PDA

View Full Version : Barmy Gun Laws in the UK!


SASless
11th Aug 2010, 13:28
I have just got to stay away from the UK Newspapers as the "news" in them shock my conscience all too often.

This morning I ran across this article.....and wonder just why these guys are such heinous criminals. The court never said anything about their having "sold", "transferred", or in any way have one of their "products" be used in a violent crime anywhere at anytime.

They appear to have been done for "intent" as defined by the Plod and Court.

Violate the law....perhaps but nine and fourteen years for "intent"?

Two men jailed for making 'James Bond-style' weapons in railway arch factory | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301946/Two-men-jailed-making-James-Bond-style-weapons-railway-arch-factory.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)

Blacksheep
11th Aug 2010, 13:34
Not for intent, but for conspiracy to possess. They actually possessed them, but its impossible to say who possessed which. Its people like this who cause all the trouble for we friendly neighbourhood gun freaks.

Its not just UK either. Coke was deported from the USA after serving his time for firearms offences over there, where everyone has a constitutional right to possess firearms. Lord only knows what his Stateside offences might have been. :hmm:

Parapunter
11th Aug 2010, 13:35
You are kidding, right?

Davaar
11th Aug 2010, 13:45
I offer no comment on the convictions and sentences. Does anyone notice who was the judge?

hellsbrink
11th Aug 2010, 13:48
And what would the penalty for making illegal, untraceable firearms in the USofA be? I reckon it would be a hell of a lot more than 14 years!

The bottom line is these guys were making illegal firearms, an offence with severe penalties in the US as well. I see nothing wrong with the sentence, and see nothing more from you than a pathetic attempt to condemn the UK over something which is at least as serious a crime in your own country.

chuks
11th Aug 2010, 14:07
Or have you been out fishing in the hot sun without your hat on again, SASless? These guys read like crims who got just what they deserved so what is the problem with UK justice here?

If anything, the problem with UK justice will be that these people will be released not having served the full term.

Did you catch the item in the news about a 50 year-old German woman in San Francisco on a holiday with her husband? She was hit by a stray round fired by a teenager during some sort of street corner shoot-out and killed. It is this sort of thing that locking up perps like these is meant to prevent, I guess.

Davaar
11th Aug 2010, 14:10
While keeping the said ring. Anyway, vive the alter ego.

airborne_artist
11th Aug 2010, 14:47
I'm with the judge on this. They were not doing this for their own amusement.

Gas Bags
11th Aug 2010, 14:48
The barmy gun laws are in the US.

Get the guns off the streets and there is no need for the right to bear arms.

How many people die in the US each year because of accidents, a drug induced frenzy, an alcohol induced frenzy, or a mental imbalance, all because guns are so readily available, or whatever reason.

Correct, guns dont kill people, people kill people. But it is a hell of a lot harder for a kid to go postal in a schoolyard if he cant get ready access to a gun. It is a hell of a lot harder for a disgruntled ex employee to go postal if he does not have ready access to a gun, it is a hell of a lot harder for a psycho to kill indiscriminately if he does not have ready access to a gun.

In Australia it is front page news if somebody is shot AT ALL. In the US you get shot and killed for your $20.00 necklace, and barely rate a mention.

GB

Keef
11th Aug 2010, 15:05
I offer no comment on the convictions and sentences. Does anyone notice who was the judge?

Indeed. Someone we know well, and respect.

I think he's right, too. These weren't misguided collectors, these sound to have been suppliers of illicit firearms.

onetrack
11th Aug 2010, 15:16
The only thing I could add is that the sentences should have been double for what was a case of career crims intent on making lots of money out of others misery, and adding to the already too high number, of weapons. I reckon you could calculate the peacefulness of a society by measuring the number of firearms per head. Lower numbers per head would, on average, equal a more peaceful society.

What is wrong in America, is that vast numbers of illegal weapons were allowed to be on the loose in the first place... and the average Americans answer to that, is to arm themselves to the teeth, on the basis of being able to beat an armed thug, when confronted by one.

If that worked in principle, no heavily armed policeman or soldier would ever die... but the gun ownership supporters in America conveniently neglect to mention the way that armed criminals stalk and ambush people... so that being in possession of a weapon is no guarantee whatsoever of being able to protect yourself.

Australias constitution, drawn up with no clause allowing the "right to bear arms", was carefully drawn up after lengthy study of the American constitution... and despite the gun lobbyists telling me constantly, that Australians are sorry creatures who have had "all their guns taken off them"... I have never had to face an armed hood in my 61 years of living here, unlike I would have had to, numerous times, in America, in the same time frame.

If I require a weapon as part of my job, or as a rural holdings owner, I can get one, or two, or even three weapons... unlike many Americans believe. There is a ban on ownership for personal protection alone... and I firmly believe that is the correct approach.

What we do not have in Australia, is an inbuilt belief that multiple gun ownership by everyone, promotes peace. America is a living lie to that belief. "Gun nuts" are more likely to use a weapon to settle disputes, and solve relationship problems by murder, or commit suicide, as Americans are constantly taught that owning a weapon, or multiple weapons, is the solution to every inflamed situation. If only it was.

Avitor
11th Aug 2010, 15:21
They were in blatant contravention of British law. End of story.. :ok:

Davaar
11th Aug 2010, 15:38
That "fountain-pen" effort is pretty neat, mind you: sure to find a place in the New Scotland Yard museum. It adds new poetry to the expression "ball-point". Perhaps of course it was intended for use at the Olympics, or pest-control by strolling game-keepers. Then again, perhaps not.

SASless
11th Aug 2010, 15:41
I have never had to face an armed hood in my 61 years of living here, unlike I would have had to, numerous times, in America, in the same time frame.



Upon just what do you base that bit of wisdom?

I cannot think of anyone I know socially who has been confronted by an armed criminal in this country we call America.

Gainesy
11th Aug 2010, 15:51
Davaar, the fountain pen gun appears just to be a copy of a mini-flare gun as carried in all the posh life-saving jackets. Though similar things were given to SOE and the like, quite lethal at short range.

Parapunter
11th Aug 2010, 16:12
You're on thin ice when it comes to pointing out wisdom Sasless, given your inability to spot two very nasty career criminals even when they're conveniently placed under your nose by an obliging newspaper.

onetrack
11th Aug 2010, 16:16
Upon just what do you base that bit of wisdom?

No wisdom on my behalf... just an observation I have gathered from the number of American friends I have, who have told me they have been robbed at gunpoint, and who conceal-carry as part of their response.

I cannot think of anyone I know socially who has been confronted by an armed criminal in this country we call America.

Then I guess all your friends either live in gated communities, or in low-population rural areas, where the level of gun crime is more in line with much of the U.K. and Australia.

Of course, one of the requirements inherent in advancing gun crime, is to allow admission to your country of people from regions and cultures where law-obeyance is regarded as optional, gun crime is rampant, gun regulations are lax, and gun ownership is worshipped as part of their culture.

Sydney has found out exactly what this means, by the admission of a large number of Middle Easterners with this type of background. The N.S.W. Police initiated a 220-man "Middle Eastern crime gang" group in the early 2000's, and that group is the busiest policing group in Sydney .. and illegal weapons useage, and illegal weapons hauls, make up a sizeable portion of their work.

pigboat
11th Aug 2010, 16:19
I offer no comment on the convictions and sentences. Does anyone notice who was the judge?
That makes three of us by my count.

radeng
11th Aug 2010, 18:05
>I cannot think of anyone I know socially who has been confronted by an armed criminal in this country we call America. <

I do. A lady who used to work at the office our company once had in Dallas. She had just got into her car after a church event one evening, when this guy appeared, drugged up demanding money, waving a gun. Only she was faster. Didn't kill him, but he needed fair amount of patching up. Later she told me 'I thought more than three bullets might kill him, and anyway, they are expensive!'

boofhead
11th Aug 2010, 18:20
One Track, you are wrong. I have lived in the US for over 16 years and have not been attacked, nor have I been threatened by a gun-wielding criminal.
I own guns and carry occasionally, mainly as protection from wild animals (I am in an area where big teeth and hooves rule). I see many others who carry openly and it does not make me wet my pants, as it must do to you.
I am Australian and feel very disappointed in the private ownership of firearms policies of the Aus government and the wet-as-piss reaction of the average Australian.
The alarmism is created by people who are motivated by taking away your rights, no other reason.
Logic shows that an armed society is a polite society, and the opposite is also true, that strict gun rules cause crime to rise. Crime in Aus is rising, and it can be directly related to the draconian gun rules imposed there. The same can be shown in the UK. Take a look at the most violent places in the world and they all have the same connection: strict restrictions on private ownership of guns.
Break down the statistics in the US and you will see that most gun violence is due to gangs and drugs, and in a small percentage of the population, usually from two ethnic groups. White males in the US are actually more peaceful (less likely to commit crimes or be victims of crime) than the average Australian or Brit.
But of course this information is not made available to the gullible public.
The only way the anti-gun nazis can argue their point is to lie or cherry-pick statistics. And they get away with it because their targets are too dumb and scared to question what they are told.
Any serious study will show that it is a violent society that is the problem, not the tools used. Facilitating the violent members of society, as we are doing, especially in the UK and Aus, promotes that violence.
If you visit the US, you will be made safer by the fact that so many good, fearless people are carrying a concealed weapon and are prepared to use them to protect not just themselves but you as well.
As an airline pilot I would be very happy if every passenger had a gun, since I would know that no criminal had a chance to take over the airplane.
Evil exists. It will never go away. Chaos is the ultimate state and we need to defend our lives and families using whatever tools we need. I am glad that guns are not so common in Aus, and there is no need to carry a weapon there.
But surely you can see that current policies must inevitably lead to well-armed criminals, who are not affected by the laws you live under, being more common and active in your terrified society, and every time there is an incident or gun death, Big Brother will use that as an excuse to take away more of your rights. See what is happening in the UK, for example.
I am sure you cannot see that however, and therein lies the reason for Australia's inevitable decline.

chuks
11th Aug 2010, 18:31
It is "Nazis," actually, and most of them are getting on a bit so that I don't think they are out there trying to take anyone's guns away. Or do you simply mean "People I don't agree with" by "nazis"? I can go with that one, sort of.

On my airplane the only guy with a gun was me! Well, no ammo, just the guns belonging to some of the pax, up there in the cockpit for safe keeping.

I sure wouldn't want a cabin full of pax who were armed. You must know the stupid stuff passengers get up to; who needs someone who decides to check if his piece is loaded and then puts a round through the pressure vessel, say? Two cabin attendants get into a gunfight over the last sandwich... Well, that would be Ryanair, I suppose.

Loose rivets
11th Aug 2010, 18:52
Despite enjoying target shooting, I have mixed feelings about gun ownership, especially since hearing of the shooting of a young friend.

It seems this lawyer was walking down the stairs in his home, and in some fit of rage, shot the stunningly beautiful young lady in the face. She died instantly.


Without a gun, he might have simply hit her. Armed, and with surprising longish range accuracy, she was gone forever.

Local attorney arrested in Addison murder case | CRIME Blog | dallasnews.com (http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/12/local-attorney-arrested-in-add.html)

Lon More
11th Aug 2010, 18:57
LR that makes a case for a new thread, "Barmy Gun Laws in the US!"

Captain Stable
11th Aug 2010, 18:58
That's a tragic, case, Rivets. I note thatMarshall has a criminal record that includes drunk driving and gun charges in Dallas. He was also convicted of disorderly conduct and assault in Lake Jackson in 1990, according to public records.And yet he was permitted to own firearms? Ah well - I suppose it was his God-given constitutional right - without his firearms, he would have been in danger from criminals, wouldn't he? :rolleyes:

Gentleman Jim
11th Aug 2010, 19:10
Well I take my hat off to the Judge!! he uses very wise and appropriate words for these two thugs and has given them an entirely appropriate sentence. Such wisdom used to be written in this hallowed hall until a while ago. Hope it comes back soon! Who knows if any of the weapons already manufactured by these two have already been used to kill or maim. Nice to see somebody restore some faith in the Judiciary.:D

Bronx
11th Aug 2010, 20:27
Interesting video

BBC News - 'James Bond-style' gun makers jailed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10938608)

jumpseater
12th Aug 2010, 00:59
Coke, 40, of Ilford, Essex, and Kadena, 26, of Waltham Forest, east London, were found guilty last Friday of conspiracy to possess firearms and ammunition with intent to enable others to endanger life.

Looking at various US Felony laws, these two got off relatively lightly in comparison to how they'd have fared in the US.
Heres a taster
http://www.dcfpd.org/sentencing/firearms_cheatsheet.pdf

parabellum
12th Aug 2010, 01:11
In Victoria, Australia you may, if you have good reason, own up to fifteen firearms and keep them at your home, provided they are properly secured in approved gun lockers with bolt removed and stored separately. Target shooting, pest control, hunting on approved land, with permission are three 'good reasons'.

The rules for carriage of these firearms in vehicles varies from state to state. You may only own up to, I think, three firearms of one specific type, i.e. .303 rifle, .308 rifle etc. Pistols are very carefully controlled and one has to be a regular member of a pistol club for a minimum of six months before even getting a licence.

If you are involved in a domestic dispute the police will take the lot into custody!

onetrack
12th Aug 2010, 02:23
boofhead - I'm a Vietnam vet with jungle experience, have been in charge of (and used) sizeable bore military assault weapons... I've been a farmer and rural dweller, have owned many weapons, have extensive shooting experience... and seeing someone openly carry, only makes me wet my pants, when I see that person carrying a loaded weapon over their shoulder, holding it by the barrel... or treating it as some kind of toy... :suspect:

The problem is that 90% of (legal) gun owners are poorly trained in the use of weapons, or have no training at all. Many are lax about weapon security and safety, and probably 50% of (legal) gun owners don't really have a compelling reason to own them, except to boost their deficient egos. :suspect:

I have seen, and often been right alongside, probably more than 30 AD's... most of which could be sheeted home to lack of weapons training... a lot to lack of understanding, even after being taught weapons safety... and others due to just plain carelessness.
My own brother was guilty of at least 3 AD's after purchasing a Model 94 lever-action .44 Winchester, that the previous owner had filed the sear on, to produce a hair-trigger.
I have never come across such a dangerous weapon, and AFAIC, the previous owner should have been charged for creating such danger.

I'd like to see your precise and official stats about the incidence of crime increasing in Australia, due to strict gun laws. I think you're the one cherry picking the selective arguments.
Crime hasn't increased substantially in Australia in recent years, despite your claim that it has. The levels of crime have been fairly static for many years.

Illegal handgun crime HAS increased in the Sydney area, due entirely to one single reason - allowing the importation of a large number of Middle-Eastern types who fall into the category I mentioned above... that of coming from a gun-worshipping, non-law-abiding culture.

As far as I'm concerned, any immigrant who acquires illegal weapons and uses them, should be deported right back to where they came from, after they have served a long sentence for their use.

One thing you have to agree on... that mass murders using military assault weapons have never occurred since the gun buyback and tightening of the ownership of automatic and military assault weapons in Australia.

However, the Americans still regularly have mass murders (usually right after disgruntled gun owners are fired from their job), and they just continue to accept multiple murders as a fact of life... rather than taking steps to reduce the staggering number of weapons (both legal and illegal) in their gun-worshipping society.

BarbiesBoyfriend
12th Aug 2010, 02:34
Am I the only guy who looked at the mugshots and thought 'criminals'?

onetrack
12th Aug 2010, 02:51
Bandaide - Firearms and alcohol need to be treated the same way. Prohibition doesn't work, but control does. Removing large numbers of weapons from society has to go a long way towards reducing gun-related deaths.

Removing military assault weapons from a civilian society also has to go a long way towards reducing gun-related deaths.
After all, military weapons have only one aim... to kill as many people as rapidly and efficiently as possible... and there is no place for them in a civilian, peaceful society.

