23 PM

Personally, I'd love to work in an environment where I didn't need my pistol.

So would I. I'd like to work in an environment where I made plenty of money, there were no egos to deal with, and people accepted responsibility for screw-ups, and wouldn't miss roll call, or stab coworkers in the back, or lie, or hundreds of other nasty things. Then again, in that environment we wouldn't need cops or guns. It would be like LA in that Stallone/Snipes movie Demolition Man.

Until we live in that environment, or cops figure out a way to prevent crime, I'll keep my gun. You know... just in case.

Guns are sort of like lawyers. We may never need either one, but when we do, we need them really bad, right now.

Bill R

11-25-2002, 06:35 PM

Until we live in that environment, or cops figure out a way to prevent crime, I'll keep my gun. You know... just in case.

Sorry Bob, folks like me would be eating ratburgers in the sewer mucking up utopia :D

DaveInTx

11-25-2002, 10:31 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mike Tx:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />i don't know a whole heap about US history but it seems to me the 'right to bear arms' came about due to the fact that at the time of the document being written, the US had no army to speak of and her defence relied on private citizens who were armed 'stepping up to the plate' as you say.<hr /></blockquote>The right to bear arms can from direct experiance with the tyrant the colonists had just defeated in a war. It was put in the BoR to prevent future tyranny.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, IIRC, our "right to bear arms" came from our British forebears, directly from the Common Law at the time, which had existed in England for many years prior to the Revolutionary War. In fact, it was the attempt of British soldiers to deny the colonists their Common Law rights that precipitated the Revolution in the first place (at Concord). Embodiment of the right to arms afterward in our supreme law was a logical step to ensure that this right, which predated the Constitution and Bill of Rights by centuries, could not be taken away by the will of the majority (aka the "tyranny of the majority") as has happened in British society.

DaveInTx
Texan By Choice, not Accident

[ 11-25-2002, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: DaveInTx ]

Chopshopcop

11-26-2002, 07:43 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Soho bandit:
Who do you mean 'gunownership'?

We don't 'round' people up either, the Nazis did that. When the handgun ban came in I took my guns to the local police station and handed them in within the time period that was set. Police firearms teams were ready to go and get them by force if anyone wanted to get silly over it . No one did. That's how it happens over here.<hr /></blockquote>Actually, I think this is what Watchman meant by his question, "Would you help round them up?", not that you'd round up people.

However, this is precisely what the law-abiding gun owner fears, the FORCED taking of their firearms by the government, and it's precisely what our Bill of Rights was designed to prohibit.

By definition, if you're rounding up weapons and taking them by force, you are rounding up people as well. Since they would all be criminals in the eyes of British law, would they not be arrested and prosecuted? If not, wouldn't the British government then be committing an illegal act by taking lawfully owned property from law-abiding citizens without just compensation? Are there provisions in British law for the government seizing property without compensation?

This whole debate rages over using Britain as a model for a gun-free society as opposed to one that is not. If it works for Britain, Australia and others, then it's fine by me. Since our right to bear arms is specifically spelled out in our BoR, that is the law of our land , and it's OK by me.

[ 11-26-2002, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: Chopshopcop ]

CinaC

11-26-2002, 01:32 PM

So, Bill, what about the Brits who weren't Protestants? The Catholics, the Jews, etc. I notice you're not bitching about them not being able to own firearms.

Bill R

11-26-2002, 01:47 PM

Crazy, ask William and Mary. I didn't write the English Bill of Rights <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> The portion I quoted was in response to the deposed pro Catholic King James II's infringement on the right to posess arms. The list of complaints is kind of familiar huh?

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counselors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom.
By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws, and the execution of laws, without consent of parliament.
By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates, for humbly petitioning to be excused concurring to the said assumed power.
By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called, The court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes.
By levying money for and to the use of the crown, by pretence of prerogative, for other time, and in other manner, than the same was granted by parliament.
By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace, without consent of parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law.
By causing several good subjects, being protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when papists were both armed and employed, contrary to law.
By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in parliament.
By prosecutions in the court of King's bench, for matters and causes cognizable only in parliament; and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses.
And whereas of late years, partial, corrupt, and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason, which were not freeholders.
And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases, to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subject.
And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and cruel punishments inflicted.
And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures, before any conviction or judgment against the persons, upon whom the same were to be levied.

