Wait, aren't guns AND armed robbery both illegal in Britain?
By
peacefuljeffrey, in Speakers Corner
QuoteWhat's the pedigree of that data?QuoteAnyway, I have found online published studies that indicate you are six times more likely to be mugged
I can find online published studies to support lots of stuff. But until the pedigree is shared, it's just bullshit.
Wendy W.
It was part of some UN thing -- I'll have to find the link.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteQuoteThese laws may actualy work! We have changed hardly anything for guns except just for peope to have them is registered. This country is the most violent, high crime country in the world.
You think that England simply called for registration of guns?
That was in effect since the EARLY 20TH CENTURY.
Your country has not legislated the registering of guns -- it has BANNED THEIR OWNERSHIP except for a tiny sliver of what, small caliber single-shot rifles and shotguns.
You don't exhibit a strong knowledge or understanding of the state of the laws there.
-
Ya, the small tiny guns are the ones who are used the most in crime in this country. You said earlier that the "assult weapons" are hardly the result of crime. Gee I wonder why. Maybe because they are not easly to get?
-----------------
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla
I love and Miss you so much Honey!
Orfun #3 ~ Darla
QuoteQuoteQuoteThese laws may actualy work! We have changed hardly anything for guns except just for peope to have them is registered. This country is the most violent, high crime country in the world.
You think that England simply called for registration of guns?
That was in effect since the EARLY 20TH CENTURY.
Your country has not legislated the registering of guns -- it has BANNED THEIR OWNERSHIP except for a tiny sliver of what, small caliber single-shot rifles and shotguns.
You don't exhibit a strong knowledge or understanding of the state of the laws there.
-
Ya, the small tiny guns are the ones who are used the most in crime in this country. You said earlier that the "assult weapons" are hardly the result of crime. Gee I wonder why. Maybe because they are not easly to get?
For christ's sake PLEASE pay attention. So-called "assault weapons" are used in less than 1% of gun crime in the U.S. -- despite there being MILLIONS of them.
I was never talking about assault weapons being used in England.
Please explain why ANY guns are easy to get in an island country -- and they are, in England, if you're a criminal who hangs out with other criminals and knows the channels from where the illegal gun supply flows.
And if criminals who want them can get them (3 million of them), please tell me why it was necessary to take them away from GOOD people when the criminals show they still will get them anyway.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>>You should call yourself angryjeffrey.
>You don't exhibit a strong knowledge . . .
Both of you STOP IT. PJ, this is about your fourth warning. Calm down or you will find yourself on another break from SC.
>You don't exhibit a strong knowledge . . .
Both of you STOP IT. PJ, this is about your fourth warning. Calm down or you will find yourself on another break from SC.
Your concern for the people of our little island is really touching
and as an American, you're, no doubt, cognisant that prohibition probably never works. It simply drives such underlying activities into the hands of rouges and villains.
It's never (in living memory) been legal for arms to be carried in public, so they could not be used to protect citizens or to Take-Down badies. So, the legislation against guns would never have affected gun crime in the U.K - neither for nor against.
As has been argued by John Rich (many atime) it simply served to hit law abiding sports shooters (in the main).
.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
and as an American, you're, no doubt, cognisant that prohibition probably never works. It simply drives such underlying activities into the hands of rouges and villains.
It's never (in living memory) been legal for arms to be carried in public, so they could not be used to protect citizens or to Take-Down badies. So, the legislation against guns would never have affected gun crime in the U.K - neither for nor against.
As has been argued by John Rich (many atime) it simply served to hit law abiding sports shooters (in the main).
.
(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome
QuoteQuoteHehe, 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.
-
We don't really need to use guns as self defense in the uk. We depend on our bodies. Come to Dublin and i will show you
http://www.skydivethefarm.com
do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?
do you realize that when you critisize people you dont know over the internet, you become part of a growing society of twats? ARE YOU ONE OF THEM?
mr2mk1g 10
Hey mate, how's it going?
I've read the article you link to in full. I've seen much of the same text from this author before which appears to have been an abridged version of your link. They do a good job of summarizing the historic progression of legislation throughout the 20th Century. Unfortunately that's where the accuracy ends.