AFAIC, anyone caught carrying an illegal, concealed hand gun, should be sentenced on a charge of premeditated murder... because if you ARE carrying a weapon on that basis, you ARE planning to kill someone. A jail term of 10-15 yrs should be the penalty, IMO, for this offence.

You claim you choose to arm yourself with weapons as protection against an unknown, armed person with criminal intent. I can assure you, if I was an armed thug, intent on attacking you, I would first suss out if you were armed, then ambush you. Seeing you with weapons only makes a criminal more cunning, it doesn't stop them from attacking you.

Your premise that you are safer being armed, is utterly false, and only gives you a feel-good feeling, that you have done something towards protecting your family.

galaxy flyer
12th Aug 2010, 03:08
Yet another thread on armed citizens going nowhere. Americans have their own traditions of, and belief in, armed citizens. The right is embedded in our Constitution and recently upheld in a Supreme Court ruling. We are different on the subject than Brits, Euros, Aussies and others. The Swiss, among others, show that armed citizens are nothing to fear--evil predators posing as citizens are something to fear and will not be stopped by control laws.

If you have seen 30 ADs, onetrack, you clearly have been surrounded by incompetent, poorly trained gun users. I have spent my life around weapons, civil and military, and never seen ONE, but know of precisely two. That's 50 years around guns, I started shooting at 7, hunting at 14 and carrying at 21.

GF

onetrack
12th Aug 2010, 03:22
Where you live have many criminals used military assault weapons to perpetrate their crimes?

Not since 1997, when the ownership of military weapons by civilians was removed... :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

SoulManBand
12th Aug 2010, 03:26
... and probably 50% of (legal) gun owners don't really have a compelling reason to own them, except to boost their deficient egos. :suspect:

The only reason you need to own a gun is to be an American. There is no such thing as "compelling reason" other than being alive in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

SASless
12th Aug 2010, 04:11
The Ban the Gun nuts are at it again!

Never mind facts when you argue your case folks.....never let the truth get into the way of your opinions about evil guns, evil gun owners, and the great humanity of illegally armed violent criminals perpetrating violent crimes against unarmed innocent victims.




AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN
It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer. In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

mfaff
12th Aug 2010, 07:50
GF,

There is a massive difference, both philosophically and practically between a US style 'armed citizen' and the Swiss style.

One is by 'Right' the other by obligation.
One carries 'right to trial' for use.. the other carries instant no appeal- no trial incarceration for use outside set and authorised military activity.

One permits storage in a loaded manner with easy access, the other requires unloaded storage of weapon and separate locked storage of ammunition... which must be formally accounted for during regulated recurrent training on a military staff supervised range.

Whilst one citizenry is 'armed' the other is 'tooled up'...

Having lived in both, the only time I have faced an armed person when not in uniform has been in the US....and when his intent was to take my car; it was not fun.

The issue is not whether or not UK/ US gun rules are barmy...the different attitudes both current and historically to guns in both nations is so different as to make this comparison moot..

What is reflected is the OP's own views and opinions
.
.
.
... and conclusions. Nothing more and nothing less.

Parapunter
12th Aug 2010, 08:05
The Ban the Gun nuts are at it again!

Never mind facts when you argue your case folks.....never let the truth get into the way of your opinions about evil guns, evil gun owners, and the great humanity of illegally armed violent criminals perpetrating violent crimes against unarmed innocent victims.

You have some brass cojones, I'll give you that. You have forgotten that you started this thread to express your disdain at the sentences meted out to a pair of career criminals intent on supplying guns to other criminals for the express purpose of comitting armed crimes in an unarmed country?

I find your attitude & reasoning incredible beyond belief. Why not post this at gunsrus.com if as seems the case, you want people to agree with your pro gun, anti British stance?

blue up
12th Aug 2010, 08:09
It is actually quite easy to get a firearm in the UK. Even by mail-order.

www.amazon.co.uk/firearms/9mm/full-auto

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j279/foggythomas/st1.jpg:}

Blacksheep
12th Aug 2010, 08:17
Huh! Anyone with a shed could knock up a Sten with 50 penn'orth of materials.

Oh! That's what they were knicked for, wasn't it? :rolleyes:

blue up
12th Aug 2010, 10:26
Yes. The plans are still available, the material easy to find and the skills required are small. Always seems strange that you can't buy the ammo in the UK but you can buy blanks and also dud ammo with new bullet heads. Surely not hard to make live ammo this way?

http://schatt.com/books/guns/misc-manuals/www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/sten_mk2_complete_machine_instructions.pdf

Keef
12th Aug 2010, 10:54
Well, this one's been round the block a few times, hasn't it! I have the sense of deja moo about it (we've heard this BS before).

Guns and ownership are like Pandora's box. Once it's open, you can't close it again. The USA went the route of "anyone can have guns" - probably necessary to allow the settlers to drive the native peoples off their land.

Once that was done, everyone had guns. At that point, banning guns would do nothing except prevent new arrivals from getting a gun easily, and that would offend against the sense of fair play.

Criminals who are hell bent on shooting people will always get a gun somehow, as is proven daily in parts of London and other cities.
But when they or their suppliers get caught in the UK, they rightly go to prison for a long time, which is what I thought this thread was about.

I've been to Detroit many times, and always felt nervous. A good friend of mine was held up at gunpoint there, and asked to hand over his "billfold". He was scared stiff (as you would be) but didn't have a "billfold" (a curious American thing). Fortunately, the nutter with the gun walked away and didn't kill him.

I went to a quiet spot in rural Arizona a few years ago. It was beautiful. Then a machine gun started up. There was a rifle range nearby, and some plonker was having the time of his life machine-gunning a target out of existence. I felt like suggesting a flame-thrower would be more effective, or maybe a pocket nuke, but decided he didn't look stable enough to risk me saying anything. He was grinning from ear to ear and shouting "Yee-ha!" Probably harmless, but he certainly would have had an armed response unit there in short order in most European countries (and Australia/New Zealand).

Starting from scratch, a logical government would impose restrictions on guns, particularly machine guns, flame throwers, grenade launchers, and pocket nukes. Once a significant proportion of the population has them, there's no point. Status quo is what you have and what you have to put up with.

HuntandFish
12th Aug 2010, 11:27
I havent seen much on this thread about the complexity of UK Gun laws .
It seems quite right that anything designed primarily to kill people should be banned .
Historic weapons are interesting some have to be deactivated by a suitably qualified gunsmith others for which ammunition is no longer available dont . So an original Sten that has been correctly deactivated is legal .Historic black powder guns are off certificate but a modern copy requires a certificate either Firearm or Shotgun depending on the type of gun and has to be kept in a locked cabinet .
I have a very accurate copy of a 1757 flintlock pistol I made . However its can be displayed because more maching is required to make it work .
That decorative signal canon in the garden may be illegal .
It all seems very complicated .
But the case that startes this thread is clear the guys had hanguns designed to kill they are illegal and possesion carries a mandatory jail sentence

SASless
12th Aug 2010, 12:05
The OP as I was called....in the polite version....questioned the "intent" issue and suggesting as there was no accusation of actually "transferring", "selling", or even merely "giving" a dangerous firearm to anyone.....that I felt the UK Gun Laws were in my modest opinion were "Barmy".

How does one get indicted for mere "intent"....other than Jimmy Carter admitted he had mentally lusted while reading a Playboy Magazine?

Even American law sets standards to define "intent" such as in amounts of that demon weed.....Mary Jane. Used to be anything over an ounce and you were a in possession with intent to distribute.

MadsDad
12th Aug 2010, 12:22
SASless, the 'with intent' charge is used to prosecute people who it is thought intend to commit a (usually serious) crime before the more serious offence takes place.

The most usual form is 'possession of drugs with intent to supply', as opposed to merely 'possessing drugs' - if you have more drugs than you could be reasonably expected to consume yourself it is assumed you are going to sell them and you will get done for that and it is a much more serious offence (and I'm sure there is an equivalent law in the US). Another is 'possession of tools with intent to use them in a burglary' (again I would be surprised if you didn't have a similar law in the US).

chuks
12th Aug 2010, 12:33
I could see building a kit car or a sailboat but converting guns to fire live ammunition? I think it must be quite reasonable to assume these two were in business, doing that in order to sell the weapons to other crims.

Anyway, as someone else pointed out, just look at them. "Bailiff! Take them away! Guilty of... whatever. Next case!"

There was one like that in Nigeria. "She is guilty, Sah!" said the Chief of Police to the reporter. "I see," replied he, "What did she do?"

"We ah investigating!"

SASless, ask yourself what Judge Roy Bean would have done with these two. A long drop with a short rope, probably.

Blacksheep
12th Aug 2010, 12:49
Then a machine gun started up.I was reading a copy of Guns & Ammo with an interesting article about target shooting in the USA.
With Field Guns!
Yep! 25 Pounders.

They fired them at targets out on a range out in the desert. These field gun owners would hitch their guns and limbers to the back of their 4x4s and head out for a bit of harmless fun at weekends. Apparently they were only allowed to use solid shot - no HE, AP or shrapnel rounds, but I don't know if they're still legal over there, as this was 20 years ago. I wonder how the UK Constabulary might react if one tried to put a 25 Pounder Field Gun on one's firearms certificate? :}

wings folded
12th Aug 2010, 13:21
that I felt the UK Gun Laws were in my modest opinion were "Barmy".



I am still struggling to detect the modesty involved in holding an opinion that laws of a different country from yours are "Barmy". They were enacted with a clear political mandate.

You might say "laws which I happen to find not to my taste", for example. There would be a little modesty involved there.

But it does not matter. The UK fortunately did not seek your opinions, whether modest or outrageous or somewhere in between.

radeng
12th Aug 2010, 13:27
Aren't the regulations in Northern Ireland regarding hand guns slightly different?

I was told by the people on the museum ship HMAS Diamantina in Brisbane that they were having enormous trouble trying to get some of the original fit guns from New Zealand : they were needing to be licenced as arms dealers!

Didn't they have a problem with preserving HMS Cossack and the Home Office requirment for Firearms certificate for the main armament?

Tankertrashnav
12th Aug 2010, 14:11
Re Stens


Yes. The plans are still available, the material easy to find and the skills required are small.


And the penalty, as we have seen above, is severe.

I cant make that Amazon link work but I'm absolutely cast-iron certain you cant buy a Sten on Amazon in the UK unless possibly a de-activated one with certificate.

Gainesy
12th Aug 2010, 14:27
Needing plans to build a Sten? That's like wanting a blueprint for a longbow.:)

Flying Binghi
12th Aug 2010, 14:50
Methinks there is a bit of 'tool fixation' by some...:hmm:

If you want to go on a murderous rampage ya dont need a gun... just get into your car and drive at high speed through the local shopping mall. Or perhaps yer could do a high speed drive through the local school yard - it has been done before. Not exciting enuf... go to the petrol station and buy some incendiary and....

Why.... former Australian Prime Minister John Howard cited TV violence as a prime motivator.




.

Gainesy
12th Aug 2010, 15:13
wouldn't pop up every couple of months on JetBlast.



Careful Dear, your slip is showing.
:suspect::p

Davaar
12th Aug 2010, 15:47
They were enacted with a clear political mandate.

Would you say so? Where was that mandate? They were enacted shortly after World War 1 by nervous government that feared disorder from ex-servicemen back from the Somme and Loos and Passchendaele who had been tossed out on their own and felt disgruntled. These chaps were all skilled in the use of the SMLE. One suggests that Government had no mandate whatsoever. But one is not dogmatic. Maybe you can show us differently.

It may be that the anti-gun laws continue by a mandate of acceptance, but that is not the same as enactment.

The traditional requirements enacted by statute upon statute over the centuries were that the lads be armed against the hazards of invasion and risk to the community, just as contemplated in the US (the armed militia).

Tankertrashnav
12th Aug 2010, 15:59
If the issue and its solution were as simple as you suggest, Capt. Stable, these gun threads that generate sustained, multipage responses until they are shut down, wouldn't pop up every couple of months on JetBlast.



From someone who a couple of weeks ago was a probationer:confused:


Careful Dear, your slip is showing.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cwm13.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/tongue.gif


Quite so Gainesy! Is it Brick reborn? ;)

Curious Pax
12th Aug 2010, 16:18
Where was that mandate?

Last time I checked we had a democratic government in the UK (love 'em or loathe 'em) so given that there was an election on 14th December 1918, then presumably the mandate stemmed from that. Unfortunately I don't have access to the election addresses of the successful candidates, so if you do, and can tell me that a majority stated that they wouldn't vote for gun control but then turned round and voted for it, then maybe you have a point.

Still, it was the first UK election at which women were allowed the vote - slippery slope and all that....

wings folded
12th Aug 2010, 16:26
They were enacted with a clear political mandate. Would you say so?
Yes.

Where was that mandate?
Inherent in the election of the government of the time(s) (see below)


They were enacted shortly after World War 1 by nervous government that feared disorder from ex-servicemen back from the Somme and Loos and Passchendaele who had been tossed out on their own and felt disgruntled.

Time might move at a different pace in Tir nan Og, but I would imagine that for most people, the following enactments are somewhat more that "shortly after WW1":

1937 Firearms Act
1967 Criminal Justice Act
1968 Firearms Act
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988
Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997

Gainesy
12th Aug 2010, 16:49
Eh? Nothing to forgive from me.

Hope so TT, hope so.:) Let's try the Jane Fonda test...:E

KBPsen
12th Aug 2010, 16:51
I would like to read an assessment as to why violent and property crimes decrease throughout America as gun ownership percentages of the population increase. Conversely, why do the same crimes increase after gun control laws are enacted?

A good position to start from is to accompany a stated opinion with some documentation so that the opinion could become the fact it is presented as.

MadsDad
12th Aug 2010, 17:16
I would like to read an assessment as to why violent and property crimes decrease throughout America as gun ownership percentages of the population increase. Conversely, why do the same crimes increase after gun control laws are enacted?

A question on this. I can't quote sources on this (as it was some time ago and in various places that I can't now remember) but I recall reading that one of the major successes in crime reduction, particularly in violent crime, was in New York City. And I have also been told that New York City has some of the strictest gun controls in the United States.

Either of those statements could be untrue and I would appreciate any correction but if my memory serves there is a distinct lack of correlation there between gun ownership and low crime.

boofhead
12th Aug 2010, 18:29
It is true that some places that have tighter gun control laws have succeeded in reducing crime, while the majority of such places have seen crime go up. One can cherry pick to prove whatever one wants, and it proves my earlier point that crime is a result of a violent society and has little to do with the weapons used.
However a dispationate examination of all the facts available clearly shows that gun control (also drug control) does not work. Those who would like to see tight gun restrictions admit that they are only going after the honest person, not the criminal. They know that it would be impossible to get all the guns presently on the streets, so they rely on the honest citizen to turn in their guns when asked to do so, threatening them with imprisonment or huge fines otherwise. Again, there has not been any attempt to disarm criminals, since this would be patently impossible.
It irks me to see the sheeple go along with government control as easily as they do, taking away rights and freedoms for reasons that do not hold up under scrutiny. You can fool all of the people some of the time.
In the US, people who can carry concealed weapons have to go through training, and there is only a tiny number of these people who commit crime, never mind crime using their approved weapon. They are generally the most law abiding people there are. In some states, no training is required, such as in Alaska, but for some reason crime, using firearms, is not a problem. Of course there are other crimes, offences against women are particularly common.
I note that in Aus, home invasions are more common than they are in the US, it has been suggested that criminals know they are safe to do these since there is only a slight chance that the home owners will be able to defend themselves. This type of offence is also common in new York and Chicago, two places that have high crime rates despite the toughest gun laws in the country.
Some studies show that in the US, citizens have deterred crime using their own firearms far many more times than have been reported by the media, since this does not agree with the media agenda. Some have reported that this happens nearly a million times each year in the US, so imagine the blood bath we would face if we could not protect ourselves.
If gun control had a chance to work, I would be all for it. It has never worked, and never can. Criminals are not affected by laws, hence their title.
In a similar way, the nazis (similar to Nazis, I agree) controlling our airports go after the honest person, crew or passenger, with zeal, but have no intention of actually stopping a hijacker. To the best of my knowledge, airport security, at least as we practice it in the West, has never stopped a hijacker, and has never captured one. I am always amused at the total lack of an armed response at the major airports. What would the sole policeman on duty do when confronted with an armed, perhaps bomb-carrying fanatic in the security conga line? Ask him to please surrender?
It is my opinion that all this garbage is designed for only one reason; to take away our rights and freedoms. It cannot work as advertised, and is a sick joke. "give up your right to defend yourself and we will protect you". (guns, airport security, drugs, etc). Yeah, sure.

blue up
12th Aug 2010, 18:46
Didn't they NEARLY stop Richard Reid (the shoe bomber)?:rolleyes: Sadly, it seems they didn't check HIS shoes quite as carefully as they check my RAF flying boots every time I go through Gatwick security.

