Wait, aren't guns AND armed robbery both illegal in Britain?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

As I read it the law in the UK states you do have a right to self defense but proving it was may be difficult in many cases.

There is no burden of proof on the defendant. Once a defendant raises the defence of self defence it is up to the prosecution to prove that the actions of the home owner (/whatever) were unreasonable under all of the circumstances as the home owner believed them to be.

(ie if the home owner believed the burglar had a gun when in fact it was a banana, the prosecution must prove that the home owners actions were unreasonable against a man with a gun. The fact that it was in fact a banana is immaterial to the defence).

Complaints regarding difficulty in the use of the defence stem for two main reasons.

Firstly it is down to pure ignorance of the law. The public was not sure what constituted self defence and thought it was actually far harder than it really is to rely on. In reality the law really is very pro-home owner even though the public perception is not quite in step with that fact.

News papers going all out to sell papers with horror stories have not helped the situation... it only takes a few fact twistings to make it seem like a perfectly upstanding member of the community has been put away for trying to defend his poor home when in fact quite the contrary is the case.

Secondly (and to a great degree linked to the first point) is the fact that the law itself is very fluid and no cast iron advice can be given to home owners as to what they can and cannot do. All is required is that the force used is reasonable under all of the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.

This is difficult to provide blanket advice on because it really does depend on all of the circumstances and all the circumstances are going to be very different each time.

Thus the public worry about what is meant by "reasonable" and cannot be consoled with accurate advice. In reality, what can be considered reasonable would probably surprise people. The example I usually use is the Attorney-General's Reference (No. 2 of 1983) where it was held that the use of petrol bombs in self defence can under the right circumstances be perfectly reasonable.

Last year there was a flutter in the media when the Conservatives tried to change the law regarding self defence. They were shot down in flames when there were several TV programs educating the public as to what they actually were allowed to do in self defence. Public opinion suddenly swayed from "protect us dear Conservatives" to "er... thanks but there's not really any need for a change".

Opinion within the legal profession was that the Conservatives proposed changes wouldn't have actually made not even 1% of difference to the law as it stood and it was all simply busy work to make it look like they were challenging the Govt. over something.

Unfortunatly this happens all too often and what is actually some political party tring to score points is reported as a real issue.

Quote

I do stand by the fact they have limited the ways in which it shall be done(firearms ownership)

Yup, you can have that one... kinda. Most pistols are no longer kosher here, but then it is a long established principle (outdating even the Criminal Law Act cited above) that self defence is not a lawful purpose for the possession of a firearm in the UK anyway, so technically that went out of the window decades and decades ago and the 1997 legislation made absolutely no difference to the situation at law.

And burglars can still find themselves on the wrong end of a longarm or shotgun...

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

After all this couldn't happen in America could it?

We're not the ones with a gun ban that we claimed would control crime.

-

Yeah, you're the ones with the guns that claim you can control crime. Until that starts working on your side of the pond then you're hardly in a position to get on the high horse and claim that things smell of roses over there and shit over here.

Homicide rate (per 100,000) the US is roughly 4x the UK rate (varies from year to year).

Accidental shooting deaths: the US rate is roughly 30x the UK rate.

Gun suicides: the US rate is roughly 20x the UK rate.

Until the US figures match or are better than the UK figures, it seems to me that you and PJ are throwing stones from a glass house.

Eh?? I'm confused. That's what I was trying to say John. That he was hardly in a position to say how bad things were over here with the way things are on his side of the pond?

I agree with what you said, it's what I was trying to say, only you said it better.

Mea Culpa - clicked on your post by mistake.

...

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

[dropoutdave 0]

Phew! I thought I was going mad.

------------------------------------------------------
May Contain Nut traces......

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

I would also like to see the data on how
many of the firearms that were used in
*illegal* shootings were legally owned vs. illegally posessed firearms.

with references of course and the
*brady campaign* ( they claim assualt weapons
are legal to own and are not regulated...see http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/1932_uniform_machine_gun_act.txt
under this misinformation the brady campaign/foundation has lacked credibility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

USDOJ would be a good source of data!(date sensitive of course) as to laws that were enacted have expired and the usage of the term assault weapon was a subjective term used by non firearms experts to illustrate look or appearance or ingnored the fact of functionality.(firing 1 bullet for each trigger pull)

NRA may be used within *reason(referenced material)
as it is staffed by *law enforcement officials and *jurists that are known reliable sources when used with *reliable references to said data

[kallend 2,027]

Replying to your own posts now? Do you talk to yourself too?