The author gets the current law on self defence completely wrong. They are either lying to the reader or simply exceptionally poorly informed.
On page 3 of their paper, the author discusses the 1967 Criminal Law Act which I cite on the first page of this thread. They say this act "altered the traditional standards for self-defense. Everything was now to depend on what seemed "reasonable" force after the fact".
This is incorrect. Reasonableness has long been applicable the test well prior to 1967 and the Criminal Law Act merely codified the existing common law principles. Additionally, when relying on self defence it is in many cases open to the defendant to use either or both the 1967 Criminal Law Act provisions OR common law – so the Act can't have changed anything as you're still able to use the pre-67 law to your advantage.
The most glaring error comes next in that the author states "And it was never reasonable to defend property with force." Again this is wholly incorrect. They are actually citing the 1967 legislation in that very paragraph but they cannot even get the basic text of the act correct.
The act most certainly does cover the use of force in defence of property, as does the common law. I suspect here the author has confused them self with the rules surrounding the use of lethal force in defence of property. Killing to protect chattels has indeed been judged never to be reasonable – I guess the courts feel that TV's simply aren't worth that much. Everything up to killing however is open season.
Now, aside from the fact that the article keeps saying that there is no right to self defence in England or that it is continually being eroded (whereas the truth is that the right is as strong as ever and has remained materially unchanged throughout the last century... as I point out at length in my first couple of posts in this thread) another big problem with the article is the authors consistent misuse of violent crime statistics.
During your enforced absence from this forum I have had numerous arguments with John regarding the pattern of violent crime in England over the last 20 years. Over the course of these arguments I've put up a great number of statistics which in the end even John has openly accepted as being the true measure of English violent crime statistics.
To cut a very, very long story short crime peaked in the UK just prior to the 1997 firearms legislation when we had our highest volume of violent crime since our records began. Since then it has steadily reduced to the point today where we have the lowest level of violent crime since records began. (see attached chart)
The author of your linked article is seeking to mislead their readers by relying on statements made by opposition politicians. Would you seriously expect Democrat politicians to make statements that when Clinton was in office crime was high and now Bush has been in office for a few years crime is low? No? Well neither would I; and to that end I don't put any weight on what opposition politicians say when trying to score political brownie points – most certainly not when what they say is exactly the opposite of what every criminologist in the country is saying.
Now finally on to the examples of used regarding those arrested for the use of self defence. As I said in my first couple of posts papers will always try to sensationalize things to sell papers. Tony Martin is possibly the WORST case study for pro-gun rights lobbyists and self defence advocates I can possibly imagine. The guy had an illegal weapon, held in contrary to the laws at the time, and he shot 3 minors as they attempted to escape. This could well be legal in many instances (aside from illegally owning the shotgun of course). Indeed I may well have got away with it had it been me. In fact at the end of the day Tony Martin himself was found not guilty of the crime with which he was charged!
Yes, you read right; Tony Martin was found not guilty of the murder with which he was charged. You don’t hear that in the papers. You don't hear that in the pro-gun or self defence articles. You also don't hear that after his trial Tony Martin was not sent home or to jail but to a psychiatric unit where he was held at Her Majesty's pleasure on account of the fact he was a stark raving lunatic.
You often hear a lot of lies but you rarely ever get told the truth about R. v. Martin.
The truth is he was put away not because the law on self defence failed some poor farmer simply trying to protect his property from burglars but because he was a self confessed mentally deranged lunatic who was danger to anyone who came near him and admitted he would kill again if given the chance.
Take my advice – stop gun and self defence advocates trying to associate people like you and me with people like Tony Martin – he's really is not someone who I want used as a pin-up for me!
(edited to add pic)
I've read the article you link to in full. I've seen much of the same text from this author before which appears to have been an abridged version of your link. They do a good job of summarizing the historic progression of legislation throughout the 20th Century. Unfortunately that's where the accuracy ends.
The author gets the current law on self defence completely wrong. They are either lying to the reader or simply exceptionally poorly informed.
On page 3 of their paper, the author discusses the 1967 Criminal Law Act which I cite on the first page of this thread. They say this act "altered the traditional standards for self-defense. Everything was now to depend on what seemed "reasonable" force after the fact".