Mike Tx

11-27-2002, 07:12 AM

<a href="http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell.html" target="_blank">http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell.html</a>

Bob A

12-03-2002, 11:42 PM

<a href="http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/12/01/ixhome.html" target="_blank">http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/12/01/ixhome.html</a>

Before folks on the other side of the pond (or some "down under") start to slam me for posting the link, the point I want to make is this: If there is an argument for or against something, anything, there are media reports and statistics to support both sides of the issue.

I read this article and several others with respect to guns and crime in the UK. If this were all I had to go on, it might occur to me that merry old England is more like Dodge City than Dodge City.

The fact is that no law will prevent crime. Simply having a gun will not prevent crime. However, what we are faced with is a choice. We can pass laws which limit (in some cases negate) our RTKBA, based on the idea that the "police will protect us" or we can be responsible for basic elements of self defense ourselves.

Some people will always opt for the former, either out of ignorance, fear, cowardice, laziness, apathy, or the mistaken belief that it is possible for the police to prevent most crimes. Sure, they can arrest some loser after he robs you (assuming they catch him) or they may even pull a sting and catch some crooks in the act.

All good things, but small comfort to a grieving widow standing over a dead child's grave because the 911 operator wasn't able to roll a unit in time to save her.

I prefer to think that we, as Americans, have not only the right, but the responsibility to protect ourselves, our families, our livelihoods, and when reasonable, our property. Have an intruder? Get the family together, call 911 and wait. With a .45 and a flashlight.

If the good citizens in the UK, NZ, or OZ want to do it a different way, good for them, I wish them Godspeed. My view of human nature tells me there will be more of their citizens violated than there will be here.

You can argue the merits of the dangers of owning guns. They are legitimate. If you don't want a gun, don't buy one. If you don't want your kids around guns, educate them and make the effort to know who their friends are. If you decide to keep guns in your house, be smart and secure them.

What you can't argue is the fact that despite cries of dead cops in the streets and a host of other unrealized fears, every place in the US which has enacted Shall Issue permits has seen a reduction in violent crime. Some are marginal, but most are significant. Go to the FBI website and look over UCR statistics for yourselves.

The next time you hear a debate over guns, remember that cars kill a great many more people here than guns (you can check the NTSB website for that) and swimming pools kill many more kids than guns, but nobody except maybe VP Al Gore, has seriously advocated the prohibition of automobiles or swimming pools.

Putting soapbox away now.

[ 12-04-2002, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Bob A ]

AnthonyM83

12-04-2002, 12:07 AM

Well, Britain seemed to be doing just fine without guns...if those conditions are changing, that's a different topic. They're probably becoming more like America where we have those types of shootings in the article in once city in one night.

Sparky

12-04-2002, 11:16 AM

England and Wales top crime league
Special report: policing crime

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Friday February 23, 2001
The Guardian

England and Wales have one of the worst crime records in the industrialised world - even worse than America - according to the findings of an official survey published yesterday which compares the experience of victims across 17 countries.

The study, coordinated by the Dutch ministry of justice, shows England and Wales at the top of the world league with Australia as the countries where you are most likely to become a victim of crime. These countries face an annual rate of 58 crimes for every 100 inhabitants.

The findings, based on interviews with 35,000 people about their experience of crime across the 17 countries, were carried out last year. They are a blow to Labour's record and underline the challenge facing Tony Blair when he marks the launch of Labour's 10-year anti-crime plan next Monday by becoming the first serving prime minister to visit a prison.

The 2000 International Crime Victimisation survey shows that the falls in crime recorded since the mid-1990s in England and Wales are part of a general pattern of falling crime across the industrialised world but, unlike America, crime levels in England and Wales are still higher than they were at the end of the 1980s. When the survey was last carried out in 1996, England and Wales also topped the league table with 61 offences per 100 inhabitants.

The survey does show, however, that Britain has the best services when it comes to looking after the victims of crime, but it also shows we have a tougher approach to punishing criminals. Asked what should be done with a burglar convicted of stealing a colour television for a second time, more than 50% in England and Wales said he or she should be sent to prison for two years. Only 7% in Spain and 12% in France thought he or she should be jailed at all.

People were asked whether they had been victims of a range of 11 different offences in the previous 12 months, including violent and sexual assault, car crime, burglary and consumer fraud.

