England; Self Defense Rights

[BBKid 0]

Quote

That explains, I guess, why there were so many hundreds of thousands of guns confiscated from the population, who obviously expressed their lack of desire to own guns ... er ... by owning guns.

Erm, hundreds of thousands of guns, and 65 million population (ish). Sounds to me like the majority didn't want them.

Quote

If anyone does have a gun now in England -- and you know they do because you've had people getting shot in attacks all the time now

How can you possibly justify this statement? "All the time" is a statement which has no place in what was an otherwise well-reasoned argument, however much I disagree with your opinion.

Quote

If anyone does have a gun now in England -- and you know they do because you've had people getting shot in attacks all the time now -- you can be sure that person is of a criminal mindset.

So all farmers are hell-bent on GBH/manslaughter/murder? Come on.

Quote

Your government has made sure that when faced with such an intruder in your home, you have to go at a gun-wielder with only a fireplace poker or cricket bat as a weapon.

Since most burglaries are opportunistic, it's incredibly unlikely that such a burglar would have a gun. Plus, in most instances where a burglar is disturbed, they run away. Might be different in the US where, since they know the chances of a homeowner having a gun are much higher, they think they may be better off staying to fight. Plus, I find the implication by several posts in this thread that all burglars are prepared to kill a little far fetched. Maybe I have too much faith in humanity.

Nick
---------------------------
"I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Perhaps he should have bought a gun then. I have 6. All perfectly legal. And in the situation he found himself in, it would have equally legal to use it.

It is my understanding that IF you own a gun in England, at this point it will not be one that is particularly suited to close-quarters (in-home) defense, as a handgun is designed to be. It must be a long gun (unwieldy in a household environment -- why do you think the FBI and SWAT teams use "entry guns"?) and it must be single shot, yes? Even if it doesn't have to be single-shot (the only part I'm not sure of), IT HAS TO BE KEPT LOCKED-UP, so it is nearly USELESS compared to an American's gun, which he can have on his person, or in a cabinet, or under a couch cushion, etc... The only gun that is of any use to you is the one you can bring to bear in time to adequately respond to a threat. One that's locked in a safe separate from any ammunition (as your law REQUIRES) is useless.

Or are you advocating breaking the laws that govern storage of firearms, out of recognition that they are senseless and harmful?
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Remster 24]

Quote

or under a couch cushion,

Now, thats what I call responsible gun ownership! lmao

Remster

[mr2mk1g 10]

In England you can apply for a shot gun licence as of right, ie you will get it unless the police can show a reason for you not to get it.
The firearms certificate was different. You had to show good reason for why you wanted it. Therefore this was not a right, but a privilage. We have no writen constitution here, we have one by convention. The convention says citizens can do anything they like unless the law says they cant do it. There was a law which said we cannot hold a firearms certificate unless we could show certain things. Therefore it was not a right. We have not, and never have had a constitutionally enshrined right to bear arms in this country.

Yes Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan had legal firearms. They also had ilegal ones. Michael Ryan used a semi-automatic rifle and they were banned, Thomas Hamilton used a centre-fire pistol and they were banned. The papers happily ignored these facts as they did not fit with their sensationalist "ban all guns" headlines.

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

That explains, I guess, why there were so many hundreds of thousands of guns confiscated from the population, who obviously expressed their lack of desire to own guns ... er ... by owning guns.

Erm, hundreds of thousands of guns, and 65 million population (ish). Sounds to me like the majority didn't want them.

So that's how you justify taking away their rights? "They're only a pitiful minority!"

Quote

Quote

If anyone does have a gun now in England -- and you know they do because you've had people getting shot in attacks all the time now

How can you possibly justify this statement? "All the time" is a statement which has no place in what was an otherwise well-reasoned argument, however much I disagree with your opinion.

I said it because while I know that gun-attacks have become increasingly common in England -- particularly due to increased drug gang activity -- I don't know the exact figures. I know that it is certainly more than was happening BEFORE your gun ban.