This is incorrect. Reasonableness has long been applicable the test well prior to 1967 and the Criminal Law Act merely codified the existing common law principles. Additionally, when relying on self defence it is in many cases open to the defendant to use either or both the 1967 Criminal Law Act provisions OR common law – so the Act can't have changed anything as you're still able to use the pre-67 law to your advantage.
The most glaring error comes next in that the author states "And it was never reasonable to defend property with force." Again this is wholly incorrect. They are actually citing the 1967 legislation in that very paragraph but they cannot even get the basic text of the act correct.
The act most certainly does cover the use of force in defence of property, as does the common law. I suspect here the author has confused them self with the rules surrounding the use of lethal force in defence of property. Killing to protect chattels has indeed been judged never to be reasonable – I guess the courts feel that TV's simply aren't worth that much. Everything up to killing however is open season.
Now, aside from the fact that the article keeps saying that there is no right to self defence in England or that it is continually being eroded (whereas the truth is that the right is as strong as ever and has remained materially unchanged throughout the last century... as I point out at length in my first couple of posts in this thread) another big problem with the article is the authors consistent misuse of violent crime statistics.
During your enforced absence from this forum I have had numerous arguments with John regarding the pattern of violent crime in England over the last 20 years. Over the course of these arguments I've put up a great number of statistics which in the end even John has openly accepted as being the true measure of English violent crime statistics.
To cut a very, very long story short crime peaked in the UK just prior to the 1997 firearms legislation when we had our highest volume of violent crime since our records began. Since then it has steadily reduced to the point today where we have the lowest level of violent crime since records began. (see attached chart)
The author of your linked article is seeking to mislead their readers by relying on statements made by opposition politicians. Would you seriously expect Democrat politicians to make statements that when Clinton was in office crime was high and now Bush has been in office for a few years crime is low? No? Well neither would I; and to that end I don't put any weight on what opposition politicians say when trying to score political brownie points – most certainly not when what they say is exactly the opposite of what every criminologist in the country is saying.
Now finally on to the examples of used regarding those arrested for the use of self defence. As I said in my first couple of posts papers will always try to sensationalize things to sell papers. Tony Martin is possibly the WORST case study for pro-gun rights lobbyists and self defence advocates I can possibly imagine. The guy had an illegal weapon, held in contrary to the laws at the time, and he shot 3 minors as they attempted to escape. This could well be legal in many instances (aside from illegally owning the shotgun of course). Indeed I may well have got away with it had it been me. In fact at the end of the day Tony Martin himself was found not guilty of the crime with which he was charged!
Yes, you read right; Tony Martin was found not guilty of the murder with which he was charged. You don’t hear that in the papers. You don't hear that in the pro-gun or self defence articles. You also don't hear that after his trial Tony Martin was not sent home or to jail but to a psychiatric unit where he was held at Her Majesty's pleasure on account of the fact he was a stark raving lunatic.
You often hear a lot of lies but you rarely ever get told the truth about R. v. Martin.
The truth is he was put away not because the law on self defence failed some poor farmer simply trying to protect his property from burglars but because he was a self confessed mentally deranged lunatic who was danger to anyone who came near him and admitted he would kill again if given the chance.
Take my advice – stop gun and self defence advocates trying to associate people like you and me with people like Tony Martin – he's really is not someone who I want used as a pin-up for me!
(edited to add pic)
mr2mk1g 10
QuoteAnd if criminals who want them can get them (3 million of them), please tell me why it was necessary to take them away from GOOD people when the criminals show they still will get them anyway.
Firstly the three million figure is one of a number of estimates provided to the enquiry set up prior to the 1997 legislation. Alternate figures were also given, as low as 250,000. Funny how you never hear that one hey? The enquiry concluded that the true figure was likely to be somewhere in the middle of the upper and lower figures (where most commentators put the estimate) but as it's an estimate one can never truly know.
Secondly, and to answer your question (although I fear I have already done so, in bold no less, on the first page of this thread); we had our pistols taken away from us because some cunt decided to commit a full fifth of our annual firearms murders in one morning in a sleepy Scottish primary school.