The survey also shows that Scotland, with 43 offences per 100 inhabitants, ranks joint fifth alongside America in the international crime league behind England, Australia, the Netherlands and Sweden. Northern Ireland has the second best crime record of the countries surveyed, with 24 offences per 100 inhabitants - the same rate as Switzerland and only just above Japan where the biggest crime problem is bicycle thefts. The detailed findings of the ICVS survey showthat England and Wales are top of the international league for car thefts with 2.6% of all car owners suffering the loss of their vehicle in the previous 12 months. In other sorts of car crime, England was second only to Poland.

Australia and then England and Wales had the highest burglary rates and rates for violent crimes such as robbery, assault and sexual assault.

One area in which England and Wales did not feature at the top of the league was in consumer fraud, which is far more of a problem in Poland, Denmark and the US. Some 5% of Polish people surveyed said they had had to pay a bribe to a police officer or government official in the previous 12 months.

The survey says the results show the industrialised world splitting into three separate groups as far as crime is concerned.

High crime countries where more than 24% of the population are victims of crime each year are Australia, England and Wales, the Netherlands and Sweden.

Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France and America are medium crime countries where between 20% and 24% are crime victims each year.

Low crime countries which have crime victimisation rates below 20% are Finland, Spain, Switzerland, Portugal, Japan and Northern Ireland.

Guardian Unlimited

Bill R

12-04-2002, 12:15 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Asked what should be done with a burglar convicted of stealing a colour television for a second time, more than 50% in England and Wales said he or she should be sent to prison for two years. <hr /></blockquote>I wonder if the "tough" attitude is based more on someone's home being violated or on the likelihood that the recipient of the hot TV set probably won't be paying the TV tax <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> I apologize if the UK no longer has a TV tax.

By-Tor

12-04-2002, 03:53 PM

OK where to start.

We in Britain do NOT want guns. The police, the public, the politicians. FULL STOP.

I watch the news, I read news papers. How many people in the US die each year from a GSW? Are you proud of this statistic? How many more High School massacres does it take?

Posts have been made with reference to being brought up with guns and 3 year olds shooting them. MY GOD, a 3 year old should be playing with a BARBIE DOLL not a LETHAL WEAPON.

Ok there are elements of our society who do possess guns illegally. I accept that, but it is the minority of that element of society.

It is almost impossible to by a rifle barrelled weapon in Britain. You are investigated by the police, vetted etc etc. Shotguns are different, farmers, hunters etc.
The upshot of this is that there are very few out there. The criminal element that obtains guns usually does so of shotguns which are stolen and then sawnoff or if it is a handgun it has probably entered Britain illegally or is old.

We do not have the amount of firearms out there that really cause to much of a problem. AND WE DON'T NEED THEM.

Historically you in the US have had guns available and it would be near impossible to ban them, retrieve them etc, so basically you are stuck with them.

But I ask you this question, and answer honestly.

If history could be re-written and it was your decision, knowing what you know now, would you change the US policy in relation to firearms??
COME ON NOW TELL THE TRUTH

p.s.. I spent 7 years as an Authorised Firearms Officer....I am not anti gun, just careful gun.

Delta_V

12-04-2002, 04:27 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by By-Tor:
If history could be re-written and it was your decision, knowing what you know now, would you change the US policy in relation to firearms??
COME ON NOW TELL THE TRUTH.<hr /></blockquote>No, I wouldn't change a thing. Why would we change anything? Guns don't cause crime. If you're too blind to see that, then it's your own fault. Reference Sparky's post:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> England and Wales have one of the worst crime records in the industrialised world - even worse than America - according to the findings of an official survey published yesterday which compares the experience of victims across 17 countries. <hr /></blockquote>Hmmm....lots of good your gun control laws are doing! It seems that you all are in worse shape than this nation that has a school massacre every day and gives three year olds Glocks for Christmas. Sure, people may not be getting shot to death in Britain, but they're still getting stabbbed or beaten to death. They're still getting robbed. Much more frequently than it happens here, it seems. Why don't you understand that the CRIME is the problem, not the weapon that is used to commit the crime?

So, why don't we turn that question that you asked around. "If YOU knew that the violent crime rate would rise so much after enacting gun control laws, would YOU still enact those laws?" COME ON NOW, TELL THE TRUTH.