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.

 

UK Firearms Policy

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Dont 12000 people die every year in the US through gun crime?

If that is what a gun culture does then give me gun control every time!




posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I remember asking a wee while back how the UK's approx 850 annual gun deaths compared with the level of the US's top 10 largest cities.

No one wanted to answer that comparison, funnily enough.

12 000 for the whole USA eh? Verses 850. Not much of a comparison, eh?

......and I note that on this thread the level of accidents and domestic gun violence is all being written off as merely the goings on with the low-life and drug dealers
very funny if somewhat tragic, that.

[edit on 16-8-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Army
Yes, you have less gun crimes, but crime overall is higher per capita than the US.


get real! This is about gun laws not the crime rate.

The Murder rate in the US is 0.04 per 1000 people
The Murder rate in the UK is 0.01 per 1000 people

The murder rate with Firearms in the US is 0.02 per 1000 people
The murder rate with Firearms in the UK is 0.00 per 1000 people

Switzerland has compulsory gun ownership for military age males, yet it has a far lower murder rate than the U.S. Switzerland has the second highest rate of handgun ownership and handgun murders in the industrialized world, after the U.S.

The murder rate with Firearms in Switzerland is the same as the UK 0.00 per 1000 people!

So whats the problem? The US clearly is a much more violent society than switzerland or the UK.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Army
In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted �5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin. The failure of English policy to produce a safer society is clear, but what of British jibes about "America's vigilante values" and our much higher murder rate


Try finding something out about it first before using this as an example. The burgular was shot while running away from the property he obviously didn't present any threat whatsoever to the Mr Martin so quite rightly he was prosecuted.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by arnold_vosloo]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Source
English law provides for the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise unlawful in order to preserve the physical integrity of themselves or others or to prevent any crime. It is provided in both common law and more specifically in the Criminal Law Act (1967). If such a defense is proved to the satisfaction of the court then the person is fully acquitted of the charges against them.

The act of protection must fulfill a number of conditions in order to be lawful. The defendant must believe, rightly or wrongly, that the attack is imminent. While a pre-emptive blow is lawful the time factor is also important, if there is an opportunity to retreat or to obtain protection from the police the defendant should do so—demonstrating an intention to avoid violence. However the defendant is not obliged to leave a particular location even if forewarned of the arrival of an assailant.

The other key factor is reasonableness—the defendant's response must be necessary and in proportion to the nature of the attack - the force used must not be excessive in the circumstances. However, like immanency, the nature of the defense rests on the defendant's belief of whether their actions were in proportion to the circumstances they believed existed.

For greater detail see the Crown Prosecution Service's web site.

Considerable media coverage of this topic has resulted from the Tony Martin case


Just try defending it in court, I'd love to see one of you. It's so hard it's not even funny anymore. I myself have been picked up in the street for hitting someone who went to hit a friend of mine and I was nearly charged. [If there wasn't a CCTV camera there I would have been.]

Now try doing it in a less public area without CCTV.

There are tons of threads on this, many of which I've listed of Nation's which do not have gun-bans and a low crime rate or ones which introduced a ban [Finland] and had to remove it due to the rise in crime. [In fact, their rates mirrored the U.K's almost perfectly.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Defending what OD?
You also left out the biggest and most important part of the self defence and protection crime laws.


A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purposes of:

self-defence; or
defence of another; or
defence of property; or
prevention of crime; or
lawful arrest.
In assessing the reasonableness of the force used, prosecutors should ask two questions:

was the use of force justified in the circumstances, i.e. was there a need for any force at all? and
was the force used excessive in the circumstances


www.cps.gov.uk...



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   
devilwasp, the problem is prooving it in court.

I have a friend who at the moment has a suspended sentence for assault.

The Magistrates found him guilty of assault for for hitting someone who threatend to rape a girl because of the size difference of the two of them. The guy had a woman pinned to the wall, and admitted it in court and the guy I know was in the wrong because the guy ended up with a broken jaw. [Manly because my friend's 6'8 and nearly 300lbs.]

They claimed hitting him [once] was unreasonable.

Once you get something into court, the law might as well be thrown out because the Magistrates [in the lower courts] are unpaid and rubbish and their job. They wait on the clark of the court educate them on legal matters who himself doesn't know the law most of the time and they do so much work they almost knock cases out as quickly as possible.

This is why I am a fan of CCTV camera's in most areas, because of the trouble that does exist within the courts but more annoying, is the amount of times I've been stopped [outside my own house] and even been arrested because I've confronted people who were hitting cars. In fact last week [Thursday] I nearly was for stopping a guy trying to set fire to a skip on the road I live on.

One of the officers and the man tried to make out I was in the wrong for pinning the guy to the floor, just after he put petrol on the skip filled with building materials [highly flamable building materials]. I had to go down the station and make a statement about why I stopped the guy.