Last week I managed to accidentally get a 1.5 litre bottle of water through security but they did pick up that my pass was upside down in the holder.

Lucky I didn't get shot!

Davaar
12th Aug 2010, 20:09
Interesting views on "mandate": "mandate" = "blank cheque".

Avoid cliches like "slippery slope" or as it often is called "non sequitur".

Think of the implications of the "blank cheque".

tony draper
12th Aug 2010, 20:17
Always been a tad puzzled as to why those chaps who made it back from the insanity of the trenches didn't take to the streets and commence to string up the entire ruling and officer class,but then that's the kind of thing those dammed furiners do not us.
Still it would have been understandable.
:uhoh:

Davaar
12th Aug 2010, 20:22
The very same thought crossed the minds of the ruling classes, left, right or centre; and hence the anti-gun legislation following World War 1. It was not just your "officer class", though. The Commies brought in the same thing in the Soviet Union, and that is why they were able to starve millions of kulaks to death. As Stalin -- or was it Lenin? I could look it up -- said: "Who whom?" Nothing to do with mandates.

That is why we can read of Holmes and Watson casually going off on adventures armed with the old "service revolver". Perfectly legal.

pigboat
12th Aug 2010, 20:35
I've been to Detroit many times, and always felt nervous. A good friend of mine was held up at gunpoint there, and asked to hand over his "billfold". He was scared stiff (as you would be) but didn't have a "billfold"
Given the expression, the guy was probably Canadian from Windsor.

johns7022
12th Aug 2010, 20:37
When seconds count, the police are minutes away....

tony draper
12th Aug 2010, 20:39
I think people should be allowed all the guns they want,just make bullets illegal.
:uhoh:

boofhead
12th Aug 2010, 22:38
Now, Tony, that's just silly.

tony draper
12th Aug 2010, 23:11
No that's what they call lateral thinking.
Remember, Guns dont kill people, it's the bullets that are lethal.:rolleyes:

FakePilot
13th Aug 2010, 00:26
Removing military assault weapons from a civilian society also has to go a long way towards reducing gun-related deaths.

1. The US Assault Weapon Ban was allowed to expire because one of the arguments was assault weapons aren't used often in crimes.

2. Second, I bought some assault weapons during the ban. Huh?

3. Would the military buy the exact same assault weapons that civilians can?

So.... if you're going to pick on assault weapons answer 2 and 3 first.

galaxy flyer
13th Aug 2010, 00:46
Until recently the US Government, in the good offices of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship, sold assault rifles to the PUBLIC!!! The M1 Garand, termed the "best battle rifle ever by General Patton, was sold and shipped to citizens. I have several friends with them.

In April, 1775, armed citizens in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, shot the sh*t out of the King's Best Troops at Lexington and Concord. Could that fact influence our British poster's opinions? Yanks have never had much respect for authority.

GF

Flying Binghi
13th Aug 2010, 01:05
I recall reading that one of the major successes in crime reduction, particularly in violent crime, was in New York City.

You have been sold a lie.

For the reality of what happened the goggle search word is "Demographics" Look at the effect a large percentage of young unemployed males have on the crime rate.




.

con-pilot
13th Aug 2010, 01:57
I recall reading that one of the major successes in crime reduction, particularly in violent crime, was in New York City

That is true, it is also true that it had nothing to do with gun control. The reason that crime dropped in New York City when it did was because of Rudi Giuliana. He was elected on a get tough on crime platform. After he was elected he overhauled the New York City Police Department, got rid of the corruption, made the police inforce the law and cleaned up Times Square.

Before Giuliana cleaned up Times Square I would not go there in broad daylight unless armed and with at least two other armed people.

Since Giuliana one can go to Times Square at midnight with your family and not fear a thing.

tony draper
13th Aug 2010, 08:10
I read that one of the reasons for a drop in crime over a long period in NYC was the introduction of free abortions for the underclass, a whole new generation of scumbags went unborn.
Who says eugenics does not work.:E

BlueWolf
13th Aug 2010, 09:16
Alladin's cave (http://www.guncity.co.nz/), about 20 minutes from the Chez Wolf, in the country with the world's 2nd most sensible gun laws ;)

KBPsen
13th Aug 2010, 11:36
After he was elected he overhauled the New York City Police Department, got rid of the corruption, made the police inforce the law and cleaned up Times Square.

So the key to reducing crime is to enforce the law?

Bruce Wayne
13th Aug 2010, 12:01
So the key to reducing crime is to enforce the law?


Bingo !

yet the political classes have in the past seen the neccessity to enact more legislation in order to reduce crime, rather than enforce law already in effect.

Crime is against the law, more legislation doesnt make it any more illegal.

onetrack
13th Aug 2010, 13:41
Well, we've had 3 hoods killed with guns in Melbourne, just in one day, today. This will really get the NRA supporters going... as they'll be able to self-righteously point out, how these innocent people were gunned down in public places, because they couldn't conceal carry..... :hmm:

On that basis, perhaps I could interject into their argument, that the hoods killed were almost certainly armed with weaponry, and well-armed at that. So much for being armed, being the prime factor in saving your skin... :rolleyes:

Of course, the NRA supporters will now seize with glee on this "massive surge" in gun death statistics, once again proving that Australians are cowering helpless in their houses, because "all their guns have been taken off them..." :rolleyes:

tony draper
13th Aug 2010, 13:51
According to Stephen Fry the most heavily armed nation in the world is Switzerland with two firearms for every single person.:)

Captain Stable
13th Aug 2010, 14:01
As has been pointed out before, and not only in this thread, Switzerland is a special case - it is not gun ownership but gun possession which is high in Switzerland, and is very, very tightly controlled by the military, who are responsible for administration - the keepers are service personnel.

tony draper
13th Aug 2010, 14:13
Yer, Swiss army chaps can take their tanks home.:)

wings folded
13th Aug 2010, 14:16
Yer, Swiss army chaps can take their tanks home.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif


Taking home their battleships and submarines is heavily discouraged however.

SASless
13th Aug 2010, 14:46
Getting back to post one.....that started this discussion.....which has been all about anything but the original issue.

Coke, 40, of Ilford, Essex, and Kadena, 26, of Waltham Forest, east London, were found guilty last Friday of conspiracy to possess firearms and ammunition with intent to enable others to endanger life.

How does one get done for intent....without any proven transfer or sale of a weapon?

How does one get done for intent...when not one life was endangered as there was no report of a weapon being transferred or sold?

I have no problem with a conviction for possession, altering, or the sale of illegal firearms....but I do have a huge problem with someone being convicted of "intent" with no apparant proof of overt action to prove the charged "intent".

Ace Rimmer
13th Aug 2010, 15:14
All this talk of conversion of replicas and antiques reminded me of a story. Chap I knew was into the restoration of WW2 military vehicles – when he was finished these things were like museum pieces (cept they still worked and so forth) – started with Jeeps and by and by he eventually got a hold of a Sherman (from the Spanish Army if memory serves). As before he set about restoring it to it’s from the factory glory. Some time into the project he said to me in the pub one night come out to the car a sec got something to show you – any how he opens up the boot and there is a .50 (which he had acquired from somewhere for the aforesaid tank). Says I (at the time working for Aunty Betty in the walking and shooting club) “do you think that’s such a red hot idea driving about with that in the boot?” “Oh it’s all right” says he – “it’s been de-commissioned” Yeah says I “that’ll work. How do you think PC Plod will react to that? I don’t think the “It’s all right Constable, it’s for my tank defence will help much either”.

And back to the original thread at least four spotted who the judge was, nice one yer honour top judging.

wings folded
13th Aug 2010, 16:38
Coke, 40, of Ilford, Essex, and Kadena, 26, of Waltham Forest, east London, were found guilty last Friday of conspiracy to possess firearms and ammunition with intent to enable others to endanger life.


How does one get done for intent....without any proven transfer or sale of a weapon?

What is so complicated about the word "intent"? The intention is the state that preceeds the act. If a weapon had been transferred or sold, the charge would not have been "intent".

Laws against crminal intent are in place to attempt to limit the commission of crimes.

Why does the word "conspiracy" drop off your horizon? It seems to me that even your US judicial system has a notion of the potential criminality of conspiracy to commit an illegal act.

Back to "intent":

Suppose I have a lethal weapon in my hands with which I take aim at somebody. Suppose also that I have a good handful of policemen around me. Suppose I declare "I am about to shoot the [email protected] out of that chap"

Would you not expect the police to do something?

Or would you expect them to say, "Well. look, he has so far done nothing wrong. Let us wait, shall we not, until he has killed somebody, because then we have grounds to intervene. In the meantime, we will talk amongst ourselves".

galaxy flyer
13th Aug 2010, 16:39
Bluie I like it--must visit. :ok: :ok:

onetrack How did the Australian gun laws protect those 3 hoods?

GF

SASless
13th Aug 2010, 19:16
Mere possession of a firearm or a bunch of firearms by an individual cannot be construed to be "intent to provide dangerous weapons for the endangerment of others"....no matter how you slice it.

Wings.....get a grip old lad...merely pointing a firearm at someone....even if remaining stone silent...is sufficient to provoke an arrest for Assault By Pointing a Firearm....even in this wilderness called America.

You evade the question by raising a strawman argument.

What is the burden of proof by the Plod when it comes to "intent" in this case extant?

hellsbrink
13th Aug 2010, 19:42
SASless

They were in a country, the UK, where handguns and most other firearms are BANNED so there was no "right" of possession in the first case. But that is another matter you may not agree with.

Now, to make things a little easier for you to understand, they were found with no less than NINE illegal firearms, and ammunition, and that is enough to warrant a charge of "intent" and not mere possession because of the numbers involved. Also, do remember that the police would not have charged them thus if there was no other evidence to lead them, the legal system AND a jury to believe these two scumbags were doing anything "legitimate" or "for their own use". The two scumbags could NOT provide a logical or proper defence against said charges, because they were guilty as charged. If you have trouble realising this, I think you should turn off your computer and go back to playing Ludo as it's obvious some issues are beyond your capabilities.

Now, tell me. How long would they have gotten in the US for the illegal manufacture, conversion and sale of firearms? 14 years? Guess what, they could easily get 10 years for EACH count of breaking the law so your country could easily give them a 90 year sentence each, and probably more because of the type of weapon two of the weapons seized were and any previous convictions, so you can easily see them getting 100+ years over on your side of the pond under Federal law.

Now, since in the UK they got 14 years, are you saying that the laws in the UK are "barmy" because they got a lenient sentence compared to the USA or because 14 years is "harsh"? If the latter, what does that make YOUR federal laws, apart from absolute bloody lunacy since the penalty would be far harsher..........

SASless
13th Aug 2010, 21:43
Attempt

An attempt to commit a crime is conduct intended to lead to the commission of the crime. It is more than mere preparation, but it falls short of actual commission of the intended offense. An intent to commit a crime is not the same as an attempt to commit a crime. Intent is a mental quality that implies a purpose, whereas attempt implies an effort to carry that purpose or intent into execution. An attempt goes beyond preliminary planning and involves a move toward commission of the crime.

As a general rule, an attempt to commit a crime is a misdemeanor, whether the crime itself is a felony or a misdemeanor. However, in a case of violent crime, an attempt may be classified as a felony. Attempted murder and attempted rape are examples of felonious attempts.

In an attempt case, the prosecution must prove that the defendant specifically intended to commit the attempted crime that has been charged. General intent will not suffice. For example, in an attempted-murder case, evidence must show a specific intent to kill, independent from the actual act, such as a note or words conveying the intent. In a murder case, intent may be inferred from the killing itself.

Conspiracy

When two or more persons act together to break the law, conspiracy is an additional charge to the intended crime. For example, if two persons conspire to commit robbery, and they commit the robbery, both face two charges: conspiracy to commit robbery and robbery.



My question remains re the "intent" the convicted pair had as to "endangering others by others"....did they knowlingly provide illegal firearms with the express intent for harm to come to someone? Or...did the Plod and UK law assert that just by the fact they had several illegal firearms. Did they transfer, sale or give any firearms to any person with the knowledge the weapon would be used for harming someone?

If I sell a sheath knife to someone....does that make me liable if it is used in a murder?

If I sell a meat cleaver to someone....and he takes it to his wife one evening after the Pub closes....am I liable in that case?

hellsbrink
13th Aug 2010, 21:51
Aim a firearm at someone, the laws say you are "endagering" them.

Supply the firearm illegally, you are enabling someone to endager someone.

Supplying illegal firearms suggests they will not be used for peaceful purposes, since they are not held legally, so therefore the threat of endangerment is real. Knowing that threat is real, since the firearms are illegal, means you are deliberately and knowingly enabling others to put a person or persons in danger.

What is so difficult to comprehend?

tony draper
13th Aug 2010, 22:01
Wait until there is a proper war, the buggas will put you in jail for not picking up a firearm.
:rolleyes:

Bruce Wayne
13th Aug 2010, 22:03
SASless,

perhaps if the police raided my shed and found me with a single replica locked in vice having converted it to a live weapon the police would have me for possession of an illegal firearm..

.. now if they raided my shed and found several items and specialist equipment that my 'associate' and i had acquired enabling us to convert multiple weapons or on a regular basis that would be intent to supply.

with the drugs equation, if a person had 10 grammes of Bolivian marching powder in one bag, that could be argued for personal use..

.. however, if the 10 grammes is separated into 10x1 ounce bags and found (in the boot of my lowered BMW635 with 18inch chrome rims) that would be considered intent to supply/distribute.

they were found guilty of manufacturing or converting illegal firearms with the tooling to do so in multiple numbers, in a lockup used as an illegal rave venue.

Tankertrashnav
13th Aug 2010, 22:11
I think you are wasting your time, Bruce. In spite of many very reasonable and skilful attempts by you and other posters on this thread to extricate this particular bee from Sasless's bonnet, said insect shows remarkable resiliance and refuses to budge.

Bruce Wayne
13th Aug 2010, 22:17
maybe......

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Fly-swatter.jpg

hellsbrink
13th Aug 2010, 22:59
This would maybe work a bit better, Bruce

http://www.homedepot.ca/wcsstore/HomeDepotCanada/images/catalog/39482_4.jpg

SASless
13th Aug 2010, 23:33
From a news article about the case......interesting use of words like "...was no evidence.....and.....is believed...." instead of affirmative statements.

Officers estimate the pair had been running the operation for at least three months and whilst there was no evidence that they had been selling the items from the location, it is believed likely that they had already profited from their activity.


The Met Police Press Release.....containing the quote listed above.

Homemade 'gun factory' closed - Metropolitan Police Service (http://cms.met.police.uk/news/convictions/homemade_gun_factory_closed)

Whirlygig
13th Aug 2010, 23:48
whilst there was no evidence that they had been selling the items from the location,From the location being the operative words ...

Cheers

Whirls

Davaar
13th Aug 2010, 23:50
maybe......

........................and here, Gentlemen, we have an illustration of "intent".

Bruce Wayne
14th Aug 2010, 10:11
SASless,

good work on the met police link..


Inside the first they had created an effective operation for converting imitation and blank-firing handguns into live firearms


THAT's your intent to supply.

it's turds like this pair that cause the enactment of problematic legislation for legal and responsible firearms owners.

the good judge called it right. anyone who is supportive of responsible firearms ownership will no doubt agree.

the police, particularly the met, get a hard time of it, often rightly so, in this case they did an excellent job.

TerminalTrotter
14th Aug 2010, 11:39
If the US method of sentencing on each count were applied to some of the items I and my compatriots manufactured during our school days we would be looking at a couple of lifetimes inside. With hindsight we're lucky to be here. Not to mention salvaging HE from unexploded shells after removing the (valuable) brass fuze. And chiselling off the (valuable) copper driving band. And belting shrapnel shells with sledge hammers to loosen the (valuable) lead balls. Happy days.

TT

onetrack
14th Aug 2010, 12:07
onetrack How did the Australian gun laws protect those 3 hoods?
GF - As I stated previously, there's no way you're going to survive, no matter what you're armed with, if someone sets their mind on disposing of you. Ambush, long range sniper rifle, booby-trapped vehicle... there are a myriad of ways of knocking people off. These hoods come from a culture of intense hatred, a gun culture, permanent gun violence, permanent revenge and payback, and regular murder. There's very little the police can do to stop these and other murderously-inclined criminals knocking each other off.

The gun laws in Australia are structured to TRY and prevent mass murders, and random murders, of innocent citizens, to TRY and reduce armed robberies, to TRY and prevent mentally-unsound people from acquiring weapons, and to REDUCE the amount of weapons in our society.
Illegal weapons seizures are regular and common (guns, rifles, knives and anything else deemed to cause serious injury to persons), and every postal parcel that enters the country is X-rayed, bar none. I believe all these steps are as good as we can ever get to reduce the amount of illegal weapons. There's no way that any law will ever stamp out illegal gun ownership or murders committed by the people who acquire them.

I believe that a society with a lower number of weapons overall (both legal and illegal) is generally a safer society. Of all the above methods, the one of regular vehicle search and seizure, as used by police, is a very effective method that is used to back up Australian gun laws.

I don't have a problem with gun ownership, if the guns are issued to the right people, for worthy reasons, and if they have received proper instruction in the safe handling, use and storage of weapons.
Where I baulk, is at arming the entire population, and allowing weapons to flourish in huge numbers, as in America. I'm led to understand there are 4 weapons to every American, and this makes for around 1.2 BILLION weapons in the U.S., which factor alone, MUST increase weapons crimes.

SASless
14th Aug 2010, 13:25
Bruce....fully agree with your views about the detrimental effect of irrational responses to criminal violations which result in law abiding persons being punished for the crimes of others.

I have no doubt the two in this case had every intent to sell their illegal arms....but that is based upon commonsense and not a "legal" proof in my book. One would think Plod would have run an undercover agent into the place and in time have made a purchase or two and then had a very real case to take to court.

The Plod did a "good" job in that the operation was broken up.....their case was proven in court.....and the Judge applied appropriate punishment under the UK Law. Several weapons were removed from possible use but in my view the case was very weak re proving "intent" as charged.

If the Plod could provide physical and testimonial evidence confirming the illegal transfer of some weapons....what kind of penalty could have resulted that would have really put a crimp into not only these two guys but others who contemplate doing the same thing?

Tyres O'Flaherty
14th Aug 2010, 15:53
The first time I ever saw a Gun was when I first went to Crete as a youngster, on a copper who was nicking someone.

The only other times I've seen them have been at the airport on Police, as has become more common since then.

Never see them & I do tend to get about in the UK, and I quite like it like that thank you very much.

A A Gruntpuddock
14th Aug 2010, 16:11
From what I read about the US, the greatest numbers of attacks using guns come from states where such guns are most regulated.

I reckon that I am more likely to be shot by the British police than by a criminal, should we not disarm them as well?

Gertrude the Wombat
14th Aug 2010, 17:23
I reckon that I am more likely to be shot by the British police than by a criminal
I think that either you're wrong or you're a criminal.

I think that innocent people wrongly shot by the British police run at about one or two per decade, whereas innocent people shot by criminals come in considerably higher than that - it gets into double figures some years.

Criminals shooting each other is top of the list, and of course armed criminals also risk getting shot by police. The best way to avoid getting shot in the UK is to choose not to be a criminal.

Parapunter
14th Aug 2010, 17:34
May you live long and prosper.

Kind sentiments indeed Ben There

Bruce Wayne
14th Aug 2010, 18:44
I have no doubt the two in this case had every intent to sell their illegal arms....but that is based upon commonsense and not a "legal" proof in my book. One would think Plod would have run an undercover agent into the place and in time have made a purchase or two and then had a very real case to take to court.



why ?

Inside the first they had created an effective operation for converting imitation and blank-firing handguns into live firearms

Inside the first they had created an effective operation for converting imitation and blank-firing handguns into live firearms
THAT's your intent to supply.


The result follows a pro-active and intelligence-led operation



so instead, putting an undercover officer in the field risks the potential of these ass-clowns getting a heads up and removing any evidence and the potential of an 'entrapment' defence all the while waiting for an U/C to set them up puts more illegal guns on the streets. they gained intel, got a warrant, got the guys, the guns and tooling 'bang to rights'.

as we have considered its NOT responsible and legitimate gun owners that cause the problems its illegal and criminal gun owners.


I'm uneasy with proving intent also. A crime is a crime. Intent is a thought. To try thought crime is an Orwellian nightmare.


sorry BandAide, that's 100% texas horsesh!t. by your own post..

I like having my own gun, a Kimber Pro Carry II 1911 .45 semi, for self-protection. I quite like it like that, thank you very much

so seeing as you use it for protection, you would then wait for someone to unload their weapon into you before you pulled the trigger on them ?

if some drugged up low life pulls on you, your wife or children while you are stopped at a red light, you would wait for them to shoot you in the face before you eliminated the threat ?

... of course, until they do, you cant prove intent and thinking 'that's what he may do' is punishing him for a thought crime .. very orwellian.

Captain Stable
14th Aug 2010, 20:22
Bruce, you've got alowered BMW635 with 18inch chrome rims :suspect: ???

You tart! ;)

Bruce Wayne
14th Aug 2010, 20:30
CS,

hell nooo.

Davaar
14th Aug 2010, 20:32
which factor alone, MUST increase weapons crimes.

With great respect that is a false conclusion, a non-sequitur; and in fact, disregarding the fault in principle, these sheets reveal over and over, year by year, official statistics from the US show that the jurisdictions allowing freedom to carry DO NOT have increased weapons crimes.

Just to be clear on my position, I have never had and do not want a handgun. I have used them of course, and other firearms. I have myself but one, a rifle for which I hold a licence.

There are of course conditions that do predispose to violent crime, but no one dare mention them. We all know that.

Bruce Wayne
14th Aug 2010, 21:05
BandAide,

Indeed, maybe I am, however, as the old saying goes, there is no such thing justice, only the law.

Intent may indeed, in some case be subtle in others not.

The point you illustrated was your problem with intent, yet also carry for the purpose of 'protection'.

And there's the rub...

The fact you carry could be considered as intent.

You intend to use your firearm for the purpose for which it was manufactured in the event that your safety may be threatened. That could under some circumstances be considered as 'premeditated' in the event that you may have the need to use it.

I sincerely hope you never have to.

However, the law in the strictest terms could be interpreted in that manner against you, should you find yourself having to defend your actions down the line.

Perhaps our imaginary crack head who pulled a gun on you, your wife and your children late at night while stationary at a red light and demanded your money, your car, your watch had weapon that was not loaded. Yet you eliminated the threat. Where was his intent if he used an unloaded weapon ?

This is why the legal process, in democratic states with due process, allows for the trial of an individual with account for the evidence taken into account with the interpretation of the law administered by a judge.

Using your situation for example; again I reiterate the point, if you are at that traffic light with your family and a gun is waved at your family with demands, without the consideration for 'intent' there is no argument for 'self-defense'.

Indeed that could be carried across the board and completely nullify the self-defense argument. Without the proof of intent by the committal of an act that would prove fatal, then there can be no self defense. You cant be dead and defend yourself.

Quite simply you would have to wait for the crack head to pop a round in to the cranium of your wife, your child or you before you have the opportunity for retaliation.

Then that's not self defense is it, its purely that. Retaliation. And retaliation is not justified by the law, punishment after trail would be, but then you are not the police nor the legal system enacting due process.

Again, if the crack head points a firearm at you at night you have no way of knowing if it is loaded or not until the trigger is pulled, then perhaps it would be too late to respond in defense, and if the weapon is not loaded and just clicks, it could also be argued that there was no intent on part of the perpetrator as the weapon was not loaded.

As a responsible owner of firearms, i am sure you can appreciate that people like that cause politicians to enact 'knee jerk' legislation that has no effect on the criminal element that owns, trades and converts illegal firearms, but impinges on the responsible majority.

Again, if we go back to the original situation without too much diversion, then the possession of 9 illegal firearms converted from replicas or inert weapons with the tooling to do so consistently and in multiples is indeed intent.

Bruce Wayne
14th Aug 2010, 21:45
Laws and practises vary from state to state, but in Michigan, the perpetrator's weapon can be an unloaded or even toy gun. If you, the victim, feel fear for your safety, the armed assault has occurred. That is the criteria for armed robbery and assault.

It is incumbent on you, if you fire, to show that you felt fear to justify an armed response. You also have to consider that the damage behind your target from missed shots or rounds passing through your target is your liability.

If you defend yourself you are likely to face at least a civil suit from the criminal or his family even if your actions are cleared in court. The cost to you will likely run above $10,000.

So you don't just pull out your piece and shoot. You assess the threat and take reasonable action to preserve your safety. That's all you are allowed under the law in Michigan.

Michigan is a Castle Doctrine state meaning if someone enters your house you are authorized to use deadly force as your life is presumed to be in danger.

Michigan's Castle Doctrine Law and You (http://www.ammoland.com/2009/08/03/michigans-castle-doctrine-law-and-you/)


indeed,

so that allows for consideration of intent. not waiting for the actual act to be commited by allowing for preemptive action based on the consideration of intent.

Bruce Wayne
14th Aug 2010, 22:00
If you, the victim, feel fear for your safety, the armed assault has occurred.

*my bold and italics

but then that is subjective.

going back to the original question, on your problem with 'intent' the characters were in possession of 9 illegally converted firearms with the tooling to do so in multiple numbers.

that is is not down to what someone actually felt in terms of personal safety subjectivity, but by hard evidence in terms of the possession of 9 illegally converted firearms with the tooling acquired and in place to do so in perpetuity.

again, there's your intent.

Bruce Wayne
14th Aug 2010, 22:08
my assessment comes from my reading of the law and a Michigan required course for obtaining a carry permit


which would put you into the category of a responsible gun owner who wishes to carry and possess a firearm in accordance with the laws of the state.

these characters had 9 illegally converted firearms and the tooling to illegally convert firearms in perpetuity.

as such they were found guilty of being outside of the law involving the illegal conversion of firearms in multiple numbers, though due process and consideration of the law. the numbers of weapons converted and possessed along with the tooling is evidence of intent.

Again, it is the criminal element that possesses, trades and converts illegal firearms that causes legislation that affects legitimate firearms owners the criminal element is in possession of illegal firearms and not in accordance with the laws of the state.

Bruce Wayne
14th Aug 2010, 22:19
That should be the basis of the charges. Did they intend to distribute? Who cares?



which would have earned them 5 years a piece IIRC. with time off for good behaviour they would probably be released on licence in some 2.5 years....

instead they got 9 and 14 years for posession and intent to distribute.

Again, the quantities involved and the tooling brings forth intent.

Tankertrashnav
14th Aug 2010, 23:26
At which point BA and BW turned round and discovered that everyone else had tiptoed out of the room. ;)

MG23
15th Aug 2010, 00:55
it's turds like this pair that cause the enactment of problematic legislation for legal and responsible firearms owners.

No, politicians cause the enactment of problematic legislation for responsible firearms owners.

A century ago, back when any Briton with 50p to spare could buy a license to carry a gun anywhere they felt like, what these people were doing would have been perfectly legal. So home gunsmiths certainly weren't responsible for Britain's firearms laws; in fact all the documentation I'm aware of shows that the British government passed those laws because they were afraid of a Soviet-style revolution and then lied to claim that they did it to reduce armed crime rates which were far lower than they are today.

I was reading recently about the British police dealing with crimes by Eastern European revolutionaries in London early in the last century and some of the most interesting parts were that not only did various members of the public pull out their guns and help the police chase the criminals, but other members of the public lent their guns to the police, who were unarmed. Kind of makes you wonder if the prospect of being chased by a mob of gun-wielding passers-by is related to the armed crime rates being so much lower back then.

SASless
15th Aug 2010, 01:43
The "Barmy Gun Laws" are based upon "barmy" facts and politics!

UK gun laws have disarmed the law abiding....done nothing to disarm the violent criminal....have ignored social reasons for the up tick in crime....have ignored the increased crime rates...and were never publically debated or Police procedures made public while the campaign to disarm the citizenry was underway.

If anything in this article is true.....it shows the current UK laws to be a tool of the government to protect itself against the population of the country should the good citizens of the UK decide the government is out of control. At least in the USA....we have the ability to stand up to an oppressive governemnt should it become necessary due to the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the recent Supreme Court decisions that remind the Federal Government of that right to be armed by the individual citizen.

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason Magazine (http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome)

Bruce Wayne
15th Aug 2010, 08:02
The "Barmy Gun Laws" are based upon "barmy" facts and politics!

UK gun laws have disarmed the law abiding....done nothing to disarm the violent criminal


can't disagree with that !

A A Gruntpuddock
15th Aug 2010, 09:13
"I think that innocent people wrongly shot by the British police run at about one or two per decade, whereas innocent people shot by criminals come in considerably higher than that - it gets into double figures some years."

Shot dead by police 30. Officers convicted 0 - Crime, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/shot-dead-by-police-30-officers-convicted-0-511859.html)

And these figures are only for those killed, not wounded.

bcgallacher
15th Aug 2010, 09:18
Just ponder on the fact that 27000 people are shot dead in the USA every year, an average of 8 children a day shot dead - if these children were dying of disease it would be termed an epidemic.The Americans pay a high price for the ability to carry firearms - ask British people if we should have the same laws and there would be a resounding no.In comparison to the USA our gun crime is miniscule - mass shootings are rare as opposed to the USA where they are a regular occurrence.The laws in the USA cannot be changed as the guns are already in society so they will have to live with the situation they have.

hellsbrink
15th Aug 2010, 09:50
bcgallacher

Can you get statistics to break down the "8 kids killed by firearms per day" to "kids killed by LEGALLY held firearms per day" and "kids killed by ILLEGALLY held firearms per day"? The reason is simple, full UK gun control in the US would mean many, and maybe more than the present, would still be killed by illegally held firearms as those with illegally held weapons are more likely to actually use them against a person or persons. Also, please bear in mind the small matter of the gun control lobby "massaging" statistics by counting a child as being someone under 20 whereas the CDC and others use 17 as the upper limit. Therefore, the "worst statistics" include adults and also includes many teens who will be involved in gangs and associated violence.

