It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The United Kingdom, gun control, and what it really means

page: 3
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:02 AM
link   
The philosophy, with historical examples well given, behind the american constitutional right to K&B are to be found in the Federalist Papers. Written by the same guy that negotiated the amendment with the states during the debates on ratification of the constitution. Its part of the checks and balance system and was drawn from the history of unarmed people and their problems with rising demigods. Founders and ratifiers wanted to avoid the problems that unarmed and sheepish people encourage and had encountered historically.




posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: chewiDoes anyone in UK know of such a law or if wealthy people can protect themselves with firearms whilst we, the public, cannot carry a walking stick without risk of arrest.


Actually yes, the law does allow you to carry a weapon if there is a real and imminent risk of attack. It's only caselaw and not widely liked at that, so personally I wouldn't risk my liberty on it.

Possession of that particular item (I'm presuming you are referring to a s 5 handgun) would still be illegal, though, so not entirely sure what's going on there.

I wonder if you are referring to this story:
huk.eurosport.yahoo.com...

According to police, there was an allegation of a firearm being used but CCTV confirmed no firearm was involved. Now, whether that means he had something (but it wasn't legally considered a firearm) or he didn't have anything at all, is not specified in the article.

Police "spoke to him" about carrying firearms, but that could mean a lot of things. He might have said "I would have if I could have" and they told him "we'd arrest you if you did". Who knows?



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

My mother's family is from Ireland, that's where the name came from.

So I honestly would have no idea.

Funny enough my dad's is from Scotland and Wales.

I am a southern born American , that enjoyed treason day in germany yesterday.




posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

I was just about to start another Dunblane thread but I see it's been well covered here. www.abovetopsecret.com...


On Dunblane. I have communicated with Sandra and I find her to be reliable. I believe she deserves our support and protection. She only backed down because of the threats. Go figure, as they say. news.bbc.co.uk... stolenkids-dunblane.blogspot.co.uk... dunblanemurders.blogspot.co.uk... www.amazon.co.uk...

Dunblane exposed is not her site and contains misleading elements. Again. Go figure.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EvillerBob

www.dailymail.co.uk... garden-chasing-outside.html

If you want specific examples, my advice would be to google Tony Martin, and then go on a googleventure of your own specifications to see more like it.


You need to go back and read the article.

They are talking about "disproportionate" force. You can still use "proportionate force" in self defence, but in certain circumstances (ie if you live there) this restriction is loosened.

Tony Martin fired three shots. They fled after the first shot; the shot that killed Fred Barras hit him in the back as he was trying to escape out of a window. There's a whole host of other issues surrounding that case (Tony Martin really isn't the poster child you want for this cause) but he certainly wasn't defending himself after that first shot.

In just about every case you will find (which is why I'm asking if you can provide actual examples) the story will usually go like this: bad guy attacks good guy; good guy stops the threat; good guy then continues even when he is no longer under threat. It's always that last little bit.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Gotta love the criminal code of silence that meant the survivor, being given first aid by brave local householders, didn't mention to anyone that his 'mate' was dying under a bush.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EvillerBob

There have been many examples of homeowners and business persons being arrested for merely assaulting an intruder, let alone killing them outright.
.


Being arrested means nothing - it is SOP for a case where there may be a homeowner and some badly beaten 3rd party with wildly different accounts and claims. The Police, in order to investigate it properly and afford all parties the correct protection, will arrest everybody then sort it all down the nick.

If you wanted to make a point about defending yourself and your property, you should instead focus on people who are charged. I can think of several instances over the past few years (one an old shopkeeper who stabbed a robber to death and was arrested, but not charged and was released) where people killed or assaulted people in defence and were released without charge.

And why bring up "Tony Martin" - It was in no way "self defence" and it was also 16 years ago! There have been some major changes to the law since then.

As for the OP - a good read and hopefully it will enlighten our American cousins a bit - at least those who don't live in fear of their Government ever day or whine about "freedom" in every other post....

edit on 5/7/15 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

The victim in a scenario is the person who is aggressed against, the person against whom initial violence is enacted. People attacking others at random or with built up and specific malice, should not be protected by the law, and those who are placed in the position of having to defend themselves, should not be concerning themselves with the proportionality of their response.

I see victim blaming is alive and well.

I have news for you EvillerBob... You know when you are younger, and there is a playground fight, and some idiot tells a child "I don't CARE who started it"? Well, it IS idiotic, and it DOES matter who starts a fight. Those who start a fight should expect to get finished, and those who do the finishing in that scenario should not be expected to be bloody careful about it!



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:47 AM
link   
I'm English and proud. I walk the streets late at night coming back from parties and nights out and never has the thought of being shot come into my head. It does happen in England of course but not very often.
I'm someone who hates guns with a passion, always have always will. I don't understand the need to carry one.
I live in a relitively quite part of the U.K. Plymouth, in the south west. We hardly ever really hear the word 'guns' in the local news, ever really.