The British Legal Syste and the Police are a joke.
Always have been;
always will be.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
With respect I dont think ETHIER are a joke.
The law does make mistakes, because you've had bad experiences with the police and the courts you no doubt dont like them, yes no?
But I have had 0 problems with them therefore I like them, its all about interpretation and opinion.

What happened to your mate COULD be seen as over reaction, but IMO its a bad judgement.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
With respect I dont think ETHIER are a joke.
The law does make mistakes, because you've had bad experiences with the police and the courts you no doubt dont like them, yes no?
But I have had 0 problems with them therefore I like them, its all about interpretation and opinion.

What happened to your mate COULD be seen as over reaction, but IMO its a bad judgement.


Sorry DevilWasp but I'm in the process of becoming a barrister are legal system is a joke.

The amount of abuse and stupid laws in this country isn't even funny anymore.

The fact we make laws open to interpretation instead of strict, is a joke.

There was a case in the late 1980's to early 1990's [just one example] where a guy was caught masturbating in public [in an area where children could go] and because the police officer was stood still and the way the law was written he couldn't be prosecuted because the Police officer had to be moving.

The guy then won damages for slander[defemation] on his character.

There are loads more, I just can't be bothered to look in my books.

Another I also remember was a group of homosexual men in their own home being involved in S&M. One of them went to his GP [general check up], GP reported the marks to the Police. They were arrested [three I do believe] and given sentence for what they consented to do in their own home. [Adults] With nobody getting hurt and yet they still had the right to put them in prison...



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Sorry DevilWasp but I'm in the process of becoming a barrister are legal system is a joke.

The amount of abuse and stupid laws in this country isn't even funny anymore.

As I said, this is only your opinion mate.


The fact we make laws open to interpretation instead of strict, is a joke.

But how can we we make it strict if every case is diffrent and therefore requires interpretation.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Sorry DevilWasp but I'm in the process of becoming a barrister are legal system is a joke.

Originally posted by devilwasp
The amount of abuse and stupid laws in this country isn't even funny anymore.

As I said, this is only your opinion mate.


The ones I pointed out sound good to you then?


Originally posted by Odium
The fact we make laws open to interpretation instead of strict, is a joke.

Originally posted by devilwasp
But how can we we make it strict if every case is diffrent and therefore requires interpretation.


That's fairly simple.

The Government bothers to use delegated legislation correctly, instead of the bodies we pay with our tax making laws that do not work. So then instead of every three years down the line they have to change the law because it doesn't work they bother putting the time in and drafting the law correctly.

They also need to make sure the wording is done correctly, instead of leaving in terms which can be abused to get guilty people off of the hook.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
The ones I pointed out sound good to you then?

The ones there were made probably several years ago and needed updateing.



That's fairly simple.

The Government bothers to use delegated legislation correctly, instead of the bodies we pay with our tax making laws that do not work. So then instead of every three years down the line they have to change the law because it doesn't work they bother putting the time in and drafting the law correctly.

But society changes every year hell every week.
Also how can you make a "one law to fit all" policy work?


They also need to make sure the wording is done correctly, instead of leaving in terms which can be abused to get guilty people off of the hook.

The wording works both ways..
[qoute]
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large
And also..

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

Mate its more complicated than black and white.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   
In my experience with it, I'd have to disagree with you.

It would be easy enough to break it down and use language that the jury will understand. Take the case the guy used above with the farmer who shot the guy in the back.

If the law had made it clear attacking someone from behind, when not in defence of another you are committing assault or even

The use of deadly force upon a fleeing criminal results in your guilt. [Not in the mood to think straight] it would have saved millions of pounds on a clear cut case.

It would also save millions of pounds in legal fears, help speed up trials and allows the Jury to understand the cases.

Just by making the wording more simple and creating well written documents.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I lived most of my life in England, and now live in the US.

In England, my cousin was kicked to death in Newcastle by a gang of drunken thugs, violent physical attacks are commonplace in my former home town of Northwich, Cheshire. Both of my parents neighbors were burgled, attacks nationwide on old aged pensioners are rampant.

In the USA I am not aware of anyone in my immediate social circle or work environment who has been the subject of a violent attack, drunken violence on a Saturday night is not routine as it is in the UK, violent attacks are unheard of in my neighborhood here in Arizona, and old people are NEVER attacked and are treated with respect.

When I run into my former countrymen, as I often do in Las Vegas (just a 4 hour drive away for me), I am appalled at their behavior and language. They are invariably swigging beer from a bottle, wearing an England shirt, and talking like animals - f'in this, f'in that.

I carry a Smith & Wesson 642 (a .38 Special) or a P-3AT (a tiny .380ACP automatic), my bedside guns are an SKS assault rifle and a .40 caliber Beretta, and I sleep very very well.

When my UK relatives come over to visit they love to go shooting and express the opinion that while they wouldn't want the UK to have lots of guns, they wish that THEY had a gun of their own to protect themselves from the vile filth that owns Britain's streets at night. In gun circles this is referred to as elitism, everyone wants a gun of their own, but you don't want anyone else to have one.