Now, sure, there are problems but the biggest thing that can be done in the US is to actually enforce existing laws properly and get rid of those who are selling weapons illegally. As has been said by others here,responsible owners are not the issue, same as firearms are not actually the issue. The issue lands squarely with illegal weapons, irresponsible and/or illegal sales and irresponsible owners. Get that problem sorted out and you'll see a change in the way things are in the US.

PS. Do note that, as stated earlier, cities/states with the strictest laws regarding firearm control also have the highest rates of homicide and other firearm related crimes, same as a country with strict firearm laws like the UK has a relatively high rate of crime involving firearms. That, alone, should be food for thought.

Bruce Wayne
15th Aug 2010, 10:14
Just ponder on the fact that 27000 people are shot dead in the USA every year, an average of 8 children a day shot dead - if these children were dying of disease it would be termed an epidemic.The Americans pay a high price for the ability to carry firearms - ask British people if we should have the same laws and there would be a resounding no.In comparison to the USA our gun crime is miniscule - mass shootings are rare as opposed to the USA where they are a regular occurrence.The laws in the USA cannot be changed as the guns are already in society so they will have to live with the situation they have.


BCG,

a fair point of consideration. however, the US population stands at 307m+, where as the UK stands at 61.5m+.

thats five times the amount. so on a percentage per population head, the equatable figure should be 5,400.

however: According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07

however firearms are subject to much different legislation in the UK than in the US.

statistics can be used either way..

According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997

also..

Data provided to The Sunday Telegraph by nearly every police force in England and Wales, under freedom of information laws, show that the number of firearms incidents dealt with by officers annually is 60 per cent higher than figures stated by the Home Office.

Last year 5,600 firearms offences were excluded from the official figures. It means that, whereas the Home Office said there were only 9,800 offences in 2007/8, the real total was around 15,400. The latest quarterly figures, due to be released on Thursday, will again exclude a significant number of incidents.

Thousands of offences including gun-smuggling and illegal possession of a firearm - which normally carries a minimum five-year jail sentence - are omitted from the Home Office's headline count, raising questions about the reliability of Government crime data.



The thing is we cant directly equate US gun crime to UK gun crime, they have different population numbers, different population dispersal and different socio-economic demographics. much less they have different laws pertaining to the ownership of firearms.

The problem is that for those who use firearms in connection with criminal intent the illegal use is outside of the law and such legistlation further restricting possession does nothing to countermand this. it only removes firearms from legal and lawful owners.

the issue raised in this thread is the prosecution of illegal owners / manufacturers of firearms. They were operating outside of teh law in respect of firearm conversion and ownership and were duly arrested tried in a court of law and found guilty through due process.

any further legislation would do nothing to prevent such activity only further restict owners who possess in accordance with the laws of the state.

Gertrude the Wombat
15th Aug 2010, 10:14
Yes, the chair leg man and the electrician on the tube were the two I was thinking of.

The others in that list, such as "Shot in 2002 in Aylesbury after he confronted officers with a sword and shotgun" were not quite what I had in mind with my choice of the word "innocent".

Krystal n chips
15th Aug 2010, 12:07
" At least in the USA....we have the ability to stand up to an oppressive governemnt should it become necessary due to the Second Amendment to the Constitution and the recent Supreme Court decisions that remind the Federal Government of that right to be armed by the individual citizen."

CNN / Reuters / ABC.....ok, and Fox ...if you insist.....

"Breaking News ! US uprising leads to regime change !"

Any idea when the revolution is due to start then SASless ....?:E

Bruce Wayne
15th Aug 2010, 12:13
thread directions from here:

.. turn off at signposts marked "Ruby Ridge"!

Tyres O'Flaherty
15th Aug 2010, 13:04
In this country I don't have to fear being confronted by a gun wielded by anyone except at the airport. It's pretty unlikely that it'd ever happen.

I doubt if I ever gave guns much thought apart from the circumstances already mentioned ( and this thread ).

If you wade in sh*t no doubt you don't notice the smell.

I doubt I'd see one ever again in my life if I didn't go to the A/port, or abroad.

Simple enough argument for anyone ?

911slf
15th Aug 2010, 13:09
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#INFRINGE). 2nd Amendment.

Seems to me if you are a US citizen and have a gun you are in the militia. A touch of military discipline would doubtless benefit most US gun owners. Actually my favourite amendments are 18 and 21. :)

SASless
15th Aug 2010, 13:10
BW....have you read the investigation report on the Ruby Ridge Affair?

The Shooting at Ruby Ridge (http://www.byington.org/Carl/ruby/ruby0.htm)

Our review found numerous problems with the conduct ofthe FBI at Ruby Ridge. Although we concluded that the decisionto deploy the HRT to Ruby Ridge was appropriate and consistentwith Department policy, we do not believe that the FBI's initialattempts at intelligence gathering at the scene weresufficiently thorough. We also found serious problems with theterms of the Rules of Engagement in force at Ruby Ridge. Certain portions of these Rules not only departed from the FBI'sstandard deadly force policy but also contravened theConstitution of the United States. In addition, we found theseRules to be imprecise and believe that they may have created anatmosphere that encouraged the use of deadly force therebyhaving the effect of contributing to an unintentional death.

With regard to the two shots fired on August 22, weconcluded that the first shot met the standard of "objectivereasonableness" the Constitution requires for the legal use ofdeadly force but that the second shot did not satisfy thatstandard. It is our conclusion that the sniper/observer whotook the second shot intended to shoot Kevin Harris butaccidentally killed Vicki Weaver whom he did not see behind thecurtained door. We also found the internal FBI review of theshooting incident has not been sufficiently thorough and reachedincorrect conclusions about the second shot.



The government's own report confirmed the violation of the Constitutional Rights of the Weaver family that resulted in the death of Randy Weaver's Wife and Son. Weaver received a monetary settlement from the Government afterwards. The State of Montana sought criminal prosecution of some of the FBI agents but politics killed that effort.

I was a Federal Law Enforcement Agent and both the Ruby Ridge and Waco debacles violated everything I had been taught about use of force and the like.

It is not only right wing zealots who see problems with our heavy handed government.....some of us are/were involved in enforcing the same laws but don't agree with the growing aggressiveness of the tactics.

For a contrast, compare the NYPD and LAPD barricaded gunman negotiation philosophies and see the diametrical difference in the two. I prefer the NYPD method myself although I see some value in the LAPD method in very limited cases.

Many years ago....I warned my tea drinking colleagues in the UK...the crime rate there would increase and the amount of violence would increase as the UK was then seeing a massive influx of "colonial" immigrants who did not hold the same social values as the native borne citizen. I was chastized for being racially insensitive and all that the PC Brigade like to run out when such talk occurs. I firmly believe history has proved me right. In the case I presented I described the same situation in the United States and what we were experiencing. That is but one explanation for increased crime but for sure one of the most important.

Of note....yesterday....while shopping for a kayak....I had the occasion to visit a BBQ joint in Greensboro, NC for lunch. There was a group sitting at the rear of the place at a large table and several booth seats. I noticed the men folk were packing iron....large pistols each in visible holsters. They were a bit shaggy....using spit cups for their snuff droolings....and looking a bit unsavoury. No one was really paying them much attention but everyone that looked at them did so with a bit of disgust or something akin to that. I found it to be quite out of place.

My view is they accomplish nothing by wearing the guns....all quite legal in this state....unless one wants to apply the "Going Armed to the Terror of the People" statute. There were two State Policemen in uniform in the place having their lunch but they only enforce traffice laws but are empowered to enforce all state laws if they can be pried loose from behind their radar units.

The image those jerks (the gun toters out of uniform) presented works against what they wanted to demonstrate. I would have preferred they all have CCW permits, have passed background checks, and carry the weapons concealed. That way they can exercise their Second Amendment Rights but do so in a non-controversial manner.

SoulManBand
15th Aug 2010, 18:36
The "Barmy Gun Laws" are based upon "barmy" facts and politics!

UK gun laws have disarmed the law abiding....done nothing to disarm the violent criminal....have ignored social reasons for the up tick in crime....have ignored the increased crime rates...and were never publically debated or Police procedures made public while the campaign to disarm the citizenry was underway.

SAS, my man, remember they are "subjects" not citizens, so they have a duty to the Queen all that to obey..

As for Mr. Tyres' personal attacks, that is rater strange that no one is reacting.

con-pilot
15th Aug 2010, 18:40
As for Mr. Tyres' personal attacks, that is rater strange that no one is reacting.

Most likely because he, Mr. Tyres, is not worth the bother. If he enjoys making personal atttacks, so be it, just shows the type of person he is. :p

bcgallacher
15th Aug 2010, 18:46
The fact is that the number of deaths due to firearms in the UK is by any measure a fraction of that in the US. If we had the same percentage of gun ownership in the UK I am in no doubt that deaths by firearms would be very similar but the fact is the guns are not readily available and a large percentage of the population would like to keep it that way.There is no way that any kind of legislation in the US could remove or even reduce the number of guns - they are there and the American population for good or ill just has to live with the situation that this creates.

Seldomfitforpurpose
15th Aug 2010, 19:06
Which rather sadly, as has been previously mentioned on this thread, means that many Americans feel they have to arm themselves simply to go out in public.

I'll gratefully take our "barmy" over that very disturbing thought any day of the week :ok:

birrddog
15th Aug 2010, 19:18
In this country I don't have to fear being confronted by a gun wielded by anyone except at the airport. It's pretty unlikely that it'd ever happen.
I take it you don't spend much time south of the Thames then.

Whirlygig
15th Aug 2010, 19:33
I take it you don't spend much time south of the Thames then.Like Windsor or Ascot for example? :}

Cheers

Whirls

birrddog
15th Aug 2010, 19:42
Like Windsor or Ascot for example? :}

Especially Windsor! You probably are likely to get shot there :p

Though I suspect you knew I was referring to places like Brixton, Peckham, etc. even Battersea where stabbings and shootings are sadly not uncommon.

Parapunter
15th Aug 2010, 19:44
Ha ha, good one Whirls, even if including Windsor is stretching a point just a teensy bit!

Blues&twos
15th Aug 2010, 19:50
I take it you don't spend much time south of the Thames then.

Depends with whom you hang about. Having previously lived and worked in south London for a good many years, neither I nor my many friends and acquaintances were victims of gun crime.

Closest I came to any sort of crime in fact was having my elderly, unlocked bike nicked and having some video equipment stolen out of the back of my (also unlocked) lorry.

Davaar
15th Aug 2010, 19:59
The fact is that the number of deaths due to firearms in the UK is by any measure a fraction of that in the US.

Prompted by your post I tried a few statistics in Google, and I was intrigued to see that the murder capital of the world is Scotland, a place not unknown to you.

Perhaps I misread the stuff, though, so I ask you to look the annual figures up and post (a) the "deaths due to firearms" in the UK and USA and (b) total murder rates in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland, and (iii) the USA.

I suspect rates by firearm are indeed higher in the USA, but what of the other instruments of felonious (or in Scotland, indictable) deaths?

For example, the common poker. If poker-related deaths are preponderant, do you blame the coal-mines? I expect these are on the wane now that everyone has oil or smokeless fuel or whatever.

Rusland 17
15th Aug 2010, 20:14
I was intrigued to see that the murder capital of the world is ScotlandNonsense.

According to the Scottish Government website (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Crime-Justice/TrendHom), in 2008-2009 there were 99 murders in Scotland. This is approximately 2 per 100,000 population (5.1 million).

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rates), there are approximately 70 countries with a higher murder rate, including the USA (5.4). So Scotland is hardly the 'murder capital of the world'.

Whirlygig
15th Aug 2010, 20:19
Interesting statistics Davaar, please publish ...

Murders per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita)

Murder by firearm per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita)

No real surprises there.

Cheers

Whirls

tony draper
15th Aug 2010, 20:30
The protocol in the UK now seems to be to plea bargin murder down to manslaughter to save the court time and money so the figures might be out a tad,are the figures taken from murder convictions or murder charges?

Whirlygig
15th Aug 2010, 20:41
Compiled from crime statistics i.e. a crime can be reported and become a statistic without anyone being caught, charged or conviected.

Cheers

Whirls

Davaar
15th Aug 2010, 20:50
Rusland and Whirligig, I am not the one whose post began "The fact is".

I asked what are the facts?

I did so because I had tried the net and one source said Scotland was the murder capital; so I made further inquiry. Is Rusland unable to distinguish a citation from a personal statement?

As to Whirligig, why should I post her references? She can do that herself, I suppose. I was just asking, not dogmatising, as in "Nonsense".

P.S. Wikipedia tells me Scotland's murder rate is the fastest-rising in Western Europe and the sixth-fastest in the world, according to a new report by the United Nations.

How well I recall Lord Carmont, but he did not have to deal with many gunshot killings. Not at all. The weapon of choice was the open razor. It killed just as well.

tony draper
15th Aug 2010, 20:50
I remember we had a similar argument here a few years back,I as droning on as per about how we were much more civilized in the past and someone said there were more murders in the 1950s then in the 1990's I thought that is nonsense of course, but it was almost impossible to find good honest figures ie say from January 1950 to January 1951 there were X number of murders in the UK and from January 1990 to Jan 1991 there were X number of murders in the UK all there is is those daft meaningless statistic x number of murders per thousand to ten decimal places,I like honest numbers not statistics,I dont trust em. cant remember if I won the argument now.:(

Rusland 17
15th Aug 2010, 20:51
The protocol in the UK now seems to be to plea bargin murder down to manslaughter to save the court time and money...Do you have a shred of evidence for this, or is it lifted straight from the pages of the Daily Express?

it was almost impossible to find good honest figures ie say from January 1950 to January 1951 there were X number of murders in the UK and from January 1990 to Jan 1991 there were X number of murders in the UK all there is is those daft meaningless statistic x number of murders per thousand,I like honest numbers not statisticsThe number of murders per 1,000 of population is a much better indicator of trend, because it takes changes in population into account.

tony draper
15th Aug 2010, 20:53
I haven't bought or read a newpaper for eight years Mr R.:rolleyes:
Wasn't interested in trends just wanted to win a argument

Whirlygig
15th Aug 2010, 20:58
Rusland and Whirligig, I am not the one whose post began "The fact is". And neither did Rusland nor Whirlygig so why the sanctimonious tone?

All I asked (and I used the magic word) was where you saw the stat that Scotland was the nurder capital as, disbelieving that it could be the case, I tried all sorts of Google keywords and did not find that statistic. Intrigued, as indeed you were Davaar.

Cheers

Whirls

Davaar
15th Aug 2010, 21:06
"Sanctimonious: making a show of sanctity or piety"?

I got the statement I quoted from Google or I believe more accurately Wikipedia. I am not inclined to go back through the entries I searched. If you disbelieve me I shall as the judge said bear that burden with all the fortitude at my command.

Whirlygig
15th Aug 2010, 21:15
Search for muder capital of the world and the top Wiki result is "Jamaica". Search for Murder capital of Europe and the top Wiki result is Scotland. This does not mean Scotland is the murder capital of the world.

Now who's being silly? :} I'm sure that one in such a learned and position as yourself Davaar would be prepared to admit a mistake?

Cheers

Whirls

SoulManBand
15th Aug 2010, 21:23
Compiled from crime statistics i.e. a crime can be reported and become a statistic without anyone being caught, charged or conviected.

Cheers

Whirls

Whow, that's a new one. If someone's dead he is immediately considered a victim of a "crime", and murder to boot?

I would think that if you are talking about "murder" rates you then have to make damn sure the culprit is caught, tried and convicted of "proper murder", otherwise you have to say "alleged".

