|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 12, 2012 7:14:35 GMT
you are all missing the point - guns ARE legal. Previously you could apply for a licence, install a gun safe at home, and in your car - and hey presto you own guns. The outlawing of the above .22 calibre for instance meant guns had to be kept at sporting clubs etc. But you still own them and could 'move' them around in your car. You can only sell to a licenced person. Now would you expect serious criminals to do all that - when guns are still 2 a penny?
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 12, 2012 9:59:28 GMT
I think the suggestion earlier in the thread that incidents of road rage would reduce if people were armed, because they'd be fearful of getting their heads blow off, sums up how ludicrous the pro gun argument is.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 12, 2012 10:16:04 GMT
an example .... do you remember the case of the farmer who lived remotely and kept having burglaries? One night 2 gypsies oops travellers, broke in and started up the staircase. the farmer was in bed but had a shotgun. He fired and unknown to him one of them abandoned by the other died in a nearby garden/field. Do you think they would have broken in if they thought a homeowner would shoot them? Or do you think burglars will start carrying, just in case they find themselves in a gun fight? This is the argument for a deterrent. The law is hopeless. If you're referring to the Tony Martin case, then whilst those lads should never have been on his property. He turned his shotgun on a young boy who was fleeing for his life. Tony Martin shot him in the back and killed him. He was rightly convicted for murder. English law states that you can kill somebody in self defence if your own life is threatened, Tony Martin's was not. Property should never be equated with life. If everybody is allowed to carry guns, then reasonably they could assume that their life is in danger if they get into an altercation, and the law would (as it stands) allow them to shoot each other dead. As Hothead points out, you would go from a situation where fist fights and scuffles would turn into full blown gun battles. Deaths on the UK streets would rocket and we would live in a society ruled by fear and paranoia.
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 12, 2012 10:35:15 GMT
Tony Martin was an old man- his farm has been frequently robbed while he was out. The police never showed up for days on his previous calls. It was dark - he heard commotion and steps on his staircase. He did not know the age of his attackers- but thought that was what they were. It turned out they had heard him get up and were moving down the stairs- he did not know that. So he fired. Dreadful outcome - but there you have it - locked up for protecting himself. The law failed him.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 12, 2012 10:44:36 GMT
He shot once, injuring the older of the two. They ran, Martin shot again hitting one of them in the leg. They boy was screaming for his life and Martin shot him in the back whilst he was trying to get out of the house. He died a few moment later in the grounds of Martin's property.
Martin wasn't locked up for protecting himself, he was locked up for the willful murder of a young boy and the intent to cause grievous harm. The law was applied correctly. You can't go around killing people because of what you think they are going to do. The law states that you can use reasonable force if you are being attacked. Martin was not being attacked, he suspected that his property was being burgled, but his reaction was completely disproportionate.
Martin was later diagnosed as having a paranoid personality disorder. If there was ever a case for people not having guns, Tony Martin is it.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 12, 2012 10:45:38 GMT
I think the suggestion earlier in the thread that incidents of road rage would reduce if people were armed, because they'd be fearful of getting their heads blow off, sums up how ludicrous the pro gun argument is. You will have to explain yourself on that one - as the researcher (the guy who actually looks at the data) - seems to suggest otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 12, 2012 10:47:03 GMT
an example .... do you remember the case of the farmer who lived remotely and kept having burglaries? One night 2 gypsies oops travellers, broke in and started up the staircase. the farmer was in bed but had a shotgun. He fired and unknown to him one of them abandoned by the other died in a nearby garden/field. Do you think they would have broken in if they thought a homeowner would shoot them? Or do you think burglars will start carrying, just in case they find themselves in a gun fight? This is the argument for a deterrent. The law is hopeless. If you're referring to the Tony Martin case, then whilst those lads should never have been on his property. He turned his shotgun on a young boy who was fleeing for his life. Tony Martin shot him in the back and killed him. He was rightly convicted for murder. English law states that you can kill somebody in self defence if your own life is threatened, Tony Martin's was not. Property should never be equated with life. If everybody is allowed to carry guns, then reasonably they could assume that their life is in danger if they get into an altercation, and the law would (as it stands) allow them to shoot each other dead. As Hothead points out, you would go from a situation where fist fights and scuffles would turn into full blown gun battles. Deaths on the UK streets would rocket and we would live in a society ruled by fear and paranoia. Scare mongering - without a shred of evidence to support it.