...

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Ooo quick, something happened involving guns. Can I somehow use it to make a point!? Yeah why not!

Oh, you'd prefer threads that have no point. I see.

Quote

Do you really think a gun ban is going to stop hardcore offenders? Do you think our government ever believed it would stop hardcore offenders?

No, but what it does stop is average Joe having a gun then having a row at a barbeque and in a drunk state shooting everyone. You know like the masses of gun related 'accidents' in the US.

Gun-related accidents have gone down every single year since records have been kept, in the U.S. They are at an all-time low and getting lower every year.

In addition, gun-related crimes have been decreasing for years in the U.S. as well -- even though every year brings MILLIONS more guns into the public's hands!

Now, in England, how common was it for some drunken "nutter" to start "shooting everyone" at a barbeCue in the first place? You all are proud to tell us at every opportunity that England has such low gun crime rates. So if they were low and near non-existent, and the ban was known to be unable to affect "hard core" criminals, what need was there for the ban in the first place?

Quote

I suggest you never come here if you dont like it.

Wind your neck in, its getting boring

I suggest you don't read my threads or posts if you don't like them.

-

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Hehe, how things can come across different over the internet.

Well, you are sadly mistaken as we have a common law power to defend ourselves. Believe it or not there is a legal defense to protect life and property.

Yeah, you just aren't allowed to carry or be in possession of any implement designed for self defense.

Carry a knife for self defense, or even a kubotan, and you can and probably will be arrested.

That leaves you with your bare hands if you're attacked, and then you might be able to improvise a weapon on the spur of the moment.

-

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

[Parliament was quite clear during its deliberations surrounding leading up to the 1997 legislation that their intentions were not to control the use of guns by criminals. It is a matter of parliamentary record that police estimates at the time were that only approximately 300 guns per year were making their way from legally held stores into criminals hands.

The 1997 legislation was NOT intended to restrict the ability of criminals to obtain firearms. It was intended to restrict the ability of perfectly law abiding people obtaining firearms which they then might go on to turn on other members of the population.

Explain why estimates I've read claim there are over 3 million illegally-held guns in England. Do you suppose that with a population as small as yours, it's real difficult for a criminal who wants one to get a gun? I've also read that many of the guns flooding your black market are from former Soviet countries, mil-surp and stuff like that. So why did it make sense to take away guns from thousands upon thousands of people who were not committing crimes with them -- who were subject to random inspection of the manner in which they were stored -- when ONLY about 300 were trickling to the criminals each year, when there are already 3 million guns held by criminals?

-

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

In general terms, the UK legislation on self defence rights are far more un-favorable to the criminal than that to be found in many American States! For example; Florida has only recently removed the duty on the home owner to retreat before attacking - a duty which has never existed in the UK.

Thanks for the additional misinformation.

Florida in fact recently legislated to remove the duty to retreat IN PUBLIC.

There was not, prior to 2005's legislation, a duty to retreat in the home. One tweak is that in the home, now, the forced entry itself is valid grounds to feel deadly force is justified to counter a deadly force attack.

It would help if you apprised yourself of the truth before attempting to inform us of stuff.

-

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Homicide rate (per 100,000) the US is roughly 4x the UK rate (varies from year to year).

Accidental shooting deaths: the US rate is roughly 30x the UK rate.

Gun suicides: the US rate is roughly 20x the UK rate.

Until the US figures match or are better than the UK figures, it seems to me that you and PJ are throwing stones from a glass house.

Who cares whether John has "references for that data"? The data is useless.

Big surprise, that a country that was always known to have far fewer guns has fewer suicides by gun. Whoa. Never saw that one coming. Now how about we get honest and have John dig up the data on suicide rates in general. Unless all John cares about is that the suicides are not committed using guns.

And gun accidents not being as common is also a no-brainer. I have never had a crane topple on me in my living room as I sat and watched t.v. Makes my house MUCH safer from crane accidents than the typical construction site. I propose we ban cranes from construction sites to cut down on the number of crane accidents and bring it in line with how many occur in living rooms and libraries...

The fact is that with each passing year, there are fewer and fewer gun-related accidents in the U.S. Not even Dick Cheney has been able to stem that decline.

There will probably always be some, but just like there will always be some skydiving accidents, do you ban the activity or the tool because you want zero accidents?

-

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Replying to your own posts now? Do you talk to yourself too?

You really need to be more mature than that, kallend. Do you realize how juvenile it is to put up a post that contains ONLY that juvenile "nyah nyah" bullshit?

-

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

[billvon 2,991]

> Do you talk to yourself too?

>You really need to be more mature than that, kallend.

Both of you please cut it out. Last warning.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Replying to your own posts now? Do you talk to yourself too?

good one

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Replying to your own posts now? Do you talk to yourself too?

good one

yeah, rehmwa, that was a good one.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Replying to your own posts now? Do you talk to yourself too?

good one

yeah, rehmwa, that was a good one.

Is that catching??

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 2,991]

>Is that catching??

Is what catching?

[billvon 2,991]

Quote

>Is that catching??

Is what catching?

I have no idea, I was hoping you'd know.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Is that catching??

Is what catching?

you'll know when it happens, in the meantime, keep a fresh pair of pants with you at all times

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,447]

Quote

Who cares whether John has "references for that data"? The data is useless.

Without a pedigree, you can't tell whether the data is useless or not. It might be that the data is accurate.

Just because the picture you want isn't painted doesn't mean that the wrong paints were used.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Scoop 0]

Is it me or can every thread involving guns be broken down into three parts....

1) Wild accusations to make some strange point.
2) Bickering about which country is better (I'll admit I am guilty of this)
3) Statistics dont prove a thing

...yet we love it!

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Who cares whether John has "references for that data"? The data is useless.

Without a pedigree, you can't tell whether the data is useless or not. It might be that the data is accurate.

Just because the picture you want isn't painted doesn't mean that the wrong paints were used.

Wendy W.

It actually came from a pro gun site but it's basically the same as you get from the DoJ or FBI-UCR. Very hard to hide homicides.

...

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

[warpedskydiver 0]

no john you missed the finer points of my statement and read only what you wanted to read....COMMON MISTAKE

I would also like to see the data on how
many of the firearms that were used in
*illegal* shootings were legally owned vs. illegally posessed firearms.

you see what I was getting at was the percentage of crimes involving firearms that were used by individuals that were already criminals before the act took place

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Homicide rate (per 100,000) the US is roughly 4x the UK rate (varies from year to year).

Accidental shooting deaths: the US rate is roughly 30x the UK rate.

Gun suicides: the US rate is roughly 20x the UK rate.

Until the US figures match or are better than the UK figures, it seems to me that you and PJ are throwing stones from a glass house.

Who cares whether John has "references for that data"? The data is useless.

Big surprise, that a country that was always known to have far fewer guns has fewer suicides by gun. Whoa. Never saw that one coming. Now how about we get honest and have John dig up the data on suicide rates in general. Unless all John cares about is that the suicides are not committed using guns.

And gun accidents not being as common is also a no-brainer. I have never had a crane topple on me in my living room as I sat and watched t.v. Makes my house MUCH safer from crane accidents than the typical construction site. I propose we ban cranes from construction sites to cut down on the number of crane accidents and bring it in line with how many occur in living rooms and libraries...

The fact is that with each passing year, there are fewer and fewer gun-related accidents in the U.S. Not even Dick Cheney has been able to stem that decline.

There will probably always be some, but just like there will always be some skydiving accidents, do you ban the activity or the tool because you want zero accidents?

-

So the tool is gun control, and it isn't 100% perfect. You agree, then, that's no reason to abandon it?

Apparently the Brits are happy to have far fewer homicides, suicides and fatal gun accidents in exchange for gun control that isn't 100% perfect. That's their prerogative, and not yours to criticize?

...

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

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

So the tool is gun control, and it isn't 100% perfect. You agree, then, that's no reason to abandon it?

I don't believe it is even ONE % effective, john. That IS a reason to abandon it.

One need only apply a single iota of common sense to the gun control arguments that can be made, and come up with a conclusion that gun control is useless.


[replyApparently the Brits are happy to have far fewer homicides, suicides and fatal gun accidents in exchange for gun control that isn't 100% perfect. That's their prerogative, and not yours to criticize?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Gun-related accidents have gone down every single year since records have been kept, in the U.S. They are at an all-time low and getting lower every year.

hasn't gun legislation increased in that same period? With your reasoning (though usually from the opposite end) doesn't that mean that gun legislation has been effective?

• Quote