Quote

Quote

If anyone does have a gun now in England -- and you know they do because you've had people getting shot in attacks all the time now -- you can be sure that person is of a criminal mindset.

So all farmers are hell-bent on GBH/manslaughter/murder? Come on.

Perhaps I should have specified that I meant "of people walking the streets with guns, or keeping them in their cars." The guns your farmers are allowed to keep are hardly self-defense-oriented guns, anyway. Single shot .410 shotguns, .22 rifles, etc. Not what I'd want to repel a home-invasion robbery. And certainly useless for on-the-street personal defense. I'll take my Glock 27 for that, thank you.

Quote

Quote

Your government has made sure that when faced with such an intruder in your home, you have to go at a gun-wielder with only a fireplace poker or cricket bat as a weapon.

Since most burglaries are opportunistic, it's incredibly unlikely that such a burglar would have a gun. Plus, in most instances where a burglar is disturbed, they run away. Might be different in the US where, since they know the chances of a homeowner having a gun are much higher, they think they may be better off staying to fight.

This is the most backward-assed logic I've seen yet. You appear to be saying that a burglar in the UK will turn tail and run when he meets the homeowner he KNOWS is UNARMED, but he will stay and FIGHT the AMERICAN homeowner who might very well be ARMED?! THAT'S ABSURD.

Johnrich posted figures regarding the "hot" burglary rates for UK and US. There was a large gulf between the percentage of burglaries committed when the occupants are home or not home. In UK, more than 50% of burglaries occur on occupied dwellings, as opposed to 20-something% in the US. This is attributed to the notion that UK burglars have less to fear when they encounter a homeowner, since it's extremely unlikely that person will have a gun to defend the home.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[mr2mk1g 10]

You are confusing the ease with which a right can be exercised with its existance.

All I have ever said in this thread is that in England there does exist a right to self defence and that that right does extend in limited circumstances to the use of leathal force.

I am not contending any more or any less.

[BBKid 0]

OK - here's a revelation for anyone reading this thread, and the principle applies equally for any other where there are hotly debated topics:

If you've been brought up in an environment where the majority tell you something, and you've never suffered as a result of this upbringing, it's likely you'll consider it the right one. It will also be as difficult for you to convince someone brought up in another environment (believing in the contrary position) that you are right as it will be for them to convince you that they are correct.

Ergo: 1) I was brought up in a country where the majority of people I encountered believed there was no need for everyone to bear arms, though some people chose to for work, sporting, or other leisure reasons. The fact that a section of the criminal world carry guns was something I could do nothing about. I think the US laws on gun control (or lack of it) are absurd, and only serve to increase the risks of being shot.

2) Someone brought up in the US by people who staunchly believe in the right to bear arms will likely adhere to this upbringing. They will fiercely oppose any attempts to disposses them of their weapons and will think it ridiculous that other nations may decide not to allow such weapons. They see removing the weapons as removing their right to defend themselves.

It's all upbringing, guys.

Nick
---------------------------
"I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Ergo: 1) I was brought up in a country where the majority of people I encountered believed there was no need for everyone to bear arms, though some people chose to for work, sporting, or other leisure reasons. The fact that a section of the criminal world carry guns was something I could do nothing about. I think the US laws on gun control (or lack of it) are absurd, and only serve to increase the risks of being shot.

2) Someone brought up in the US by people who staunchly believe in the right to bear arms will likely adhere to this upbringing. They will fiercely oppose any attempts to disposses them of their weapons and will think it ridiculous that other nations may decide not to allow such weapons. They see removing the weapons as removing their right to defend themselves.

It's all upbringing, guys.

I completely agree.

Where I think there is a problem, of course, is that from my viewpoint (obviously the result, in part, of my conditioning and upbringing) people who do not see the need for being armed, and therefore do not arm themselves, are operating under a false impression of safety and security.

First, they are lied to by anti-gun people who claim that you increase your odds of being hurt with a gun just because you get yourself one. (This "study" has been exposed as hogwash.)