To put that into perspective Jeffrey, to do the same thing in the States (given our two country's relative firearms murder rates) it would have taken 1 individual 1 morning to murder more than 2000 school children in one go! Let’s say that together for a moment shall we so the concept really sinks in.
"Two thousand children, under 10 years old, in one morning".
Can we think of an incident in the States which accounted for that kind of loss of life? I can. It involved a couple of buildings, some planes and some rather courageous fireman who I am proud to say brought me to tears that day.
When we take our two country's exposure to firearms murders into account, that really was the scale of the atrocity which was inflicted on our country that day in 1996 Jeffrey.
It is hardly surprising that our Government made some massively sweeping knee-jerk reactions. Hell in our analogy we ended up with two wars out of the US incident of similar scale.
Now I didn't agree with the legislation then, and I do not now; but I do at least understand quite clearly exactly why the country chose to take away my Browning 9mm following that incident and I must confess I have a hard time countering their arguments.
As I point out quite conclusively on the first page of this thread, our firearms legislation is not intended to prevent robberies or shootings, violent crime or murders. It was intended to prevent incidents such as Hungerford and Dunblane. Incidents which accounted for a full fifth of our annual firearms murders in one go.
Now we've not had one in the 10 years since the last of those attacks. Is that because of the legislation? I don't know, it's pretty much impossible to say - it could just be luck. Hopefully time will tell.
But that there, succinct as it is, is the reason. Attacking the legislation for any other reason is as daft as saying it didn't cure AIDS in Africa. But then I thought I said that on the first page.
crozby 0
great posts.
QuoteYour concern for the people of our little island is really touching
It's never (in living memory) been legal for arms to be carried in public, so they could not be used to protect citizens or to Take-Down badies. So, the legislation against guns would never have affected gun crime in the U.K - neither for nor against.
As has been argued by John Rich (many atime) it simply served to hit law abiding sports shooters (in the main).
.
That's what I see as part of the problem. Even though perhaps not many Brits would opt to carry a defensive pistol, the ones who would like to (possibly women who have survived rape and don't want to go through it again, or men who have survived brutal robberies accompanied by beatings who don't want to let their lives be risked again) are prohibited from making that choice.
How would we ever know how many Brits would jump at the chance to arm themselves defensively if the law would allow it?
Are you going to say that the reason the law doesn't allow for it is because the people don't want that right and so don't campaign for such a law? I would say that's a leap that can't be substantiated or verified. It might be simply because they feel there is little or no chance to get that law changed. Either way, the result is no one gets to find out how well-received the right to carry a gun would be in England.
To me, it flies in the face of logic and human nature that people want to have to rely on police to intervene if they are attacked. Who really is naive enough to believe that the police swoop in just in the nick of time to save people from criminal attack?
Maybe, like happens in the U.S., if England passed right-to-carry laws, the effect would snowball, and crime victims would have a chance to fight back against their attackers, rather than cry out for help that won't arrive, or hand over what they've worked hard to earn, or worse, pray that they won't be hurt too badly, or that the attacker will just hurt them but not kill them.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteQuoteYeah, 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.
-
We don't really need to use guns as self defense in the uk. We depend on our bodies. Come to Dublin and i will show you
Show me what?
Are you a badass who can take on an able-bodied young male who has a knife, and be assured that you won't get cut severely, if not maimed or killed?
And if so, are you representative of a 120 lb. woman, or a 72-year-old man? Should they be forced to either get to be as tough as you are, or just get used to being picked on by criminals?
QuoteWe don't really need to use guns as self defense in the uk. We depend on our bodies.
Just who are you speaking for?? Everyone in British/Irish society who might face an attacker?
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
QuoteThe most glaring error comes next in that the author states "And it was never reasonable to defend property with force." Again this is wholly incorrect. They are actually citing the 1967 legislation in that very paragraph but they cannot even get the basic text of the act correct.
The act most certainly does cover the use of force in defence of property, as does the common law. I suspect here the author has confused them self with the rules surrounding the use of lethal force in defence of property. Killing to protect chattels has indeed been judged never to be reasonable – I guess the courts feel that TV's simply aren't worth that much. Everything up to killing however is open season.