For me personally I'm happy with the gun laws. If I had to protect myself, I would do it someway, somehow. I do actually feel safe where I live.

Question to Americans. Do you ever think your gun laws will get any tighter?



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   
What Gun control really means in the UK?

There's a bunch of PRICKS running the country telling people what to do that's all it means. Nothing more.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EvillerBob

The victim in a scenario is the person who is aggressed against, the person against whom initial violence is enacted. People attacking others at random or with built up and specific malice, should not be protected by the law, and those who are placed in the position of having to defend themselves, should not be concerning themselves with the proportionality of their response.

I see victim blaming is alive and well.

I have news for you EvillerBob... You know when you are younger, and there is a playground fight, and some idiot tells a child "I don't CARE who started it"? Well, it IS idiotic, and it DOES matter who starts a fight. Those who start a fight should expect to get finished, and those who do the finishing in that scenario should not be expected to be bloody careful about it!


And the law, by and large, agrees with you. In fact, the exact bit of caselaw that is used, states:

"If there has been an attack so that self defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his defensive action. If the jury thought that that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought necessary, that would be the most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken ..."
Palmer v R 1971 AC 814

There's a bit more to it than that (there is an objective assessment as well as a subjective assessment) but that's the essence of it.

So your playground scuffle has finished. You've knocked the bully on the ground. He's in tears and you stand victorious. The crowd of children cheer... but then gasp in shock, because that's when you take a good run up and kick him in the head. Repeatedly. Because... well, he started it, you're only finishing it. I don't think I could ever find myself agreeing with that approach. The courts certainly don't. The people who end up in prison in "self defence" cases are the people who didn't stop when everyone else could see the fight had finished.

Do I blame the victim? No, not until he stops being a victim and starts to be the aggressor in his own right.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

The idea of someone being expected to stop hitting someone who has assaulted him is all very well, but is entirely impractical. It is not natural to stop a beating once it has started, until one is incapable of striking through exhaustion. This is why people should not start fights. It has nothing to do with the law, or decency, or anything else. It is because doing so should RIGHTLY place an assailant in the position of being in danger of being beaten, maimed, or killed in response.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: rhynouk

Agreed, I'm not too far from you and lived in Plym (St Judes) for 3 years when I was at Uni.
I'm happy with our gun laws, prefer to live in a nation where the worst I can reasonably expect is a good beating, and/or an extendable baton/tazing from the cops.

Different worlds is all, US laws are good for the US, and UK laws are good for us.
...been thinking of joining my local shooting club lately though, planning to buy some land soon so I would like to have a shotgun and start enjoying some sport shooting.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EvillerBob

The idea of someone being expected to stop hitting someone who has assaulted him is all very well, but is entirely impractical.
I disagree, it is about self control after you have removed the threat.
Perhaps you cannot control your 'red mist' but I can.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: EvillerBob

The idea of someone being expected to stop hitting someone who has assaulted him is all very well, but is entirely impractical. It is not natural to stop a beating once it has started, until one is incapable of striking through exhaustion.


Ahh, I hate to tell you chap, but that's not normal or healthy. If you can't stop beating on someone until you're too exhausted to beat anymore, that's a loss of control.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: woogleuk

Fact is our gun control laws save lives by limiting there availability to Joe public. That being said you can pretty easily obtain a Gun in any one of the many disreputable drinking establishments that exist for around £200-£300. So essentially we must accept the fact that we have pushed arms dealing underground in our own nation while selling said arms all over the rest of the planet with little or no regards to who's purchasing them.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: grainofsand

No one who is under assault should be remotely concerned with keeping control.

It is not for an assaulted party to keep their crap together, but for an assailant to not assault them in the first place.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
That being said you can pretty easily obtain a Gun in any one of the many disreputable drinking establishments that exist for around £200-£300.
True, but at that price you are talking about renting it, not buying, and even then the average gun crim doesn't want to make their situation 'on top' with the police so there is still an element of 'vetting' going on about who gets access in the illegal world.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: grainofsand

No one who is under assault should be remotely concerned with keeping control.

It is not for an assaulted party to keep their crap together, but for an assailant to not assault them in the first place.
Rubbish. Reasonable force is the law and it is also my instinctive action.
If you are trying to justify losing your self control when you have already removed a threat then you paint a pretty bad picture of yourself in my mind.
I'm actually a little shocked. You would be known as a 'head-stamper' in my area, scorned by the community and frowned upon.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
With the way thing are going in GB according to the social media a lot of people will soon be taking up arms to defend there streets. Across all of Europe there seems to be a shadow of darkness and good people are getting angry and seem to be more interested in revenge that anything else. At the moment im happy that Europe gun laws are different to US, it gives us a breathing space because people dont have weapons at hand




top topics



 
26
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join