I don't think the statistics we are looking at deal with allegations, thought.

hellsbrink
15th Aug 2010, 21:42
Ah! Here we are. I had looked up "Murder rate UK" and the first item of
response gave me:
Quote:
Scotland (UK) has possibly the worst murder and crime rates in the world
.
The source is:<www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap>.

Since I found it less than definitive I asked the Fount "The fact is ..." for more. This to Whirly is "sanctimonious".

Oh Whirly Whirly Silly Girlie I know you dislike me, but do not allow that to make you impute to me anything I do not state.

Hang on, are you saying that you actually looked at that page? You are saying you are possibly quoting a COMMENT from someone who didn't like another comment on the page as a fact, because there is nothing else on that website that says anything like that apart from the comments, and I'm struggling to see the "Scotland (UK)......" bit in there too...

Sure ya ain't confused yourself there, Davaar, sure you have the right source?


Oh, I know Glasgow used to be the murder capital of Europe, knives have always been a speciality there, but what that has to do with firearms is beyond me.

Whirlygig
15th Aug 2010, 22:04
Whow, that's a new one. If someone's dead he is immediately considered a victim of a "crime", and murder to boot?I sadi "crime", not "murder" .... I was speaking generally about crime statistics in order to answer Herr Draper's question, not to score any US/UK political points about which I care little.

In the UK, it is down to a Coroner's Court to decide whether any suspicious death is murder, suicide etc. A victim can be murdered without the murderer being known, caught, charged, convicted. Some murders remain unsolved, they are still murders.

Cheers

Whirls

Davaar
15th Aug 2010, 22:11
That was exactly the source. I tried in vain to obtain more data from it. Therefore I asked the man here who knows the facts. Now are you determined to put words in my mouth. Here is the sequence:

1. A poster alludes to "the facts" but gives precious little of them;
2. I tried fairly casually by internet search to enlarge on the facts;
3. I found that search unhelpful and hinted as much in my own post;
4. So I asked the man who has "the facts".

Because of that Whirl then considers that I am sanctimonious.

Dear me. I think I'll leave this to the experts.

Whirlygig
15th Aug 2010, 22:22
Because of that Whirl then giggles that I am sanctimonious.Only because you addressed your post to myself and another named Ppruner who did not, in fact, make the "in fact" comment.

Cheers

Whirls

A A Gruntpuddock
15th Aug 2010, 22:37
I think that one of the problems with statistics is the changes in the way the courts deal with murder nowadays.

Vicious beatings which resulted in death would almost always be treated as murder in the past but nowadays are reduced to manslaughter.

Rusland 17
15th Aug 2010, 22:57
Now are you determined to put words in my mouth...We don't need to put words in your mouth. You wrote:I tried a few statistics in Google, and I was intrigued to see that the murder capital of the world is Scotland.Your clear implication was that the web page you looked at stated that Scotland is the murder capital of the world, whereas in fact it says no such thing.

Davaar
15th Aug 2010, 23:03
I wondered when someone would split that hair. Now I have traced the original words again and you are free to correct them: so, not "murder capital" but "possibly the worst murder and crime rates in the world".

Where is the difference in substance? Is that what this discussion, so to call it, is about? I am glad we cleared up that deception.

Now to Whirligig
. Only because you addressed your post to myself and another named Ppruner who did not, in fact, make the "in fact" comment.
I had already quoted and replied to the "fact is" from the original poster. Then two others addressed comments to or at me. Surely you remember?

Over the years I have quite often thought of making a collection of the Whirlygig opinions on law.

Sadly, I let the opportunities slip, but here another arises:
In the UK, it is down to a Coroner's Court to decide whether any suspicious death is murder, suicide etc.

Is that really what you meant to write?

Parapunter
15th Aug 2010, 23:06
Ah, the old silver tongued disingenuousness. How I miss it. Funny that gun threads always draw out the shittiest characteristics in people and yet, somehow, by some malevolent miracle, there will be and there really will, be another gross of dead Mexicans in Ciuadad Juarez & a bunch of self righteous tw*ts pounding away at utterly irrelevant, polarised views here on this very meaningless debate.

Lives need to be got round here, and I aint talking about yer shooting irons neither.

Whirlygig
15th Aug 2010, 23:09
Feel free to correct me Davaar ....

Cheers

Whirls

Davaar
15th Aug 2010, 23:13
No! No! I'll let you find out for yourself and then report back.

The answer is not far to seek.

SoulManBand
15th Aug 2010, 23:18
In the UK, it is down to a Coroner's Court to decide whether any suspicious death is murder, suicide etc. A victim can be murdered without the murderer being known, caught, charged, convicted. Some murders remain unsolved, they are still murders.

Cheers

Whirls

I just don't see how you can say "a victim can be murdered without the murderer being known, caught, charged, convicted".

If a victim is found dead below a 10th floor balcony, how can anyone possibly say whether he jumped, was deliberately pushed, accidentally tripped and fell, or was involved in a scuffle which lead to his death without it being the intent. Only if someone had intent to kill him is he a victim of "murder". That can be only determined in a court of law with someone being found guilt of murder.

So herr Drapes is correct when he asks "charged with, or convicted of murder." Just finding someone dead does not statistically or otherwise make him victim of murder.

hellsbrink
15th Aug 2010, 23:21
I wondered when someone would split that hair. Now I have traced the original words again and you are free to correct them: so, not "murder capital" but "possibly the worst murder and crime rates in the world".

Where is the difference in substance? Is that what this discussion, so to call it, is about? I am glad we cleared up that deception.

Hehehe. I traced the original words on the "source" you used, and, in all honesty, I cannot believe you are using a COMMENT by someone (Jimmy, 7th April 2010) and NOTHING remotely capable of being described as a statistic, conclusion or a study!! I mean, for God's sake, the comment below your "quote" is one whining about having to pay a $125 fine for not wearing a seatbelt in Washington DC!!

I'm sorry, but how can we take your comments seriously when you are just using the random comments of someone, who is possibly just "extracting the urine", as something that can justify any point in a discussion about anything, never mind UK firearms legislation?

The comment is around half way down the page on the "source" provided earlier, look yourselves if you want.

Whirlygig
15th Aug 2010, 23:23
Unsolved murders? Are you, SoulManBand, saying there is no such thing as an unsolved murder?

Cheers

Whirls

Davaar
15th Aug 2010, 23:27
Hehehe

HoHoHo, \
NoNoNo.

I did not rely. Because I found such reliance unwise I went back to the man with the facts. Do you find that so very hard to grasp?

Parapunter
15th Aug 2010, 23:28
If a victim is found dead below a 10th floor balcony, how can anyone possibly say whether he jumped, was deliberately pushed, accidentally tripped and fell, or was involved in a scuffle which lead to his death without it being the intent. Only if someone had intent to kill him is he a victim of "murder". That can be only determined in a court of law with someone being found guilt of murder.


What if the same victim is found with a ligature, six bullet holes & ten stab wounds, his hands & feet missing & fcuk you carved on his chest with a knife, but no one in custody?


Would you think there is room for doubt then?:hmm:

SoulManBand
15th Aug 2010, 23:28
While you may read in the press about "unsolved murders" I don't think that technically the term exists. It is unsolved homicide.

Murder has very special connotations and involves clear intent. Unless the perp is caught and convicted that intent cannot be determined.

While we all know OJ did it Nicole and Goldman were never "murdered", technically.

Davaar
15th Aug 2010, 23:31
Would you think there is room for doubt then

When were the wounds inflicted? Pre- or post-mortem?

SoulManBand
15th Aug 2010, 23:34
Would you think there is room for doubt then?

Yes, more than ever. If they caught the guy, any halfassed 3rd year law student would be able to get him off with a defence of insanity so still no murder.

Whirlygig
15th Aug 2010, 23:35
This may be a language problem ... in the UK, murder = homicide + malice afterthought. I don't think anyone could say that the victims of, for example, Jack the Ripper were not murdered, yet the identity of the murderer is still, to this day, unknown for sure.

When were the wounds inflicted? Pre- or post-mortem?
Any decent pathologist could determine this which could all come to light in the Coroner's Court.

Cheers

Whirls

hellsbrink
15th Aug 2010, 23:39
Did you? After all, it would have been easy for you to look up countless other sites which would give you all sorts of information and the fact that the chart above these comments should have told you quite clearly that the comment you quoted was, indeed, nothing but malebovinefaeces and should have been discarded immediately instead of even being considered as something to use in this discussion!

So what, exactly, did you think when you used said "quote" in your post (helpfully reproduced below to jog memories), and what exactly did you mean by you "tried some statistics in Google" when you clearly did not and lifted a comment and used it as some sort of means of questioning a post regarding the murder rates involving firearms in the UK and US?

The fact is that the number of deaths due to firearms in the UK is by any measure a fraction of that in the US. Prompted by your post I tried a few statistics in Google, and I was intrigued to see that the murder capital of the world is Scotland, a place not unknown to you.

Perhaps I misread the stuff, though, so I ask you to look the annual figures up and post (a) the "deaths due to firearms" in the UK and USA and (b) total murder rates in (i) England and Wales, (ii) Scotland, and (iii) the USA.

I suspect rates by firearm are indeed higher in the USA, but what of the other instruments of felonious (or in Scotland, indictable) deaths?

For example, the common poker. If poker-related deaths are preponderant, do you blame the coal-mines? I expect these are on the wane now that everyone has oil or smokeless fuel or whatever.

Parapunter
15th Aug 2010, 23:40
To be perfectly honest, that response is so full of shit, I could grow rhubarb out of it's ears.

Davaar
15th Aug 2010, 23:45
Any decent pathologist could determine this which could all come to light in the Coroner's Court.

Of course ..... thus removing the doubt. And your point is?

SoulManBand
15th Aug 2010, 23:56
in the UK, murder = homicide + malice afterthought.

Are you sure it isn't "malice aforethought", in which case my assertion is correct. There has to be intent...

Whirlygig
16th Aug 2010, 00:00
Oops ... spellcheckers eh? :}

Intent can be, however, determined without a named perp.

Cheers

Whirls

Tyres O'Flaherty
16th Aug 2010, 00:01
I do apologise to all ( Including band aide ) for causing the furore a page or 2 back.

Especially Con-Pilot, who I esteem for his contributions & common sense very much.

The problem is, I dont have to see a gun, or be confronted by one, or anything like it, & probably never will be.

It's actually quite unusual for the majority of the British public, even now.

I suppose this is what's at the root or our inability to communicate our different ideas about what constitutes a civilised society.

At least in Britain, I think we are lucky enough to (if we are the average citizen) never have to live in fear of random violence, no matter what the newspapers or online media tell us.

Don't subscribe to the climate of fearmongering I reckon

SoulManBand
16th Aug 2010, 00:12
Intent can be, however, determined without a named perp.

If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit.

Whirlygig
16th Aug 2010, 00:27
If the glove doesn't fit you must acquit. Who killed Olaf Palme? Or are you saying he wasn't murdered?

Just because no-one gets charged/convicted for a murder/homicide does NOT mean that the victim was not murdered.

And you, SoulManBand (and who might you be?) know that, you just want to argue semantics for the sheer bloody fun of it and if you can argue those semantics against a British Subject, then it is all the more gratifying for you, even though you know that this is all purely argument for argument's sake; just to rile others whom you percieve (whether true or not) to share opposing political views.

Myself, I find it remarkable that there are people on this thread who will say allsorts online but would never deign themselves to say the same things personally. And that may, or may not be, directed at any one individual.

Cheers

Whirls

SoulManBand
16th Aug 2010, 01:11
I have no idea who Olaf Palme is. Being killed and murdered are two different things. Semantics or nor.

There is a line in a movie that goes something like this: "It doesn't matter what I know. What matters is what I can prove in court."

As to who I might be, asking that is a bit, well not best of netiquette, is it? I am one of them sciolists, I guess.

As for saying things personally, that is against RoE, is it not? I always say that no matter how much we may be jousting here, if we were in a bar or a pub we could have a very cordial and pleasant conversation even if we do have differing opinions. I think that we would also find that a lot of our "differing opinions" are not that much different.

Matari
16th Aug 2010, 03:37
At least in Britain, I think we are lucky enough to (if we are the average citizen) never have to live in fear of random violence, no matter what the newspapers or online media tell us.

Shouldn't that be "subject?"

The average American citizen does not live in fear of random violence.

The debate is about a fundamental right.

Parapunter
16th Aug 2010, 07:00
I have no idea who Olaf Palme is.

If only there was something like a search engine on the internet one could use to belie one's American stereotype. Funny that I should know who John Baldacci is & yet Olaf Palme escapes unnoticed at the other end of the line.

Then I could duck a puerile debate avoiding even more disingenuous answer than I already gave previously that undermines an already childish position that ego clearly prevents one from revising. So revealing is this place.

Gentleman Jim
16th Aug 2010, 08:08
Davaar



The fact is that the number of deaths due to firearms in the UK is by any measure a fraction of that in the US
Prompted by your post I tried a few statistics in Google, and I was intrigued to see that the murder capital of the world is Scotland, a place not unknown to you.
You did not look at statistics did you? You looked at a one line comment from 'Jimmy' at the 'Nation Master' website. and then presented it as some form of amazing educated revelation. Even the page you link to has a list of those countries that have the most crime, and Scotland isn't on the list, yet your academic prowess failed to make the connection and it was seen that 'Jimmy' whose comment is one of many people bitching and whining at each other (a little like this thread), had made a statement that must be true.

Complete and utter nonsense that needs banishing to the troll garden where it deserves to be.

Gentleman Jim
16th Aug 2010, 08:35
It's a good job this woman didn't have a gun! All because she couldn't get any chicken McNuggets.

4nEsshq4HhA&feature=related



Gentleman Jim, your link now fixed. Please see named stickie at top of JB forum page for instructions on how to embed a youtube video.
Rgrds
f40



Thank you Flaps. I don't know what the problem was, I have embedded many vids on here. Better luck next time.

Seldomfitforpurpose
16th Aug 2010, 09:19
Shouldn't that be "subject?"

The average American citizen does not live in fear of random violence.

The debate is about a fundamental right.

Not if you believe what has been written in this and all the other threads on this subject.

Some of the US folk who post on this subject paint a society that has to go about it's daily life with a hand gun to hand at all times.

Some would also have us believe that they need to have weapons to sleep safe in their own homes at night.

Thankfully here in the UK we do not "have" to go about our daily business "tooled up" which is why I and most UK citizens quite like our gun laws they way they are :ok:

MagnusP
16th Aug 2010, 09:21
Vicious beatings which resulted in death would almost always be treated as murder in the past but nowadays are reduced to manslaughter.

Not so. A delivery driver was killed in Edinburgh last week by a single punch which led to him falling and striking his head. Four youths have been charged with his murder.

MagnusP
16th Aug 2010, 09:26
There has to be intent...

Again, not so. At least in Scotland, it is murder if the attacker shows "wicked recklessness as to the victim's fate"; there need be no intention to cause death.

hellsbrink
16th Aug 2010, 10:09
One thing that people have to remember in regard to the rate of "murder" is how, due to advances in medicine and the training of paramedics, the amount of people actually dying because of assaults of all kinds has actually dropped so, since it ain't murder if the victim lives, it can be argued that the level of actual murders is lower and the level of ATTEMPTED murder will have risen. Of course, TD's comment of how more people cop to manslaughter is also valid.

SASless
16th Aug 2010, 13:00
Some would also have us believe that they need to have weapons to sleep safe in their own homes at night.



Ah but dear Sir....perhaps having that percussion signalling device close to hand at night allows one to sleep all the more peacefully! As compared to the UK, which has a much higher rate of home invasion robbery than the USA, because of the presence of such devices....we have far less risk of being a victim within our homes and those who would normally be inclined to victimize us feel it very non-conducive to a long life in crime to attempt such home invasions.

I can assure you in my home....unwanted mid-night interlopers who attend my premises with bad intentions shall get a very warm welcome....momentarily! What's better....the Plod will take care of removing the carcass and the insurance company takes care of the soiled carpets and damaged sheet rock and plaster.

Recall the concept of being able to defend one's home and family....without having to rely upon the State to do so for you? I know it is a nearly forgotten concept in the UK where the homeowner (read....Victim) is more likely to be indicted for a crime than is the criminal (read....burglar/robber) if one uses anything approaching "force" in protecting one's family and possessions during a home invasion robbery.

That certainly sounds ass backwards to us on this side of the saltwater divide. But then what the heck....we are all a bunch of Cowboys, Rednecks, and borderline morons who have no grasp of geography, law and order, or political correctness. One thing we do understand is the right to defend one's own self without being forced to rely upon the State....which in this kind of situation is totally incompetent and powerless to do both by reality and policy. I suggest having the Plod around AFTERWARDS to investigate is not the best sollution to a home invasion robbery.....it works for the killiing of a burglar/robber as the perpetrator is evidence and can be apprehended with 100 percent effectiveness unlike the usual UK situation.

So....y'all sleep sound over there....until the thugs show up in your bedchambers one night.

Parapunter
16th Aug 2010, 13:14
And if the thug has a gun? and if the thug is better with a gun than you? Not so certain then is it?

Jesus wept, the witless logic is painful to witness.

SASless
16th Aug 2010, 13:28
PP....you have to remember...some of us have packed firearms for a living, have received excellent continuing training in the use of firearms, and more importantly are quite prepared and willing to use them if required. Some of us have in fact used them in our professional lives.

As to the logic.....explain to me why it is better to be a victim with no means to protect yourself and have no legal right to defend yourself as you do in the UK. The UK law negates the concept of Self Defense by removing the protection under law we as victim's in our own dwelling enjoy under US law.

What is the logic to that? Care to explain please?

Rather than provide us with emotional clap trap....care to give us a reasoned, thought out and "logical" response? Are you able to do that or are you limited to mere insult and verbal assault?

Parapunter
16th Aug 2010, 13:37
The UK law negates the concept of Self Defense by removing the protection under law

Not true at all & likely an opinion formed from taking in a few headline grabbing cases.

SASless
16th Aug 2010, 13:40
Gillom Rogers: [Books is giving Gillom shooting lessons] Mr. Books, my grouping of shots was tighter than yours. How is it you've killed so many men?
John Bernard Books: First thing is, that target wasn't shooting back at you. Second, most men at that last second will flinch; I won't.


It may be Hollywood....but it sums it up!

But in real life......we can defend ourselves without being taken to court if we use force to include deadly force involving firearms. Can you do that in the UK?


November 24, 2008

Teen shoots burglar
Intruder smashes window with shotgun
By SHELLEY TERRY - Staff Writer


ASHTABULA — A 15-year-old shot a burglar late Friday night after the burglar and two cohorts broke into the teen’s West Side home, police said Monday.

The teenager and his 14-year-old brother were home alone when three men came to the house, police said. The teens recognized two out three of the men, according to their mother, who spoke with the Star Beacon Monday.

When the boys refused to let the men in the house, one of the men took the butt of a shotgun and smashed the window out of the front door, police said.

That’s when the older boy ran upstairs to retrieve his father’s handgun, his mother said.

In the meantime, the intruders told the younger teen they would kill both of them if he didn’t open the door, the mother said.

“They held a gun to his head,” she said.

Sgt. John Koski said the 15-year-old came down the stairs and shot one of the intruders in the leg. The men then took off.

“The bullet went in the leg and out through his buttocks,” the mother said.

The teens’ parents soon returned home from the store and a relative’s house, and police were called to the scene, the mother said.

In the meantime, police received a call from Ashtabula County Medical Center that a 21-year-old city man showed up with a gunshot wound to the leg, Koski said.

“He said a kid accidentally shot him,” he said. “The wound was in the exact place the 15-year-old said he shot the intruder.”

Police arrested and charged the 21-year-old man with aggravated burglary, a first-degree felony; attempted felonious assault and having a weapon under disability, Koski said, noting the suspect is a known felon.

As of Monday afternoon, police were securing warrants for the other two suspects, Koski said.

No charges will be brought against the teen, police said.

The mother said the men told the boys they wanted money.



Another story....and these are just kids who have been trained in the use of firearms.

by Shern-Min Chow / 11 News

Posted on June 30, 2010 at 10:23 AM


HOUSTON – The teenage son of a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy shot a home intruder Tuesday afternoon in the 2600 block of Royal Place in northwest Harris County, deputies said.

The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window.

The teenager grabbed his father's assault rifle and knew what to do with it.

“We don't try to hide things from our children in law enforcement,” Lt. Jeffrey Stauber said. “That young boy was protecting his sister. He was in fear for his life and her life.”

The home invaders fled, leaving a trail of blood.

Shortly afterwards, two suspects showed up at Tomball hospital. One was an adult and was hit at least three times. Lifeflight flew him to Memorial Hermann hospital in the Medical Center. The second suspect, a juvenile, was taken back to the crime scene, authorities said.

Neighbors said burglars had recently struck the two houses next door, including the deputy's home.

“They stole everything -- what they have inside. They already did it one time,” Rafael Cortez said.

Tankertrashnav
16th Aug 2010, 13:58
Once again the assumption is made that we in the UK are entirely without the right to own and keep lethal firearms in our homes when in fact this is not the case. In my own case I have a 4 shotguns, two .410 and two 12-bore, any of which would be lethal at short range within the house. All are legally held on a shotgun certificate which is relatively easy to obtain for a country dweller with a clean criminal record, although I suspect town dwellers may find things more complicated.

In over 30 years of living in this house we have never yet experienced a break-in, but in the event of one happening I am not sure how I would react. Certainly phoning 999 would come higher on my list of priorities than reaching for any of my shotguns, but the fact is they are available to me and to hundreds of thousands of UK residents, a fact that many on here seem to be unaware of.

If I shot and killed an intruder, a valid defence would be that my own or my family's life was under threat and this defence has been succesfully used in British courts. This is known as appropriate level of response. Shooting someone who is carrying off my DVD player would not be so regarded, and quite rightly so. However I suspect there is a certain mindset that once someone has trespassed over your threshold their life is yours to dispose of at will and I think that gulf between us is just going to have to remain.

911slf
16th Aug 2010, 14:06
I don't have a problem with licensed ownership of shotguns, in fact I considered buying one myself, after a few training sessions at the local shooting club. The main reason I did not was because my wife felt that if it became known that I had a gun, people might break in to steal it, certainly if the house appeared unoccupied. And at about that time I was working away from home a lot.

Just another consideration.

Davaar
16th Aug 2010, 14:07
If I shot and killed an intruder, a valid defence would be ....

Yes. Good luck!

Parapunter
16th Aug 2010, 14:08
if you want to spend your time cherry picking cases off the internet to cut & paste (which also does exactly what I said here: Not true at all & likely an opinion formed from taking in a few headline grabbing cases.

then knock yourself out. If you further want to do this to prove that the USA is better (and there's an mysteriously elastic concept) than the UK, then I have a question. Why?

Where does this get you? What are you hoping to prove by this? Why are you so poorly researched? (ok I threw that one in for s**ts and giggles)

SASless
16th Aug 2010, 14:16
How long would it take you to arm yourself and be in a very good position to defend yourself? How long would it take for the Plod to respond to your telephone call for help?

I would think it would be best to grab up your 12 bore...call the Plod...retreat to as safe a place as you can....then repel boarders as required. As to dispatching the burglars that is one's own decision. It does help if one has a made up mindset re that decision.

Under US law....in general as it does vary a bit from state to state....we as citizens do not have to retreat when attacked. Police Officers on the other hand are bound to use the least amount of force required. In defence of our lives, physical well being, the law grants citizens more flexibility particularly within our homes. My state makes a difference between dwelling houses and other buildings, normal times of sleep, and the level of crime a break-in arises to. If done at night at a dwelling house (or if one works nights and posts a day sleeper sign) the punishment under law is higher for what is called "Burglary" instead of "Breaking and Entering".

In my extended family there has been one daytime break-in....thus it is not like we are at any great risk overall.

max_cont
16th Aug 2010, 14:54
SASless, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. We in the UK can use deadly force to defend ourselves.

The great British public is ignorant of UK laws and this myth of helplessness has gained widespread acceptance as fact.

IMHO the main difference between US and UK citizens is one of independence and a willingness to stand up and be counted. The US citizen would not tolerate half of what we Brits accept. (Which is why the UK will be lost to Brussels eventually)

Those that “hate guns” and “gun nuts” are just opposite sides of the same coin. Both are equally stupid IMHO.

At least you guys in the US treat your citizens as adults. Everyone is able to come to their own conclusions about the subject. Those that want a means of self defence can have one. Those that want to trust to luck can do that.

johns7022
16th Aug 2010, 16:43
I think you hit the nail on the head..

'those that want a means of self defense can have one'

They are just real quiet about it.....

Gentleman Jim
16th Aug 2010, 17:11
Well a relative (remember not a choice thing, a birth thing!) where I live was a career policeman and he is permitted to have a hand gun in the house. Trouble is since he retired he just gets pissed every day and when the mood takes him he becomes aggressive and goes for the gun, waving it in the air and threatening everybody! Needles to say neither myself, my children or my wife will ever put foot in that particular 'relatives' house or land.

In the UK it is not normal for house intruders to carry a gun, but I guess when you know that as a matter of course the occupants of the house will have fire arms, then when you do break in, you will be tooled up.

Davaar
16th Aug 2010, 17:29
those that want a means of self defense can have one

In truth, they may not have to be all that "quiet about it".

"Usually reliable sources" in the UK report that the police met a complaint of watching and besetting sadly with "lack of resources". The lads of the village, when asked, provided a posse comitatus, which visited the miscreants and reasoned with them. The miscreants complained to the police, who met it, as before, sadly with "lack of resources".

In this very city it has been suggested to one of my clients by persons in authority that, authority failing, she slip a Hundred to a burly fellow with a baseball bat and a cure would be found.

max_cont
16th Aug 2010, 17:54
In the UK it is not normal for house intruders to carry a gun, but I guess when you know that as a matter of course the occupants of the house will have fire arms, then when you do break in, you will be tooled up.

Umm no. He thinks do I want to get into a gunfight where I may lose my life, or shall I take the easy option and go down the pub and have a beer.

A case in point, a farm that I used to regularly patrol at night, tooled up dispatching foxes no longer gets that service. Since the word went around the local village that we no longer patrol, the farm has been burgled 3 times since the start of the year. So far the tally is 1 excavator, 1 lorry and one mini tractor. Total cost around £250,000. Now if your argument was credible, they would have just turned up to rob the farm anyway but armed to the teeth. Guess what, they didn’t bother. Getting into a confrontation with an armed occupier wasn’t that appealing.

Your police anecdote merely reinforces the argument that Humans are fallible and not all worthy of trust. Regardless of uniform or day job, we are all individuals. But the presence of a firearm does not excerpt some evil influence over those in its presence. The evil intention or not, as the case may be, is down to the individual regardless of the presence of a firearm.

con-pilot
16th Aug 2010, 19:44
Actually for the leading nation for the highest murder rate today would have to be Mexico, mostly in the US/Mexico border towns.

Ciudad Juarez, across from El Paso, Texas, has become one of the most dangerous cities in the world, with more than 4,000 people killed since the beginning of 2009.

It was reported on the News last night there have been more than 2,900 people killed in Juarez so far just this year.

Late last month the drug gangs have upped the ante by starting to use car bombs.

Police said Friday that La Linea drug gang — the same group blamed for the March killing of a U.S. consulate employee and her husband — lured federal officers and paramedics to the site of a car bomb by dressing a bound, wounded man in a police uniform and calling in a false report of an officer shot.

The gang then exploded a car holding as much as 22 pounds (10 kilograms) of explosives, killing the decoy, a rescue worker and a federal officer. A regional military commander said a cell phone might have been used to detonate the bomb.


Things are getting so bad along the border, that if you lived anywhere near the border, you'd be very foolish not to have weapons in your home. The violence has not spread across the border into the US, but it is just a matter of time.

Also, Mexican gang activity even here in Oklahoma has increased dramatically in the last year.

Bruce Wayne
16th Aug 2010, 20:04
Mexican gang activity even here in Oklahoma has increased dramatically in the last year.


the burrito merchants are being over-run by the drug merchants :sad:

Bruce Wayne
16th Aug 2010, 20:06
side note...

the pprune ad at the bottom of this page.. go figure !

Ads by Google (http://www.google.com/url?ct=abg&q=https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/request.py%3Fcontact%3Dabg_afc%26url%3Dhttp://www.pprune.org/showthread.php%253Fp%253D5873922%2526posted%253D1%26hl%3Den% 26client%3Dca-ib_employment_sede_1%26adU%3Dwww.Code09.com%26adT%3D21%2BInc h%2BExtendable%2BBaton%26gl%3DGB%26hideleadgen%3D1&usg=AFQjCNFXY8qpgDu0ape9m6cJRgtGfxaQHQ)
21 Inch Extendable Baton (http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=BMz33qotpTMX4Asi4jQer5vm2A-aHm8kB9r-MqgTAjbcBoI0GEAEYASCBkowQOABQ0eWZ_AZgu76ug9AKoAHKl_b6A7IBDnd 3dy5wcHJ1bmUub3JnugEJNzI4eDkwX2pzyAEB2gE3aHR0cDovL3d3dy5wcHJ 1bmUub3JnL3Nob3d0aHJlYWQucGhwP3A9NTg3MzkyMiZwb3N0ZWQ9MYACAak CoBDt5_sPsD6oAwHoA5YG6AOlAegDwAXoA5cE9QMAAQDE9QMQIIAB&num=1&sig=AGiWqtze6Hm8qPULereE1Yf8N-cDFjGFrw&client=ca-ib_employment_sede_1&adurl=http://www.code09.com/productdisplay.php%3Fpid%3D7)
Official ASP Batons Used By Police We Ship Worldwide to United Kingdom

www.Code09.com (http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=BMz33qotpTMX4Asi4jQer5vm2A-aHm8kB9r-MqgTAjbcBoI0GEAEYASCBkowQOABQ0eWZ_AZgu76ug9AKoAHKl_b6A7IBDnd 3dy5wcHJ1bmUub3JnugEJNzI4eDkwX2pzyAEB2gE3aHR0cDovL3d3dy5wcHJ 1bmUub3JnL3Nob3d0aHJlYWQucGhwP3A9NTg3MzkyMiZwb3N0ZWQ9MYACAak CoBDt5_sPsD6oAwHoA5YG6AOlAegDwAXoA5cE9QMAAQDE9QMQIIAB&num=1&sig=AGiWqtze6Hm8qPULereE1Yf8N-cDFjGFrw&client=ca-ib_employment_sede_1&adurl=http://www.code09.com/productdisplay.php%3Fpid%3D7)

con-pilot
16th Aug 2010, 20:23
the burrito merchants are being over-run by the drug merchants

Sadly that is so. Right after Arizona passed that controversial illegal immigration bill there was a sudden increase of Mexican gang violence against other Mexican gangs in Oklahoma City. The police believe that the newly arrived illegal immigrants gang members fleeing Arizona are trying to take over territories from the established gangs already here.

Now the curious thing is, that shortly after a proposed Law, similar to Arizona's, was introduced in the State House the reported Mexican gang violence has dropped sharply. A family friend who is very high in the Oklahoma County Sheriff's office, he told us that they do not know if the new arrived gang members have moved on, or if they are just laying low waiting to see if the law passes.

Bruce Wayne
16th Aug 2010, 20:52
what i wouldnt do for a carnitas burrito right now ! :ooh:

con-pilot
16th Aug 2010, 20:59
what i wouldnt do for a carnitas burrito right now

We do have some really great 'hole in the wall' real Mexican Restaurants here in Oklahoma City, not Tex-Mex, but the real thing.

SoulManBand
17th Aug 2010, 01:52
The main reason I did not was because my wife felt that if it became known that I had a gun, people might break in to steal it, certainly if the house appeared unoccupied. And at about that time I was working away from home a lot.

Just another consideration.

But think of a situation where it is not something that "becomes known". It is a normal everyday thing to have a shotgun or two and a loaded 1911 in a night table. Also if it is an expectation that residents are able and willing to use the hardware. The "people" who might want to steal it would be going elsewhere, in more ways than one.

SASless
17th Aug 2010, 02:40
Advertising gun ownership works both ways!

http://www.funnyandjokes.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/burglarize-house.gif

Seldomfitforpurpose
17th Aug 2010, 06:16
SAS,

That joke works well your side of the pond because of a national need for a weapon for personal safety but falls flat on it's face over here because we live in two totally different societies when it comes to this issue.

Rather than chase down statistic after statistic I have just grabbed the first one from a Google search

Britain records 18% fall in gun deaths - Crime, UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britain-records-18-fall-in-gun-deaths-1232069.html)

If the article is correct then in 2008 we had 42 gun related deaths in the whole of the UK.

To put that into context our National Lottery is drawn twice a week, 104 times a year. Not every draw produces a big winner but most weeks do which means I am probably at least twice as likely to win our lottery as I am to be a victim of gun crime.

I fully expect to have this simple analogy taken apart but as I previously posted I will take our barmy gun laws over yours any day of the week :ok:

max_cont
17th Aug 2010, 10:08
Oh come on Seldom, what type of guns were used in those crimes?
Where were those crimes committed?

You can bet the vast majority were handguns or SMG’s (Mac 10 or similar)
The former isn’t legal in the UK now, the latter never has been.

Those stats are rubbish and merely mask the failure of banning handguns etc.
We were led to believe that by outlawing handguns and removing them from lawful citizens, handgun crime would be a thing of the past.

How did that turn out? :ugh:

shedhead
17th Aug 2010, 10:28
it's a reasonable bet that a lot of the handguns were of the type produced by the toerags mentioned at the start of this thread. it is also a reasonable bet that a high proportion of gun deaths in the States are the result of illegally held firearms.

SASless
17th Aug 2010, 10:51
That joke works well your side of the pond because of a national need for a weapon for personal safety but falls flat on it's face over here because we live in two totally different societies when it comes to this issue.


As usual.....the British mindset at work. We (meaning Yanks...) do not "NEED" a firearm for personal safety. We do have the right under law to have one IF we desire to do so.

That is the difference between us and you.

I am far more apt to die in a car crash caused by a drunk driver than be killed by some thug with a firearm.

Now if I were Black or Hispanic and a member of a Gang, lived in the Hood in a large urban area, sold drugs for a living....then as you suggest....I would probably think I need a gun to survive as long as possible. In that situation....I would suggest the UK and the USA are not all that different.

As has been pointed out numerous times.....what is the benefit of disarming honest law abiding citizens but failing to do the same for the criminal element that preys upon the innocent and defenseless? What price does society find acceptable in lives, what sacrifice upon the altar of political correctness, do you make in this wrong headed notion that the public is served by doing as you have done....as the Australians have done?

The question is not how many murders are committed by illegal firearms....but rather how many are done by legally held firearms in comparison to illegally held or used firearms. How many lives are saved by the use of legally held and legally used firearms is the other question that needs to be answered as well. The gun banners amongst us refuse to accept guns save lives too.

If we are to have a rational argument about guns....we have to look at all facets of the situation.

To carry the gun banners arguments to its logical conclusion....even the British Police should be disarmed as they do unfortunately make mistakes and shoot innocent people or those whose crimes do not warrant being shot.

Can we really ask them to risk their lives and still effectively protect the public by disarming the UK Police completely?

Cacophonix
17th Aug 2010, 11:00
The British have always used the flag and the gun to promote quintessentially British solutions... as this barmy Englishman opines here!

uEx5G-GOS1k

Seriously though, in the big cities at least, there are more armed policemen than our heavily armed (and equally barmy) US cousins might suppose!

SASless
17th Aug 2010, 12:08
Gun politics in Mexico have resulted in some of the strictest gun laws in the world. It is in many ways similar to the United Kingdom, except with much more severe prison terms for even the smallest gun law violations. On the other hand, possession of non-military-caliber small arms by citizens is largely a non-issue. Gun politics are thus not the major issue in Mexico that they are in the neighboring United States, since few Mexican citizens have any gun law difficulties.

Almost 30,000 murders in the past few years along the border with the United States due to the drug cartels violence....including at least one car bomb attack on Police.

Official corruption is deemed a problem in Mexico when it comes to law enforcement, gun permits, and control of who gets guns, CCW permits, and is able to purchase guns from the only Retail source that is operated by the Mexican Army of all things. The strict gun laws stem from the political unrest of the late 1960's.....when the government closed down all gunshops and cancelled all gun permits.

Seldomfitforpurpose
17th Aug 2010, 13:13
Oh come on Seldom, what type of guns were used in those crimes?
Where were those crimes committed?

You can bet the vast majority were handguns or SMG’s (Mac 10 or similar)
The former isn’t legal in the UK now, the latter never has been.

Those stats are rubbish and merely mask the failure of banning handguns etc.
We were led to believe that by outlawing handguns and removing them from lawful citizens, handgun crime would be a thing of the past.

How did that turn out? :ugh:

Max,

I totally agree and I offer no dispute as to the type and origin of those guns but as to "how did that turn out?"

If the figure of 42 is correct and the inference of the article is that it was mostly young gang members killing each other then I have to say I think it turned out right nice :ok:

SASless
17th Aug 2010, 13:57
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/circumgun.png

Guns in Youth Gang killings rose from 70% to 97% during the period of the study by the USDOJ.

In 2005, 11,346 persons were killed by firearm violence and 477,040 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm. Most murders in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns.

In 2006, firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 42 percent of robbery offenses and 22 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide. (Weapons data are not collected for forcible rapes. See table 19 "Violent Crime," from Crime in the United States, 2006.) (Note....the FBI Uniform Crime Reports cannot be used to determine the use of a weapon during Forcible Rapes as the crime reported is the Rape and not the Weapon because the FBI system reports the single most serious crime in any incident regardless of how many crimes actually occurred during the incident. My comment added)
Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, leveling off in 1999 at 10,117. Gun-related homicides have increased slightly each year since 2002.



Assuming we divide the 11, 346 murders by the estimated population of the country(say Three Hundred Million) that appears to be a probability of 0.00003782 chance of the average American being a victim. If one factors in the issues of gang membership,race, location of residence, marital status and age.....that probability really gets very small indeed.

A helicopter pilot has a greater risk of being killed by a main rotor transmission failure than being shot to death!

A middle aged white male, living alone in the countryside, who avoids beer joints and does not deal drugs.....is at far greater risk of dying of old age and boredom than being offed by a gun.

john carpenter
17th Aug 2010, 21:04
A probability of 0.00003782 of being shot to death is indeed fairly small, but 0.000006 is even better. (The chances of it happening in the UK.)

SASless
17th Aug 2010, 21:11
You don't want us to use similar approaches to death rates due to Cancer.....far safer in the USA than the UK.....but with Obamacare we are bound to catch up with you in that regard.

john carpenter
17th Aug 2010, 21:19
Are you by any chance a politician?

Instead of commenting on the point raised you attempt to totally divert the argument by bringing up something totally irrelevant.

SASless
17th Aug 2010, 22:03
It was exactly on point....as we are talking of chances of death by chance.

As we have agreed there is a difference between the social values, laws, and implementation of government policies between the USA and the UK. I was merely pointing out until very recently in the USA....barring being shot by a killer.....an otherwise healthy person who contracts Cancer had a better chance of survival than his UK cousin does. The assumption one might consider each factor plays a role in our life expectancy we might wish to consider such issues while we discuss untimely death.


But as you ask.....I have been called a lot of ugly, obnoxious, demeaning, vile things in my life....but never once did anyone deign to call me a politician.

As I pointed out in my posts.....do you folks in the UK see a correlation between the murder rates in non-indigenous noon-white caucasion populations as might be found in Brixton or Nottinghill Gate areas of Greater London or perhaps Manchester or Glasgow?

If so...how would that affect the number you provided in contrast to the one I did for the USA? I am sure the murder rate in the UK varies greatly when filtered by the same parameters I noted.

Care to respond to that line of inquiry?

Or if it is Perth South you reside in.....compare the OZ murder rates using the same considerations?

Parapunter
17th Aug 2010, 22:14
But as you ask.....I have been called a lot of ugly, obnoxious, demeaning, vile things in my life....but never once did anyone deign to call me a politician.I just cannot believe this! And you with the charm!:)

mfaff
17th Aug 2010, 22:37
SAS..

Perhaps I'm too stupid or tired to see the point you are trying to make..

It would appear that if you are of a certain socio-economic- racial bent then being shot to death is a damn small chance on either side of the pond (an arguement politicans could use to either promote gun ownership or ban it...).

So if one is of another group.. you mentionned several, then being shot to death is more, if not highly, likely.. mainly due to illegal guns being used...again an arguement that could be used to support or demolish gun ownership..

So are you voicing just your own opinion.. formulated by your own experience or trying to convince others that because our laws 'appear' to provide some measure of result in this nation despite the more obvious issues being ignored they are stupid?

Conversely it would appear that the widespread ownership of guns in your backyard does not meaningfully reduce your risk of being shot to death...or increase it unless you are at risk anyway...

Sure we cannot quantify the number of murders preveed by firearms but we could easily quantify the number of murders in this country in which legally held firearms were used and it is this small number that, politically, it is deemed acceptable to prevent by restriciting gun ownership.

Stupid.. perhaps... but then again real measures (non gun related) that could prevent large numbers of deaths would be deeply unpopular... as they would be in the US...

But politicians are not in power to necessarily do the right thing.. they are there to do the right thing that does not prevent them from being re-elected....

BTW when this ban came into effect over here I was affected by it....but be that as it may.. my perception of being at risk or of being impotent in the face of government tryanny has not altered...

I felt far more in danger of being assaulted or shot when living in the US.. I'm not sure which group presented the greatest threat... the criminals or the Police...

.. certainly both managed to brandish guns in my face...one through malice, the other through apparent ignorance... despite evidence to the contrary I do believe being able to read is a requirement to be an LEO in the US...however this gentleman did everything humanly possible to convince us otherwise...

As yet I have not had a gun in my face over here (or in Switzerland) either by the Police or criminals.. despite living in a reasonably 'intereesting' area of Central London and cycling past heavily armed Police officers most days. But different strokes for different folks...

con-pilot
17th Aug 2010, 23:18
Perhaps I'm too stupid or tired to see the point you are trying to make..


The point we are trying to make is, in the US we have a choice to be armed and carry a weapon in nearly every state, if we desire, if granted a concealed weapon permit. In England you have no choice, even if you desire. I have a concealed weapon permit, even thought I do not own a pistol at the current time.

That is the point.

The reason we chose to own and/or carry a weapon is not important, no matter how many times some try to change the subject and make it so.

Seldomfitforpurpose
17th Aug 2010, 23:19
Assuming we divide the 11, 346 murders by the estimated population of the country(say Three Hundred Million) that appears to be a probability of 0.00003782 chance of the average American being a victim. If one factors in the issues of gang membership,race, location of residence, marital status and age.....that probability really gets very small indeed.



So assuming we use our 2008 figures and divide 42 by our population (say 60 million) that appears to be a probability of 0.0000007 chance of the average British citizen being a vicitm.

When you consider you guys have all those guns and therefore, according to what you tell us you are much safer than us Brits who have none, how come 54 of you guys get whacked for every 1 of us :confused:

con-pilot
17th Aug 2010, 23:23
Sorry, forgot this.

As yet I have not had a gun in my face over here (or in Switzerland) either by the Police or criminals.. despite living in a reasonably 'intereesting' area of Central London and cycling past heavily armed Police officers most days. But different strokes for different folks...

Neither have I over here (or in any other place in the world*), and I've been to places outside of the US, around the world, that one could expect having a gun placed in one's face.




* That would be Mexico, Colombia, Jamaica and Haiti to mention just a few.

Seldomfitforpurpose
17th Aug 2010, 23:34
Con,

Not wishing to be rude here but have you ever considered that for the vast majority of us Brit's not being able to own a fire arm has absolutely no bearing on how we live our lives.

Look at the ease with which the legislation to remove legally held weapons in our country went through. Apart from the small minority of folk who held them the vast majority of the UK populous was either totally ambivalent to or a huge supporter of the ban.

You guys have your gun legislation and with it you have your gun related crime/death figures.

We have our gun legislation and with it we have our gun related crime/death figures.

You like the way you live your lives and we like the way we live ours, so whats the issue here :confused:

con-pilot
17th Aug 2010, 23:46
You like the way you live your lives and we like the way we live ours, so whats the issue here

I agree 100 percent. However, except for this particular thread, all other 'gun threads' have been started by a Brit, usually, trying to demand we change our rights, or trying to adopt a superior attidue of how much more civil England is compared to the US. When in truth, one runs a much higher risk of serious bodily injury from a violent assault in many places in England, support by many English posters here, than in most places in the US.

Therefore, I do agree with you. Also I would not dream of bring a gun into England, no matter how worried I was about being assaulted by some of your, let's say, more undesirable citizens that seem to gather outside pubs at night.

There have been more than a few times when I have been in England, where I have seen things that made me stop and turn around a go the other way, quickly I might add.

And I'm a pretty darn big guy.

birrddog
17th Aug 2010, 23:56
Also I would not dream of bring a gun into England
I have*, no big deal - just make sure you get the piece of paper and a BSA membership first, then they could not be more cordial, even the hotels in London know how to store them properly.

* Shotgun

mfaff
18th Aug 2010, 00:02
Con,

Thanks...I know that's the point you are making... I do not for a moment believe that what the point SAS was trying to make...

To make that point all one has to say is 'that these are the issues/ rights over here.. I find then great and could not would not want to live in a nation that does not have the same...

I don't understand why you guys don't fight for the same rights... but its your country...live as you see fit...'.

The title implies however that our laws are barmy...perhaps to you.. perhaps to many here... but they are in place and if it was a high priority issue over here then there would be moves to alter it sooner rather than later...by popular demand. That is isn't is a reflection of its relative importance.. not the tryanny of government.

con-pilot
18th Aug 2010, 00:03
I have*, no big deal - just make sure you get the piece of paper and a BSA membership first, then they could not be more cordial, even the hotels in London know how to store them properly.


Back in the day, my wife and I stayed at the Washington Mayfair Hotel quite a bit. Just down the street there was a Purdey Shotgun store. Even though I'm certainly not a gun nut, I did have to stop and transfer slobber from my mouth onto the windows of that shop. Talk about beautiful shotguns, oh my.

I also have taken shotguns belonging to my passengers for hunting into England on various corporate aircraft. No problem with the proper paperwork.

Gertrude the Wombat
18th Aug 2010, 09:09
no matter how worried I was about being assaulted by some of your, let's say, more undesirable citizens that seem to gather outside pubs at night
They mostly assault each other. The chances of innocent bystanders becoming unwillingly involved are not actually zero but they're quite small. So you don't really need to worry; you might like to avoid making eye contact as you walk past but that's about it.

SoulManBand
18th Aug 2010, 15:58
So a little bit like walking in parts of LA. Nothing happens to you unless you're wearing a wrong color hat. Then you become one of the 11,000.