Well of course he was talking about lethal force. If you point a gun at someone, you are considered to be using LETHAL FORCE from that moment on. You shoot someone but hit him only in the thigh, you used lethal force on him. It is not as though the force is "lethal" only if you end up killing him. So I don't know why you threw in the red herring that you could use (plain ol') "force" to defend property.
QuoteNow, aside from the fact that the article keeps saying that there is no right to self defence in England or that it is continually being eroded (whereas the truth is that the right is as strong as ever and has remained materially unchanged throughout the last century... as I point out at length in my first couple of posts in this thread) another big problem with the article is the authors consistent misuse of violent crime statistics.
What of the claims made that Brits are prohibited from carrying anything that can be construed to be designed as a weapon (offensive or defensive, since anything that can be used defensively can ergo be used offensively with ease)?
Isn't that like saying, "Sure, there's no prohibition against skydiving, but we'll arrest you if we see you in possession of a rig, an altimeter, and anything else you might need to use to skydive."
QuoteIn fact at the end of the day Tony Martin himself was found not guilty of the crime with which he was charged!
Yes, you read right; Tony Martin was found not guilty of the murder with which he was charged...
That's news to me. What I have read (repeatedly) is that he was initially convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. Then on appeal his murder conviction was reversed, and he was sentenced to five years in prison for manslaughter.
You're saying that someone made a complete and utter lie about something so objectively either true or false? And that it's been repeated as often as it has in online newspapers for the last umpteen years?
QuoteThe truth is he was put away not because the law on self defence failed some poor farmer simply trying to protect his property from burglars but because he was a self confessed mentally deranged lunatic who was danger to anyone who came near him and admitted he would kill again if given the chance.
The story as I read it was that the police had utterly failed to do Mr. Martin, out there in his lonely rural farmhouse, any good at all in putting an end to the burglaries and vandalism at his place. Something like 12 burglaries had occurred.
You and I were not there, and did not see what transpired when he confronted the burglars that final time. Suffice it to say that Mr. Martin felt justified in shooting.
If I were to feel the slightest sorrow for the miscreants who were shot and/or killed that night, I would first demand to know why the fuck they were on Mr. Martin's property, and whether they were perhaps the criminals, minors though they may have been (as though minors cannot be dangerous?) who had victimized him before.
For the simple reason that Mr. Martin had experienced zero success via the police investigating his burglaries, and the fact that he faced THREE young men that night, I offer that perhaps it is inaccurate to characterize Mr. Martin as an unrepentent, cold-blooded killer, so much as a person who feels he WAS threatened, WAS justified in using deadly force to defend himself, and of course he would say he would do the same thing under the same circumstances again.
Funny, I read an interview with him in the NRA's magazine, and he sure didn't sound like a stark-raving lunatic there. Are you alleging that the entire interview was a fabrication and therefore a fraud?
QuoteTake my advice – stop gun and self defence advocates trying to associate people like you and me with people like Tony Martin – he's really is not someone who I want used as a pin-up for me!
I prefer to leave personalities out of it. The man lived in a remote farmhouse and had been the victim of repeated burglaries. I myself would probably, upon realizing that the police were impotent, take it as my own responsibility to see to my own protection.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Quote(edited to add pic)
I am totally at a loss.
I have read stories in all kinds of different print and online newspapers that cite a rise in violent crime in England, and in fact your nameless, faceless graph (which for all anyone knows you could have printed up yourself in a very basic program) is the only source I have ever seen for a claim that is 180 degrees opposite of numerous news sources' claims.
How do you account for that? Your claim is the diametric opposite of everything else out there.
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Scoop 0
Good news. At least some of the money has been recovered. Was found at Ashford International Hotel, Ashford, Kent, UK which is area I live and also police. Multiple vehicles involved recovered and its not believed they used the rail link to get to the continent. I think its only a matter of time. Already number of arrestst made 
You think that England simply called for registration of guns?
That was in effect since the EARLY 20TH CENTURY.
Your country has not legislated the registering of guns -- it has BANNED THEIR OWNERSHIP except for a tiny sliver of what, small caliber single-shot rifles and shotguns.
You don't exhibit a strong knowledge or understanding of the state of the laws there.
-
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites