Right to bear arms (Split Duh!)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jack
Are you really suggesting that I relinquish my , goods, my familys safety, maybe our lives if some evil doer comes into my home. Neither you nor I can predetermine the totality of his criminal behavior. Therfore, I place my self, my property and my family at great risk if I just let him in and let him go, don, I ? To be clear, I am not describing a sidewalk stickup which engages an entirely different paradigm. I am talking about bad guy in my home with undertermined evil intent. What do you think I am entitled to do?
Are you really suggesting that I relinquish my , goods, my familys safety, maybe our lives if some evil doer comes into my home. Neither you nor I can predetermine the totality of his criminal behavior. Therfore, I place my self, my property and my family at great risk if I just let him in and let him go, don, I ? To be clear, I am not describing a sidewalk stickup which engages an entirely different paradigm. I am talking about bad guy in my home with undertermined evil intent. What do you think I am entitled to do?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Various
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The UK decided to confiscate personal firearms because the electorate demanded it.
The US retains private ownership of firearms because the electorate demand it.
I honestly don't see why some UK posters have a problem with this. You made your choice, we made ours. You live wth yours and we'll live with ours.
The US retains private ownership of firearms because the electorate demand it.
I honestly don't see why some UK posters have a problem with this. You made your choice, we made ours. You live wth yours and we'll live with ours.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StbdD
Thank you for breaking the issue down to the fundamental issue. It is choice, c'est tous.
But I am really interested in Jack's perception of what a homeowner should do when threatened in his dwelling. Skip the issues of renting vs owning. It's 2:00 AM, someone is downstairs looting the dining room, you and your wife are upstairs, 14 y/o daughter and son down the hall. Jack the cops won't be here for 10 minutes and the bad guy is headed up the stairs, what do you think I am allowed to do with the .357 S&W revolver in my right hand??
Sorry background:
You should assume that I am not of the spray and pray school, at 25 feet I can put 3 shots in the 10 ring and they all touch. At 50 feet I can put all three inside the 9 ring. I am a civilian, but my family is in immediate threat. What can I do.
Thank you for breaking the issue down to the fundamental issue. It is choice, c'est tous.
But I am really interested in Jack's perception of what a homeowner should do when threatened in his dwelling. Skip the issues of renting vs owning. It's 2:00 AM, someone is downstairs looting the dining room, you and your wife are upstairs, 14 y/o daughter and son down the hall. Jack the cops won't be here for 10 minutes and the bad guy is headed up the stairs, what do you think I am allowed to do with the .357 S&W revolver in my right hand??
Sorry background:
You should assume that I am not of the spray and pray school, at 25 feet I can put 3 shots in the 10 ring and they all touch. At 50 feet I can put all three inside the 9 ring. I am a civilian, but my family is in immediate threat. What can I do.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No JAck I am not Wyatt Earp, I am a father and a husband, how about you? If this scenario doesn't happen inyour world, then God bless you and your family. But a quick read of any majiir metro paper states that it happens in the rest of the world. So transport yourself to Long Island, NY where this can happen. Or would you like me to make it more real by siting real world tragedys . Please answer the question.
Jacko
I often find myself quietly agreeing with your position. Here however we divurge. I like others here keep weapons in the household. I have to assume that if my house is being broken into at some god awful hour that the perp knows full well that I am home. I also assume he is armed. My number one priority is to my family, not to the continued health of someone who is breaking into my house.
It may not be my place to impose the death penalty, but damn well is my place to make sure he doesn't try to impose it himself while in my house or wherever danger finds me or my family.
We assign maintaince of law and order to appropriate agencies to paraphrase you. If he is in my house at two am, that law and order you speak of is already failed.
If you were subject to a home invasion and you had the means to ensure your family was kept safe by use of firearms, assuming you were trained in the use of such weapons, what would you do? Is your moral obligation to the thiefs health or that of your families?
I often find myself quietly agreeing with your position. Here however we divurge. I like others here keep weapons in the household. I have to assume that if my house is being broken into at some god awful hour that the perp knows full well that I am home. I also assume he is armed. My number one priority is to my family, not to the continued health of someone who is breaking into my house.
It may not be my place to impose the death penalty, but damn well is my place to make sure he doesn't try to impose it himself while in my house or wherever danger finds me or my family.
We assign maintaince of law and order to appropriate agencies to paraphrase you. If he is in my house at two am, that law and order you speak of is already failed.
If you were subject to a home invasion and you had the means to ensure your family was kept safe by use of firearms, assuming you were trained in the use of such weapons, what would you do? Is your moral obligation to the thiefs health or that of your families?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 1,360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T,
Your sentiment is that of a cowboy without a doubt.
"at 25 feet I can put 3 shots in the 10 ring and they all touch. At 50 feet I can put all three inside the 9 ring"
I can do lots of things I would never gloat of in here, airbourne gunnery instructor blah..........dohhh i said I would not gloat.......... but we have a Norfolk farmer currently "doing stir" cos he probably thought he was Jessie James as well. Despite the fact that the thieving gypsy bastard, and his mate who set out to rob said farmer, deserved it the farmer was wrong to top him!
Proper use of a 3 iron or something similar would have done a pretty good job and kept our man out of pokey.
If you were to ask the millions of tourists who come from europe each year the one thing that frightens them most about visiting the good old US of A it will be the sentiment voiced so heartily by you and your cousins here.
Take guns out of circulation and like your new smoking laws socirty will be better off.............and that planet of the apes f@@kwit will be out of a job.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Your sentiment is that of a cowboy without a doubt.
"at 25 feet I can put 3 shots in the 10 ring and they all touch. At 50 feet I can put all three inside the 9 ring"
I can do lots of things I would never gloat of in here, airbourne gunnery instructor blah..........dohhh i said I would not gloat.......... but we have a Norfolk farmer currently "doing stir" cos he probably thought he was Jessie James as well. Despite the fact that the thieving gypsy bastard, and his mate who set out to rob said farmer, deserved it the farmer was wrong to top him!
Proper use of a 3 iron or something similar would have done a pretty good job and kept our man out of pokey.
If you were to ask the millions of tourists who come from europe each year the one thing that frightens them most about visiting the good old US of A it will be the sentiment voiced so heartily by you and your cousins here.
Take guns out of circulation and like your new smoking laws socirty will be better off.............and that planet of the apes f@@kwit will be out of a job.
all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Morally right is to protect my family. The criminal forfeits any and all rights the moment he sets foot upon my property and threatens my wife and children. What are you going to do?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAck you didn't answer my question! Why, I don't care what happened to some farmer who may or not have been railroaded. I want to know what you would do if confronted with the scenario I presented to you. If you have never considered such an event then you must feel very secure in your residence. I congratulate you. However, you forfeit the right to sit in judgement of those of us who are not so safe and secure. If you live in reality like mine then please answer the question as if it were to happen to you. Otherwise we can agree that you opinion has no merit, since you do not understand the reality of the threat or the long term implications of your failure to protect your family. Throwing slurs and slander will not avoid the challenge. Either address the threat in real terms or achnowledge that you don live in the real world.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bedrock
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you know he is just a burglar? Could be a rapist, a molester, a murderer - you don't know. All you know is that: he is armed, he is in your house, and he could be a deadly threat - and the police will never arrive in time. You protect your family.
Another conflict here....the difference in the law of the two lands...in the UK...the victim has no right to use violence against an intruder whereas in the USA...we have the right to defend our home against intruders. Fundamental difference.
Vigilantism means I take off around the countryside dispensing justice....killing a burglar inside my home is anything but that.
justifiable homicide
: homicide that is committed in self-defense, in defense of another and esp. a member of one's family or sometimes in defense of a residence, in preventing a felony esp. involving great bodily harm, or in performing a legal duty and that is justified under the law with no criminal punishment imposed
Here in the State of North Carolina...we take the position that police officers must give ground....but citizens do not. We retain the right to defend our family, home, and property. The law is very specific about when "self defense" protects a citizen in a homicide. I can assure you, even if tried in court, juries will always side with the victim.....not the burglar, rapist, robber, or murderer. We are not talking about bar fights between drunks here....but home invasions, burglaries, asaults by armed criminals intent upon doing harm to innocent people.
Jacko....I always like to use the analogy....if I meet you on the street....and start slapping you in the face....with vigor and strength....how many times will I have to slap you before you raise your hands in defense....will you ever use violence to protect yourself? This is the situation victims of crime find themselves in....thugs like unarmed, submissive victims. They find people who have both the will to fight back and the weapons to go along .....to be very risky targets and thus they leave us alone and go for the easy marks, the people that will meekly give up their purse or their life without threat to the criminal.
Jacko....
Had to make this one a seperate one....
"Civilized society"...."leave it to the government to deal with criminals"....I hope you are a victim of a home invasion robbery...your wife gets killed...your daughter raped....you get stabbed several times.....watch your house burn down as the gang drives off in your car.......then ....then....I want you to tell us you really feel the cops and courts are your protectors.
That is happening to real people in my country and yours every day......I assure you Jacko...the Coppers will be sipping a cup of tea or dunking their donuts in the coffee while all that is happening to you. They cannot be everywhere at once....the courts fail to incarcerate violent offenders often enough or long enough. The failure of your "civilized society" is measured in the pain and suffering of the victims of crime.
In my neck of the woods, we define neo-conservative as being a recently mugged liberal.
Jacko, please don't play word games here....you describe killing a violent criminal in self defense as being murder. That just isn't the case nor the law. The law calls it Justifiable Homicide which is not a crime of any kind.
Gun Control is also defined as being proper sight alignment and trigger squeeze to achieve maximum accrucacy.
Vigilantism means I take off around the countryside dispensing justice....killing a burglar inside my home is anything but that.
justifiable homicide
: homicide that is committed in self-defense, in defense of another and esp. a member of one's family or sometimes in defense of a residence, in preventing a felony esp. involving great bodily harm, or in performing a legal duty and that is justified under the law with no criminal punishment imposed
Here in the State of North Carolina...we take the position that police officers must give ground....but citizens do not. We retain the right to defend our family, home, and property. The law is very specific about when "self defense" protects a citizen in a homicide. I can assure you, even if tried in court, juries will always side with the victim.....not the burglar, rapist, robber, or murderer. We are not talking about bar fights between drunks here....but home invasions, burglaries, asaults by armed criminals intent upon doing harm to innocent people.
Jacko....I always like to use the analogy....if I meet you on the street....and start slapping you in the face....with vigor and strength....how many times will I have to slap you before you raise your hands in defense....will you ever use violence to protect yourself? This is the situation victims of crime find themselves in....thugs like unarmed, submissive victims. They find people who have both the will to fight back and the weapons to go along .....to be very risky targets and thus they leave us alone and go for the easy marks, the people that will meekly give up their purse or their life without threat to the criminal.
Jacko....
Had to make this one a seperate one....
"Civilized society"...."leave it to the government to deal with criminals"....I hope you are a victim of a home invasion robbery...your wife gets killed...your daughter raped....you get stabbed several times.....watch your house burn down as the gang drives off in your car.......then ....then....I want you to tell us you really feel the cops and courts are your protectors.
That is happening to real people in my country and yours every day......I assure you Jacko...the Coppers will be sipping a cup of tea or dunking their donuts in the coffee while all that is happening to you. They cannot be everywhere at once....the courts fail to incarcerate violent offenders often enough or long enough. The failure of your "civilized society" is measured in the pain and suffering of the victims of crime.
In my neck of the woods, we define neo-conservative as being a recently mugged liberal.
Jacko, please don't play word games here....you describe killing a violent criminal in self defense as being murder. That just isn't the case nor the law. The law calls it Justifiable Homicide which is not a crime of any kind.
Gun Control is also defined as being proper sight alignment and trigger squeeze to achieve maximum accrucacy.
Lupus Domesticus
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NZ
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This article by a regular columnist in a national magazine here about sums it up for me.
It would seem we have many parallels with parts of North America.
Jacko, I am proud to call myself a liberal, and on many things we agree; but not this time.
EYES RIGHT
RICHARD PROSSER
My Home, My Castle
Several years ago when the Government reneged on yet another contract with the people, I was required to renew my “lifetime” firearms licence.
The local sheriff visited my home, to ensure that the security provisions I had installed to prevent my arsenal (a .22 rifle and the slug gun I was given for my thirteenth birthday) from falling into criminal hands, and to inquire of my then partner as to my suitability to be entrusted with the responsibility of owning guns.
He left, impressed with my safe, and leaving my good lady impressed with the image of a handsome young man in uniform.
My next task was to present myself at the local Constabulary to fill out some forms, pay some money (of course) and answer a few questions.
Amongst them was a simple one-liner: “Would you use a firearm in self-defence?”
“That’s a tricky one isn’t it?” I inquired of the constable reading the questions from a list.
“That’s why we put it in,” she replied.
After a moment’s contemplation I answered; “In all honesty, I have to say yes.”
“So would I,” said she, and stamped the form.
Now it would seem that a Northland farmer is to be prosecuted by the same Police force, ostensibly for doing just that.
Police have announced that they will, after all, be laying charges against Kawakawa farmer Paul McIntyre, in relation to his shooting of one of three men involved in the attempted theft of a $20,000 four wheel farm bike from Mr. McIntyre’s remote Northland farm.
The charges are that Mr. McIntyre “caused injury with reckless disregard for the safety of others”, and that he “discharged a firearm without reasonable cause.”
In shooting at the tyres of the would-be thieves’ vehicle, rather than at the men themselves, as will probably be argued in court, Mr. McIntyre was presumably attempting quite deliberately to avoid harming anyone, which can hardly be called reckless disregard.
As for the second matter, much depends on what society is prepared to class as “reasonable cause”.
Put yourself in Mr. McIntyre’s shoes for a moment. Three intruders arrive at your farm in the dead of night. They are intent on violating the sanctuary of your home and stealing your property. They are armed. Who knows what else may be on their minds?
Your family is inside; you and your firearm are all that stands between them and violence.
Is it reasonable to expect you to nothing?
The nearest Police Station is forty-five minutes distant over gravel roads, and it isn’t manned at night. By the time your emergency call rouses the duty officer, help is at least an hour away. Faced by armed criminals, is it reasonable to expect you to wait this long?
They outnumber you by three to one, and they have the means and the intent to take your property, doing you harm in order to facilitate this if necessary. Is it reasonable to expect you to remain passive?
If you sit back and allow your property to be stolen, taking a chance that you and your family will be unharmed, you will still suffer loss; true, insurance will cover the cost of your stolen farm bike, but you will still have to front up with the excess, and your premiums will rise as well, not just now, but through all the future to come. If you want cover in the future you will have to increase your security, with better locks and more alarms, all at a direct cost to yourself. Is it reasonable to expect you to simply pay out for this because some criminals decide to break both the law and society’s code of conduct?
Is it reasonable for society to expect you to allow yourself to be violated because that same society is uneasy about people “taking the law into their own hands”?
The Police, in remote rural New Zealand, are quite simply not capable of protecting people. They have not the manpower, resources or budget. Is it reasonable, under these circumstances, that they insist you do nothing, and leave it all up to them? No, it most certainly is not.
If you, as an honest and law-abiding citizen, take the only action you can in order to protect your life, your home, family, and possessions, against those who have no regard for the law or for the rights and property of others, can this be called unreasonable? I think not.
If one of those intending criminals is injured as a result of your actions in defending yourself, can he claim that he has been treated unfairly? No, he damned well can’t, and neither can society or the Police claim that.
Honest citizens have a right to be protected. This right over-rides any that those who would violate that right may have. If society and its Police force are not capable of offering you protection, then they do not have the right to prevent you from protecting yourself. If criminals are injured in the course of committing crime, well, that’s just tough. No-one forced them to be there.
The hand-wringers and the bleeding hearts can say what they like; until society abandons its liberal guilt mentality and demonstrates that it is prepared to get tough, until we are prepared to put the rights of decent folk above those of thieves and low-lifes, the criminal menace will remain. The wholly contemptible “better red than dead” approach of wets and pacifists contributes nothing to the building of a better society.
A man’s home is his castle, and it is his right to defend it; and to defend his family and his possessions, and to offer his protection to his neighbour.
Stand tall, men of New Zealand, and be proud; defend your rights and your way of life, as did Paul McIntyre. The man deserves a medal. I would say he had far better than “reasonable cause” to discharge his firearm.
Richard Prosser
It would seem we have many parallels with parts of North America.
Jacko, I am proud to call myself a liberal, and on many things we agree; but not this time.
EYES RIGHT
RICHARD PROSSER
My Home, My Castle
Several years ago when the Government reneged on yet another contract with the people, I was required to renew my “lifetime” firearms licence.
The local sheriff visited my home, to ensure that the security provisions I had installed to prevent my arsenal (a .22 rifle and the slug gun I was given for my thirteenth birthday) from falling into criminal hands, and to inquire of my then partner as to my suitability to be entrusted with the responsibility of owning guns.
He left, impressed with my safe, and leaving my good lady impressed with the image of a handsome young man in uniform.
My next task was to present myself at the local Constabulary to fill out some forms, pay some money (of course) and answer a few questions.
Amongst them was a simple one-liner: “Would you use a firearm in self-defence?”
“That’s a tricky one isn’t it?” I inquired of the constable reading the questions from a list.
“That’s why we put it in,” she replied.
After a moment’s contemplation I answered; “In all honesty, I have to say yes.”
“So would I,” said she, and stamped the form.
Now it would seem that a Northland farmer is to be prosecuted by the same Police force, ostensibly for doing just that.
Police have announced that they will, after all, be laying charges against Kawakawa farmer Paul McIntyre, in relation to his shooting of one of three men involved in the attempted theft of a $20,000 four wheel farm bike from Mr. McIntyre’s remote Northland farm.
The charges are that Mr. McIntyre “caused injury with reckless disregard for the safety of others”, and that he “discharged a firearm without reasonable cause.”
In shooting at the tyres of the would-be thieves’ vehicle, rather than at the men themselves, as will probably be argued in court, Mr. McIntyre was presumably attempting quite deliberately to avoid harming anyone, which can hardly be called reckless disregard.
As for the second matter, much depends on what society is prepared to class as “reasonable cause”.
Put yourself in Mr. McIntyre’s shoes for a moment. Three intruders arrive at your farm in the dead of night. They are intent on violating the sanctuary of your home and stealing your property. They are armed. Who knows what else may be on their minds?
Your family is inside; you and your firearm are all that stands between them and violence.
Is it reasonable to expect you to nothing?
The nearest Police Station is forty-five minutes distant over gravel roads, and it isn’t manned at night. By the time your emergency call rouses the duty officer, help is at least an hour away. Faced by armed criminals, is it reasonable to expect you to wait this long?
They outnumber you by three to one, and they have the means and the intent to take your property, doing you harm in order to facilitate this if necessary. Is it reasonable to expect you to remain passive?
If you sit back and allow your property to be stolen, taking a chance that you and your family will be unharmed, you will still suffer loss; true, insurance will cover the cost of your stolen farm bike, but you will still have to front up with the excess, and your premiums will rise as well, not just now, but through all the future to come. If you want cover in the future you will have to increase your security, with better locks and more alarms, all at a direct cost to yourself. Is it reasonable to expect you to simply pay out for this because some criminals decide to break both the law and society’s code of conduct?
Is it reasonable for society to expect you to allow yourself to be violated because that same society is uneasy about people “taking the law into their own hands”?
The Police, in remote rural New Zealand, are quite simply not capable of protecting people. They have not the manpower, resources or budget. Is it reasonable, under these circumstances, that they insist you do nothing, and leave it all up to them? No, it most certainly is not.
If you, as an honest and law-abiding citizen, take the only action you can in order to protect your life, your home, family, and possessions, against those who have no regard for the law or for the rights and property of others, can this be called unreasonable? I think not.
If one of those intending criminals is injured as a result of your actions in defending yourself, can he claim that he has been treated unfairly? No, he damned well can’t, and neither can society or the Police claim that.
Honest citizens have a right to be protected. This right over-rides any that those who would violate that right may have. If society and its Police force are not capable of offering you protection, then they do not have the right to prevent you from protecting yourself. If criminals are injured in the course of committing crime, well, that’s just tough. No-one forced them to be there.
The hand-wringers and the bleeding hearts can say what they like; until society abandons its liberal guilt mentality and demonstrates that it is prepared to get tough, until we are prepared to put the rights of decent folk above those of thieves and low-lifes, the criminal menace will remain. The wholly contemptible “better red than dead” approach of wets and pacifists contributes nothing to the building of a better society.
A man’s home is his castle, and it is his right to defend it; and to defend his family and his possessions, and to offer his protection to his neighbour.
Stand tall, men of New Zealand, and be proud; defend your rights and your way of life, as did Paul McIntyre. The man deserves a medal. I would say he had far better than “reasonable cause” to discharge his firearm.
Richard Prosser
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A_B_I_W.
I don't know about you, but if I was living next door to a gun owner, I would much prefer that it be someone who could "at 25 feet, put 3 shots in the 10 ring and they all touch. At 50 feet I can put all three inside the 9 ring", rather than some gun nut with an Uzi or shotgun, who would probably take out his neighbours rather than a burglar.
Mr G
I don't know about you, but if I was living next door to a gun owner, I would much prefer that it be someone who could "at 25 feet, put 3 shots in the 10 ring and they all touch. At 50 feet I can put all three inside the 9 ring", rather than some gun nut with an Uzi or shotgun, who would probably take out his neighbours rather than a burglar.
Mr G
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "right and just" solution is unattainable. Yes, shoot someone if they invade your property and by implication threaten you, your loved ones and your property but be prepared for a team of lawyers to descend on you to prosecute or defend, either way it's going to cost you financially and emotionally.
The choice has to be made in a split second when you are surprised, shocked, scared $hitless and doing what is necessary to protect your family and home. Later on, in a wood panelled Courtroom with a bunch of smartar$e lawyer$ after your hide in the cold light of day there is a totally different perspective on things.
The choice has to be yours but it would be nice to have the comfort of legal support and the choice if several armed predators with ill intentions break into your home at three in the morning. Since Dunblane and the over reaction by the Government and media (Gun control was ever a pet of the left in the UK), around two million weapons have now been left in the hands of the bad guys and whose civil liberties are now eroded most ?
Basically the Police have lost the plot and get vindictive if an individual points out their shortcomings by doing their job for them. The farmer in UK, Tony Martin, is virtually a political prisoner because the establishment can't or won't admit they are losing control and they won't release him until he shows "remorse", another word for agreeing to the official line.
Incidentally, one of the vermin who was wounded when he raided the farm has a record as long as your arm and had the temerity to try to sue for loss of earnings. The **** had never worked a day in his life !
The choice has to be made in a split second when you are surprised, shocked, scared $hitless and doing what is necessary to protect your family and home. Later on, in a wood panelled Courtroom with a bunch of smartar$e lawyer$ after your hide in the cold light of day there is a totally different perspective on things.
The choice has to be yours but it would be nice to have the comfort of legal support and the choice if several armed predators with ill intentions break into your home at three in the morning. Since Dunblane and the over reaction by the Government and media (Gun control was ever a pet of the left in the UK), around two million weapons have now been left in the hands of the bad guys and whose civil liberties are now eroded most ?
Basically the Police have lost the plot and get vindictive if an individual points out their shortcomings by doing their job for them. The farmer in UK, Tony Martin, is virtually a political prisoner because the establishment can't or won't admit they are losing control and they won't release him until he shows "remorse", another word for agreeing to the official line.
Incidentally, one of the vermin who was wounded when he raided the farm has a record as long as your arm and had the temerity to try to sue for loss of earnings. The **** had never worked a day in his life !
Always Broken has it about right.
It's about appropriate levels of force. It's about remaining within the bounds of what is reasonable, legal and morally right.
I'm not against the possession of firearms, but I do think that on balance handguns are unwise (I support fishermen, etc. carrying knives, but not switchblades/flicknives, on the same basis).
Over here, Tony Martin (a hero to the unthinking, knee-jerk far right - I count myself as a thinking, considered soft right sort of bloke) was jailed for shooting and killing a burglar.
That burglar wasn't armed, or violent, nor was he intent on raping Mr Martin or his family. He was a teenage boy who Martin shot in the back from close range as that boy tried to flee for his life. He presented no threat whatsoever to Mr Martin, and had even ceased to present a threat to the farmer's property. That's murder in my book, and while the victim deserved to be locked up, he had done nothing to warrant the death penalty. As in all murder cases, the perpetrator can only be released on licence if he admits his or her guilt. Martin is not being singled out.
Over here, burglars are seldom armed, and it may well be a different matter over there. There may sometimes be a case for acting in self defence over there, but the rhetoric being used here, and the underlying attitudes are uncomfortably gung ho and lawless. Moreover, I do not see that a handgun is necessary for self defence.
Does anyone have the statistics for the number of armed criminals killed by homeowners? And unarmed criminals? And the number of collateral deaths - spouses killed in an argument because there was a gun in the house, accidental shootings etc?
If you don't trust your Government, then vote for one you do trust. If you don't trust your law enforcement bodies, then reform them, but don't expect civilised people to applaud you if your only solution is to take the law into your own hands.
It's about appropriate levels of force. It's about remaining within the bounds of what is reasonable, legal and morally right.
I'm not against the possession of firearms, but I do think that on balance handguns are unwise (I support fishermen, etc. carrying knives, but not switchblades/flicknives, on the same basis).
Over here, Tony Martin (a hero to the unthinking, knee-jerk far right - I count myself as a thinking, considered soft right sort of bloke) was jailed for shooting and killing a burglar.
That burglar wasn't armed, or violent, nor was he intent on raping Mr Martin or his family. He was a teenage boy who Martin shot in the back from close range as that boy tried to flee for his life. He presented no threat whatsoever to Mr Martin, and had even ceased to present a threat to the farmer's property. That's murder in my book, and while the victim deserved to be locked up, he had done nothing to warrant the death penalty. As in all murder cases, the perpetrator can only be released on licence if he admits his or her guilt. Martin is not being singled out.
Over here, burglars are seldom armed, and it may well be a different matter over there. There may sometimes be a case for acting in self defence over there, but the rhetoric being used here, and the underlying attitudes are uncomfortably gung ho and lawless. Moreover, I do not see that a handgun is necessary for self defence.
Does anyone have the statistics for the number of armed criminals killed by homeowners? And unarmed criminals? And the number of collateral deaths - spouses killed in an argument because there was a gun in the house, accidental shootings etc?
If you don't trust your Government, then vote for one you do trust. If you don't trust your law enforcement bodies, then reform them, but don't expect civilised people to applaud you if your only solution is to take the law into your own hands.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonico
Eloquently argued but I note you conveniently fail to mention the number of times Tony Martin and his run down farm had been targeted by these pariahs and others. One of the arguments put forward by the establishment for not releasing Martin before his demanded due apology or any normal parole period is that they "couldn't guarantee his safety". If the police had been called as many times by Martin as reported during the court case without offering him the protection he was due then we shouldn't be surprised if this admittedly eccentric man finally snapped.
He is certainly not one of my "heroes" and I am certainly not gung ho far right and I suggest you temper your words until you get to know me better. I am prepared to bet that I have seen the effects of indiscriminate violence at first hand a lot more than you and present my thoughts in that perspective.
I'm not advocating the retention of handguns in UK by the way but I figure if the local Albanian and Yardie hoods (for example) can carry and fire them with apparent impunity then where do we go next ?
Eloquently argued but I note you conveniently fail to mention the number of times Tony Martin and his run down farm had been targeted by these pariahs and others. One of the arguments put forward by the establishment for not releasing Martin before his demanded due apology or any normal parole period is that they "couldn't guarantee his safety". If the police had been called as many times by Martin as reported during the court case without offering him the protection he was due then we shouldn't be surprised if this admittedly eccentric man finally snapped.
He is certainly not one of my "heroes" and I am certainly not gung ho far right and I suggest you temper your words until you get to know me better. I am prepared to bet that I have seen the effects of indiscriminate violence at first hand a lot more than you and present my thoughts in that perspective.
I'm not advocating the retention of handguns in UK by the way but I figure if the local Albanian and Yardie hoods (for example) can carry and fire them with apparent impunity then where do we go next ?
Jacko.....
You are not now...have never been...anything but a rabid assed left-wing liberal (in print anyway)....have taken up every left winged cause....prattled off with the leftist slant on every issue. For the best part of two years now....you have taken the side of those liberal leftish causes...and only moderate your views when dumped on by every post that points that out to you. You either are putting on a very good act and are really just in here to provoke others into responding ...or......you really some serious reality therapy. Frankly speaking....no one could be so stupid as to believe as you purport to do....could they???
Fishermen carrying a Swiss Army knife vice a flick knife! Give me a break! Hell, let's apply that to the rest of life....let's all go back to walking....cars kill too many people. Airplanes should fly daytime only....in good weather....otherwise they kill people. Police should interview people at the station house....by invite....otherwise they might get killed as happened recently. We might as well grow our own meat....that way we do not get tainted meat in the market. Sex in non-marital situations should be banned....best way to end the transfer of AIDS.
Where do you stop using your enlightened ideas, Jacko?
You are not now...have never been...anything but a rabid assed left-wing liberal (in print anyway)....have taken up every left winged cause....prattled off with the leftist slant on every issue. For the best part of two years now....you have taken the side of those liberal leftish causes...and only moderate your views when dumped on by every post that points that out to you. You either are putting on a very good act and are really just in here to provoke others into responding ...or......you really some serious reality therapy. Frankly speaking....no one could be so stupid as to believe as you purport to do....could they???
Fishermen carrying a Swiss Army knife vice a flick knife! Give me a break! Hell, let's apply that to the rest of life....let's all go back to walking....cars kill too many people. Airplanes should fly daytime only....in good weather....otherwise they kill people. Police should interview people at the station house....by invite....otherwise they might get killed as happened recently. We might as well grow our own meat....that way we do not get tainted meat in the market. Sex in non-marital situations should be banned....best way to end the transfer of AIDS.
Where do you stop using your enlightened ideas, Jacko?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: A Travelling Man
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
StbdD
I may be getting a bit old and forgetful, could you please remind me when the British public ever got the opportunity to vote on anything to do with firearms please?
I can only remember arbitary laws enforced as a result of kneejerk reaction, laws which totally missed the point, as statistics have since shown.
Would have loved the chance to vote in a referendum about handguns, really would.
I can only remember arbitary laws enforced as a result of kneejerk reaction, laws which totally missed the point, as statistics have since shown.
Would have loved the chance to vote in a referendum about handguns, really would.
Of course the main problem is that some greasy lawyer will manage to prove that the sonofabitch who broke into your home high on illegal substances and caused mayhem was probably misunderstood when he was young, poor lamb. So he’ll just get a mild ticking off from the beak and have to pick up litter in the local park for a few hours - and then do the same thing again.
Personally, if J Henry Redneck in the US is permitted to blast such low life trash into hamburger with a .38 or .50 then I couldn’t care less. They had it coming.....just hope that it bŁoody well hurt.
Years and years ago, there was a good ‘Play for Today’ (I think) on TV. Some chap’s friends had been burgled and their home ruined whilst they’d been away on holiday. So he made a plan. He went into every low-life pub and club announcing that he was off to Spain for a month. Then packed up his car and very publicly left for his holiday, waving cheerio to his friends.
But he didn’t go anywhere. In the previous few weeks he’d constructed an inner cage in his house, which was hidden behind curtains etc. He went back to his house at dead of night and waited. Sure enough, some burglar broke in but was very surprised when the cage clanged shut on him. The owner then confronted him and reminded him that, as everyone knew only too well, he was actually away in Spain and so there’d be no-one around to let the burglar out for a month.............
The right to waste burglars, SASless? It'd get my vote - more strength to your trigger finger!
Personally, if J Henry Redneck in the US is permitted to blast such low life trash into hamburger with a .38 or .50 then I couldn’t care less. They had it coming.....just hope that it bŁoody well hurt.
Years and years ago, there was a good ‘Play for Today’ (I think) on TV. Some chap’s friends had been burgled and their home ruined whilst they’d been away on holiday. So he made a plan. He went into every low-life pub and club announcing that he was off to Spain for a month. Then packed up his car and very publicly left for his holiday, waving cheerio to his friends.
But he didn’t go anywhere. In the previous few weeks he’d constructed an inner cage in his house, which was hidden behind curtains etc. He went back to his house at dead of night and waited. Sure enough, some burglar broke in but was very surprised when the cage clanged shut on him. The owner then confronted him and reminded him that, as everyone knew only too well, he was actually away in Spain and so there’d be no-one around to let the burglar out for a month.............
The right to waste burglars, SASless? It'd get my vote - more strength to your trigger finger!