Then, they surround themselves with doublethink, assuring themselves -- against all reason -- that somehow LESS prepared is MORE prepared. If I DO own a gun, I can do everything in my own defense that I could do if I did NOT have a gun -- PLUS. However, if I do NOT have a gun, I have only those options open to me that the gunless possess.

It's rather like if you encountered a fire in your kitchen.
If you have a fire extinguisher, you can either flee the house, or fight the fire.
If you do not have a fire extinguisher, you'd better have a clear path to the door because fleeing is the ONLY option you have.

I'd prefer to have as many options as possible. Due to my "upbringing," I think that those who eschew additional options are deluding themselves.

Yes, this is a matter of viewpoint. But if this subject is parsed along lines of rationality, I think that a much stronger argument is made in favor of being armed rather than unarmed.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[BBKid 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That explains, I guess, why there were so many hundreds of thousands of guns confiscated from the population, who obviously expressed their lack of desire to own guns ... er ... by owning guns.

Erm, hundreds of thousands of guns, and 65 million population (ish). Sounds to me like the majority didn't want them.

So that's how you justify taking away their rights? "They're only a pitiful minority!"

Quote

-------- I didn't justify taking away their rights - I was opposed to the ban - I just tried to point out that the majoirty of the population did not personally want to own guns

Quote

Quote

If anyone does have a gun now in England -- and you know they do because you've had people getting shot in attacks all the time now

How can you possibly justify this statement? "All the time" is a statement which has no place in what was an otherwise well-reasoned argument, however much I disagree with your opinion.

I said it because while I know that gun-attacks have become increasingly common in England -- particularly due to increased drug gang activity -- I don't know the exact figures. I know that it is certainly more than was happening BEFORE your gun ban.

Quote

-------- And drug gang activity has increased the world over - I'd hazard a guess that drug gang activity has risen in the US in the years since the UK gun ban just as much as over here. Guns and the drug gangs aren't necessarily mutually dependant

Quote

Quote

If anyone does have a gun now in England -- and you know they do because you've had people getting shot in attacks all the time now -- you can be sure that person is of a criminal mindset.

So all farmers are hell-bent on GBH/manslaughter/murder? Come on.

Perhaps I should have specified that I meant "of people walking the streets with guns, or keeping them in their cars." The guns your farmers are allowed to keep are hardly self-defense-oriented guns, anyway. Single shot .410 shotguns, .22 rifles, etc. Not what I'd want to repel a home-invasion robbery. And certainly useless for on-the-street personal defense. I'll take my Glock 27 for that, thank you.

Quote

-------- I think any of the weapons you suggested would be more than adequate for repelling a typical UK house break-in

Quote

Quote

Your government has made sure that when faced with such an intruder in your home, you have to go at a gun-wielder with only a fireplace poker or cricket bat as a weapon.

Since most burglaries are opportunistic, it's incredibly unlikely that such a burglar would have a gun. Plus, in most instances where a burglar is disturbed, they run away. Might be different in the US where, since they know the chances of a homeowner having a gun are much higher, they think they may be better off staying to fight.

This is the most backward-assed logic I've seen yet. You appear to be saying that a burglar in the UK will turn tail and run when he meets the homeowner he KNOWS is UNARMED, but he will stay and FIGHT the AMERICAN homeowner who might very well be ARMED?! THAT'S ABSURD.

Quote

--------OK, poor phrasing on this one - my bad. Hypothetical situation: I'm a burglar - we're not going into why or my other options, this is what I am. If I was breaking into a house in the UK, I know my chances of encountering someone with a gun are very very slim, so I choose not to carry one myself, since if I get caught it'll get me in a lot more trouble than if I were caught and arrested for a simple burglary.

If I were in the US, I'd want to carry a gun, since I know there's a vastly increased chance of coming up against someone with a Glock and an itchy trigger finger. No matter what the situation, if I think someone's goign to shoot me, I'll try to get the first shot off. That's all I was trying to say.

As I mentioned in a previous post, you think my logic is absurd and backward, and I think the same about yours. Fact is, when you're in the US, you're in the majority, so your perception of logic and absurdity is deemed correct, whereas if you were in the UK, I'd be in the majority and you would be deemed incorrect.

Johnrich posted figures regarding the "hot" burglary rates for UK and US. There was a large gulf between the percentage of burglaries committed when the occupants are home or not home. In UK, more than 50% of burglaries occur on occupied dwellings, as opposed to 20-something% in the US. This is attributed to the notion that UK burglars have less to fear when they encounter a homeowner, since it's extremely unlikely that person will have a gun to defend the home.

Quote

-------- I really can't be bothered running a stats package right now, but given the geographical area of the US, population density etc. the results of John Rich's figures may be deemed insignificant. I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong, just that if I looked I'm sure I could find evidence to support my argument, such as changes in the ways that burglaries and violent crimes are reported, which is a political/PR thing as much as anything else.

Edited to hopefully make repsonse stand out more!

Nick
---------------------------
"I've pierced my foot on a spike!!!"

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

or under a couch cushion,

Now, thats what I call responsible gun ownership! lmao

What do you think is "irresponsible" about that?

[PhillyKev 0]

Actually, I'm the first gun owner in my family. I was not raised to think one way or another about guns, I don't ever recall guns being discussed during my childhood whatsoever. I made the decision as an adult that I should take reasonable and legal precautions to ensure my safety and ability to defend myself.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Since most burglaries are opportunistic, it's incredibly unlikely that such a burglar would have a gun. Plus, in most instances where a burglar is disturbed, they run away. Might be different in the US where, since they know the chances of a homeowner having a gun are much higher, they think they may be better off staying to fight.

I'm sorry, but where did you get this tripe?

In the US, burglars take great pains to avoid entering an occupied household, and they tend to run like hell if they're discovered.
What kind of logic tells you a criminal would stay and fight someone with a firearm but run from some who didn't have one?

And there is a fairly new phrase to criminolgy that was coined for England and Australia. That phrase is "home invasion." That's when they enter your house and don't give a damn if you're home, because they're bigger than you and they know you don't have a gun to protect yourself. Instances of that are nil here in the USA. How are your crime rates doing?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Instances of that are nil here in the USA.

Uhhh...I wouldn't go that far. It actually happens quite a bit in the city here.

[Kennedy 0]

You're right, I do know of it happening. That should read instances of that are nearly nil here. [especially when you compare rates here and in the UK or Oz]

[edit]and the Philly gov't makes it so easy for you to exercise your constitutional rights...

and since this, and most, crime happens in cities, it makes tons of sense to want to ban firearms owned mostly in rural and suburban environments...

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Conclusion: Wha we have here is a limited set of circumstances where deadly force is authorized.

Dude, why do you have to be such a...a... fuckin' lawyer.

You stated UNFUCKINGEQUIVOCALLY that there is "nowhere in the US" where deadly force is legally allowed for defense of property.

Several people have posted the very fucking text of the law in Texas that PROVES YOU WRONG.

So what do you do? You split hairs, parse semantics, and hem and fuckin' haw and do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE BUT ADMIT YOU WERE FUCKING *WRONG*!

If you ever wonder why people you meet give you the impression that they fuckin' hate lawyers, know this:

It's probably because YOU SEEM TO ALL BE THE VERY EPITOME OF FUCKING DISINGENUOUSNESS AND DUPLICITY.

When cornered, you twist shit around. Listen, there are times when the most manly thing you can do is admit error -- and when everyone can see that you're making a pathetic attempt to evade that admission, it makes you look like a pussy.

Why not just fuckin' suck it up??
-

Um, I think by stating that there appears to be "circumstances where deadly force is authorized" is an admission that I was incorrect. Did I say that the statute is wrong, and prohibits use of deadly force in protection of property in that post? No. Why do you have to challenge the motive of a...a... fuckin' lawyer?

Here, I'll say it:

"I was wrong. The state of Texas has a law that states certain circumstances where it is not a violation of Penal law to use deadly force in the protection of property.

"I am the epitome of a lawyer. I read a statute and I interpret the statute in terms of the words it uses. I see that it only allows said deadly force to be used at night. I apologize for not saying, 'Someone runs off with your Chicken McNuggets in Texas, at night, under some circumstances you can shoot the bastard.'"

I hope this is an acceptable mea culpa. I hope this constitutes enough of a "suck it up." I hope it confirms your belief that I am a...a... fuckin lawyer.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

That explains, I guess, why there were so many hundreds of thousands of guns confiscated from the population, who obviously expressed their lack of desire to own guns ... er ... by owning guns.

Erm, hundreds of thousands of guns, and 65 million population (ish). Sounds to me like the majority didn't want them.

The majority of british subjects don't own any works of Shakespeare. Guess they don't want them, and they wouldn't be missed. They're old books and no one really reads them or needs them nowadays.
[for those of us paying no attention whatsoever, the above is sarcasm and ironic imitation]

Quote

Quote

If anyone does have a gun now in England -- and you know they do because you've had people getting shot in attacks all the time now

How can you possibly justify this statement? "All the time" is a statement which has no place in what was an otherwise well-reasoned argument, however much I disagree with your opinion.

How can you justify attacking one semantic portion of his statement while failing to refute or even address the substance of what he has to say, and then presume to dictate to him what does and does not belong in civilized debate?

Quote

So all farmers are hell-bent on GBH/manslaughter/murder?

OK, so instead of ignoring him you will put up a strawman to knock down. You still haven't touched his statement.

OK, so I'm coming at this post twice, but at first I just questioned the obvious tripe [still curious what you have to say, can't wait for that] but I really have to wonder where you're coming form on this one.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

-------- I didn't justify taking away their rights - I was opposed to the ban - I just tried to point out that the majoirty of the population did not personally want to own guns

Just as a general rule, you tend to look virulently anti-gun when you argue every little nuance and doubt every fact, without actually stating that you agree somewhere.
"Everything pro-gun you say is wrong, but I'm not anti-gun." See it doesn't come off as neighborly discussion.

Quote

-------- And drug gang activity has increased the world over - I'd hazard a guess that drug gang activity has risen in the US in the years since the UK gun ban just as much as over here. Guns and the drug gangs aren't necessarily mutually dependant

While drugs activity is up, the related crimes [violent crimes] are way down in the US. Our crime rate has been slowly but steadily declining for more than a decade. Britain's violent crime rates, however, took a sharp turn for the worse imidiately following the 96 gun bans. [I'm stating correlation here, not causation] Not quite the same gang activities world wide I guess. Unless you think that American gangs are kinder, gentler hoodlums.

Quote

Quote

Single shot .410 shotguns, .22 rifles, etc.

-------- I think any of the weapons you suggested would be more than adequate for repelling a typical UK house break-in

This suggests you never seriously considered a firearm for home protection.

to be continued...

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

--------OK, poor phrasing on this one - my bad. Hypothetical situation: I'm a burglar - we're not going into why or my other options, this is what I am. If I was breaking into a house in the UK, I know my chances of encountering someone with a gun are very very slim, so I choose not to carry one myself, since if I get caught it'll get me in a lot more trouble than if I were caught and arrested for a simple burglary.

If I were in the US, I'd want to carry a gun, since I know there's a vastly increased chance of coming up against someone with a Glock and an itchy trigger finger. No matter what the situation, if I think someone's goign to shoot me, I'll try to get the first shot off. That's all I was trying to say.

You haven't spent much time studying or being around criminals, have you? In the USA, most burglars do not go around armed. They seek to avoid all confrontation, hence studying a home before the burglary. If they have any idea someone is there, they wait or move on to the next target. This type of felon follows similar patterns in the UK.

"Home Invaders" are a completely different subset of criminals. They don't care if you're home. They just know they are bigger, stronger, and better armed than you are. They carry firearms if they can. They exist in high numbers in the UK, and are nearly unheardof in the USA. They do not fear confrontation, or you. They are the ones who want to "get the first shot off."

Both types of felon wants to (A) survive and (B) successfully victimize you. They just go about it in completely different ways.

Quote

As I mentioned in a previous post, you think my logic is absurd and backward, and I think the same about yours. Fact is, when you're in the US, you're in the majority, so your perception of logic and absurdity is deemed correct, whereas if you were in the UK, I'd be in the majority and you would be deemed incorrect.

Maybe it's not your logic that's totally absurd. I think it's your complete lack of understand of criminal methods and criminal motivations. PJ is just right on this one, whether you talk to American criminologists or British.

Quote

Quote

Johnrich posted figures regarding the "hot" burglary rates for UK and US. There was a large gulf between the percentage of burglaries committed when the occupants are home or not home. In UK, more than 50% of burglaries occur on occupied dwellings, as opposed to 20-something% in the US. This is attributed to the notion that UK burglars have less to fear when they encounter a homeowner, since it's extremely unlikely that person will have a gun to defend the home.

-------- I really can't be bothered running a stats package right now, but given the geographical area of the US, population density etc. the results of John Rich's figures may be deemed insignificant. I'm not saying I'm right or you're wrong, just that if I looked I'm sure I could find evidence to support my argument, such as changes in the ways that burglaries and violent crimes are reported, which is a political/PR thing as much as anything else.

He offers facts and figures supporting his view, and your reply is "I can't be bothered." I must say I am not impressed. I can find statistics that would lead to the conclusion the Al Gore is president of the US right now, but the fact remains that statistics should be examined, not ignored out of hand just because they don't agree with your point of view.

The fact is the different laws in the UK versus the USA create a new niche for criminals in the UK that by and large does not exist here. They open homeowners to a greater likelihood of confrontation with a felon, and hence a greater likelihood of injury at the nads of a criminal.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

You handled my um, outburst, in a pretty dignified manner. I appreciate that, and your decorum. I was a bit out of line there and kinda hot under the collar. Sometimes it's too easy for me to get that way when I don't have to be in someone's physical face in order to get in their face. Apologies for seeming like such an ass.
-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[lawrocket 3]

No problem. I actually rather like some criticism. I should have been more forthright with my statements. But, sometimes I do get arrogant. It's actually nice when folks call me on it and keep me in line.

It's why lawyers are hated. I occasionally become what I despise.

Cheers!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[velo90 0]

Quote

'Someone runs off with your Chicken McNuggets in Texas, at night, under some circumstances you can shoot the bastard.'"

WOW! If I ever visit Texas I'm never going to go anywhere near a Mc'Donalds. In fact I think I'll stear clear of Texas. Don't want to get caught in the crossfire.

[kallend 1,659]

Quote

Quote

'Someone runs off with your Chicken McNuggets in Texas, at night, under some circumstances you can shoot the bastard.'"

WOW! If I ever visit Texas I'm never going to go anywhere near a Mc'Donalds. In fact I think I'll stear clear of Texas. Don't want to get caught in the crossfire.

Probably no worse than Brixton. I live in a Chicago suburb and work in the city. I've yet to see a gun except at a range, at a gun store, or in the holster of a cop or the hands of a soldier. Out west you'll see hunting rifles in racks in pick-up trucks, too.

There are some for whom a gun is compensation for a short d*ck and they tend to be the boastful ones who are always talking about their Glock, but most gun owners are perfectly ordinary folks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[velo90 0]

Quote

There are some for whom a gun is compensation for a short d*ck

That'll get em going. Hope you've got your flame proof undies on

Edited to add: Maybe I should start a poll. Which is longer, your gun or your d*ck

[kallend 1,659]

Quote

Quote

There are some for whom a gun is compensation for a short d*ck

That'll get em going. Hope you've got your flame proof undies on

Well, if they wish to identify themselves, they will.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkydiverRick 0]

There are some for whom a gun is compensation for a short d*ck and they tend to be the boastful ones who are always talking about their Glock, but most gun owners are perfectly ordinary folks.