If guns scare you and you want to stay unarmed and unaffected, I respect your right to do so, but lord alone knows I would never want to hear that bump in the night only to reach out a find nothing more lethal than last weeks copy of the Socialist Worker.

[edit on 16-9-2005 by Winchester Ranger T]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   
so because of a few bad incidents we should arm ourselves?
If so, then surely you would think that me owning a .50 call sniper rifle is for "that bump in the night" ? Or mabye a nuclear weapon since it is an "arm"?
You want to know why the police are haveing a hard time stopping crime?
Our forces are too small, the police report shows that.
BTW, owning a weapon automatically allows you to use it for self defence BUT the whole reason of owning a gun for JUST self defence IMO is a stupid idea.
Dont believe me? Fine.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I personally could care less that you don't like guns and don't want them around. I'm more concerned with people who are willing to defend themselves and their families and are deprived of the option of using a firearm to do so because of people with opinions like yours.

I've got 80 year old relatives in the UK who have gone through their entire lives without ever seeing a violent act except on TV, lucky them says I. But, I also know of an elderly family friend who had her face kicked so hard it blew up to the size of a medicine ball when she had her pension stolen from her on the walk back from the Post Office. Would you have denied her a gun with which to defend herself?

If you place your reliance for safety on the police, no matter what the size of the force, you are sadly mistaken. If you're not prepared to take responsibility for your own protection how can you reasonably expect anyone else to do it for you.

As for your fascination with .50 caliber rifles, would it make any difference to tell you that there has never been a single documented usage of such a weapon in any criminal act - ever - in the USA.

You will doubtless read all of this and consider it to be so much hokum, if you ever change your opinion it would likely be at the point of a knife, and I take cold comfort from the thought of you having such an epiphany shortly prior to your epitaph.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
I personally could care less that you don't like guns and don't want them around. I'm more concerned with people who are willing to defend themselves and their families and are deprived of the option of using a firearm to do so because of people with opinions like yours.

Eh??
I never said I dont like guns and I never said we shouldnt have them around. Thats sterotyping.
A) If you have a firearm, you can defend yourself and people and your property.
B) I am willing to defend my family with ANYTHING, I can and use just about hand held weapon.


I've got 80 year old relatives in the UK who have gone through their entire lives without ever seeing a violent act except on TV, lucky them says I. But, I also know of an elderly family friend who had her face kicked so hard it blew up to the size of a medicine ball when she had her pension stolen from her on the walk back from the Post Office. Would you have denied her a gun with which to defend herself?

Yeah I would, since that implies that she would carry a loaded weapon into an area where women, and children are.
Big no no for me,
BTW, its the job of the police to keep order, not vigilantees.


If you place your reliance for safety on the police, no matter what the size of the force, you are sadly mistaken. If you're not prepared to take responsibility for your own protection how can you reasonably expect anyone else to do it for you.

Oh such a good reason, yeah lets not trust others to defend us so lets arm ourselves huh?
Whats the point in police if you dont trust them?


As for your fascination with .50 caliber rifles, would it make any difference to tell you that there has never been a single documented usage of such a weapon in any criminal act - ever - in the USA.

Did I ever say there was or that I even like the damm weapon(too big anyway)
I picked it because its the second biggest sniper rilfe in the world.


You will doubtless read all of this and consider it to be so much hokum, if you ever change your opinion it would likely be at the point of a knife, and I take cold comfort from the thought of you having such an epiphany shortly prior to your epitaph.

Yet again you assume...
Also, just to reply to your comment about me haveing a sudden revelation before I die then your most likely that I will....just not one that supports your arguement.
BTW, you ever had a 7.62 mm rifle in the face?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

BTW, you ever had a 7.62 mm rifle in the face?


Yes, every time I shoot the one I own, the butt stock that is.

BTW - which sniper rifle do you consider to be the largest in the World then?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Yes, every time I shoot the one I own, the butt stock that is.

You put the butt "stock" in your face?
Dont you mean cheeck plate?


BTW - which sniper rifle do you consider to be the largest in the World then?

Its an austrian one...as far as I know it never went into production....its a special kind of ammo too...



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Yes, every time I shoot the one I own, the butt stock that is.

You put the butt "stock" in your face?
Dont you mean cheeck plate?

Ignore above, just realised what an ass I made of my self by saying that.

One interesting thing on the firearms policy I hadnt noticed before....its new and has to do with the OSBO thing;


The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 Sec 37 amends Section 19 of The Firearms Act 1968, which deals with possessing certain firearms in a public place. This section now reads as follows….

A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him) he has with him in a public place

(1) a loaded shotgun

(b) an air weapon (whether loaded or not)

(c) any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm, or

(d) an imitation firearm.

The above is effective from 20 th January 2004



[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join