Gun control in UK - A Total Failure

[Greenday]

Show me where in the UK (which is where this thread is all about isn't it?) that I cannot defend myself?

Oh, that's right you can't. I can use whatever is reasonable force (upto and including killing someone) in the circumstances in the defence of myself, I don't need a firearm to do that thanks.

No, but a firearm can be quite handy if one knows how to use it.

[ditchdj]

To quote your fellow Briton....

"Now, you may not use any firearm for self-defence at any time or under any condition, even if you are about to be killed in the most horrible way imaginable. If you do kill someone in self-defence, then it is off to prison with you for a very very long time."


http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=81240

----Of course you'll just attack my sources like everyone else is that's anti-gun. Thank you.

[Rapscallion]

----Of course you'll just attack my sources like everyone else is that's anti-gun. Thank you.

I think what I'll do is a fine tradition established during this thread - I'll just read the postings you've made, which are opinion pieces based on very little fact, analyse them, wonder briefly why you haven't tried to argue against the points raised in previous posts, take your points to pieces, and prove you wrong. You'll then come back with another link to an opinion piece that you happen to agree with, thinking that it proves your assertion that more gun control laws in the UK have failed.

Sound like a plan?

"Now, you may not use any firearm for self-defence at any time or under any condition, even if you are about to be killed in the most horrible way imaginable. If you do kill someone in self-defence, then it is off to prison with you for a very very long time."

Um, wrong. If you legally own a firearm, you can use it in self-defence. As a judge once of my acquaintance told me, if the wounds are to their front, they were coming at you and you can do what is regarded as reasonable force to stop them. (Example - someone comes at you in a rabid frenzy with a samurai sword, blow them away, but if someone comes at you with a small sponge and a grin you can't really break out the rocket launcher and expect to not fail jail time). I'm pretty sure that Crazylegs can back me up on this.

That opinion piece claimed that the UK had a major problem with gun crime. There's a problem, but it's relatively minor. The media and government are more concentrating on knife crime.

By the way, when did I say I was anti-gun? It's a tool, nothing more and nothing less. Do I want guns completely banned? No. Do I want controls to stop guns getting into the hands of criminals and being used in crime? Definitely. Is it a dangerous tool that should be limited? Definitely.

The big issue for me is whether or not I trust my fellow human with a dangerous tool. In a few specific examples, then sure. In general, fuck no. I see too many young males hopped up on their own testosterone to contemplate relaxing the laws. I see too many young women trying to act the same, or trying to talk down their fellow females, to risk that.

I don't trust my fellow human as a general statement of mind.

Anyway, can I hope that you're going to continue your fine tradition of posting a link, ignoring the arguments already put forward, and then accusing others of hating you? I do hope so.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Do we have a smiley for the banging head against brick wall???

[crazylegs]

Um, wrong. If you legally own a firearm, you can use it in self-defence. As a judge once of my acquaintance told me, if the wounds are to their front, they were coming at you and you can do what is regarded as reasonable force to stop them. (Example - someone comes at you in a rabid frenzy with a samurai sword, blow them away, but if someone comes at you with a small sponge and a grin you can't really break out the rocket launcher and expect to not fail jail time). I'm pretty sure that Crazylegs can back me up on this.

You can use a firearm in this manner, but you cannot own it for the sole purpose of self defence.

It all boils down to what 'reasonable force' is, if you are in fear of your life (as it may be) and you could demonstrate that in court (i.e. the sword eample above) then yes shooting them is entirely sensible.

People who are uninformed cite Tony MARTIN as to this is not the case, however what they don't note is that MARTIN set traps for the burglars and shot them in the back as they were running away. This is considerably more than 'reasonable force' and is punishment, plain and simple.

[crazylegs]

To quote your fellow Briton....

Who has quite a number of things wrong in his article

Now, you may not use any firearm for self-defence at any time or under any condition, even if you are about to be killed in the most horrible way imaginable. If you do kill someone in self-defence, then it is off to prison with you for a very very long time.

Wrong

The UK police record only deaths that result in after a conviction of murder for the killer has been passed

Wrong, I could bore you to tears over National Crime Recording Standards but the upshot is that all crimes must be 'crimed' (or registered as their specific offence) within 72 hours of their initial report. No exceptions.

Murders, on the other hand, cannot be compared between the US and UK

Wrong, has he not seen my eariler posts then...?

British police do not carry firearms as part of their standard equipment, mainly due to the fact that when the UK adopted a police force, the people did not trust them to be armed since that may eventually lead to a government monopoly on power

Wrong, when the Police were initially formed pistols were carried by the early 'peelers'.

Furthermore, the police are even scaling back their firearms units and reducing their man power

Wrong (I can't give details on point #1 for obvious reasons) and point #2, there has never been any time in history where we have had so many police within this country

They live behind layers of elite armed police, knowing that they can never be harmed.

Wrong, who remembers John PRESCOTT being thumped by a male while in public? Who remembers various dignitaries having custard pies thrown at them... et cetera


That's 6 gaping errors right there, and I've not even looked all that hard.

Answer me this if you will.

If gun control is such a failure why is it *not* mandatory that all Police Officers within the UK wear bullet proof vests? Why is it not mandatory that all Police Officers are issued bullet proof vests PC Sharon Beshenivsky was wearing a vest that was only knife proof.

[Rapscallion]

Wrong, who remembers John PRESCOTT being thumped by a male while in public? Who remembers various dignitaries having custard pies thrown at them... et cetera

Didn't Prezza get egged once? That was hilarious. The guy claimed that he just happened to be carrying around eggs his hens had laid. Um, why weren't they in his pantry?

If I remember right, he thumped back after that, right?

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

I know Australia has pretty much nothing to do with this discussion, but Crazy has just brought up a point I'll add to here.

If gun control is such a failure why is it *not* mandatory that all Police Officers within the UK wear bullet proof vests? Why is it not mandatory that all Police Officers are issued bullet proof vests PC Sharon Beshenivsky was wearing a vest that was only knife proof.

Similarly, while our lot are issued vests (AFAIK), they usually stay in the boot (trunk) of the car. I don't think I've ever seen an officer with a vest on (except on telly).