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 12, 2012 10:56:16 GMT
sensi - well you've had your say - I've had mine. I don't agree with you. End.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 12, 2012 11:05:31 GMT
This is a very good post on the subject and one I wholly agree with. www.athenstalks.com/best-anti-gun-control-argument-i-have-ever-readThis country, and unfortunately many of its citizens, are very much against personal choice and force regulation on the masses to 'protect' us. This in my view is wrong and limits our ability as human beings to enjoy the benefits of being persuaded on a matter rather than forced. We see this in all walks of life, from our government, through to even certain forums we all know about here! The way to reduce gun crime is to limit the supply to criminals - you don't do that by banning guns. Effective policing (and proper investment) to reduce unregistered guns, and much tougher penalties for criminals is the way forward in my view. In the USA this has proven to be the case. Gun control has not been effective at reducing gun crime in States that have adopted tougher laws, but the approach of actually policing CRIMINALS who carry guns instead of law abiding citizens HAS worked - as is evidenced in Kansas State.
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 12, 2012 12:36:40 GMT
Jayram I cannot see how making guns legally available can possibly help the situation of gun crime. I have not read your link but I will when I get back home As for Tony Martin, in my eyes it all depends on the facts. If the facts were Tony Martin was a scared man who had been targeted by thieves on numerous occasions with little police support then I fail to see what he did wrong. Come in to my house and if you end up with a stick up your arse or an axe in your head .. thats YOUR on fault ! If Tony Martin knowingly shot a defenceless man in the back then he committed murder. Bu do we know the TRUTH
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 12, 2012 12:38:50 GMT
I must add though, regarding the rights of the criminals ... they LOSE their rights when they step onto your property. If they got shot and killed in the man's house they shouldn't have been there in the first place so tough tits. If they were in the process of leaving though or simply on his grounds then .. no, shooting them is NOT acceptable.
|
|
sensi
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by sensi on Aug 12, 2012 12:43:21 GMT
The law is quite clear on 'reasonable force' i.e If you're being attacked with a knife or other weapon and your life is at risk then basically anything goes.
If someone is trespassing on your property and you are not being attacked, then shooting them in the back with a shotgun is completely unreasonable force - and should rightly be treated as such.
|
|
|
Post by Bergkamp a Dutch master on Aug 12, 2012 13:31:15 GMT
i'll make an exception just like you always do - having the last word .. ;D.
the law is not at all clear - it does not mention guns or knives. If you had an upstairs balcony and grappled with a burglar and shoved him over it and he died, you may be found guilty of unreasonable force. Cricket bats, baseball bats, chisels are not mentioned...... Just to explain my stance a bit - if you had experience of burglaries that are done by druggies and nutters - you might be aware of the appalling things they sometimes do. I have been told of some by police, who do not openly talk about it for getting the public more alarmed than they might be already. Not too far away one little treasure was so annoyed that there were no simple cash or saleable items that he piled up loads of the lady's beautiful clothes and pissed all over them - worse one guy actually shit on clothes and wiped his ares on them.. Now imagine the effect on the lady coming home.. Yes it was moving time from that day on...she will never be the same - that bastard wants shooting......
|
|
|
Post by thehothead on Aug 12, 2012 14:30:13 GMT
But Sensi. . in a dark house/room, how do you know what the assailants have or don't have ? If you have a family in the house are you going to take chances ?
The onus should NOT be on the person living in the house to "assess" the situation to determine reasonable force. Reasonable force should be, if you come in my house and my family are here, I will do WHATEVER I have to do to keep them safe.
I am sure we are the only country in the world who would apply "reasonable force" as something to be aware of when it comes to someone breaking in to your home. Its nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Jayramfootball on Aug 12, 2012 14:59:48 GMT
Jayram I cannot see how making guns legally available can possibly help the situation of gun crime. I have not read your link but I will when I get back home As for Tony Martin, in my eyes it all depends on the facts. If the facts were Tony Martin was a scared man who had been targeted by thieves on numerous occasions with little police support then I fail to see what he did wrong. Come in to my house and if you end up with a stick up your arse or an axe in your head .. thats YOUR on fault ! If Tony Martin knowingly shot a defenceless man in the back then he committed murder. Bu do we know the TRUTH For the reasons I mentioned HH. Today we live in a violent society whether we like it or not, with the aggressors armed and the victims not. The utopia would be NO guns at all - not even manufactured and completely out of circulation. But alas, that will never happen. Until then the unarmed are at the mercy of violent predators who care not one jot about any law to keep guns illegal. I would rather not be in that position, and be able to even up the odds to defend myself should I HAVE to. Put it this way - if an armed person were to walk up to my door right now, there is nothing I could do to stop them entering my house and killing me and my family. That cannot be right.
|
|