UK.. We Messed Up Letting The Government Take Our Guns..

page: 4
88
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
OP you're just pandering to US gun nuts and trying to get stars and flags, nobody in the UK agrees with you and your your thread is just nonsense.
If there were a vote tomorrow on this issue, at LEAST 95% would vote against guns (and I'm being generous by giving you 5%) as most people realise that guns only create problems, they don't solve them.




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
I have looked a little further into this, and came up with the following.


What force does the law allow?

In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. Householders are protected from prosecution as long as they act "honestly and instinctively" in the heat of the moment.

What this means in practice is that someone can claim they attacked in self-defence if they genuinely believed they were in peril - even if in hindsight they were clearly wrong.

These guidelines also apply if someone, in the spur of the moment, picks up an item to use as a weapon. The law very clearly says that a householder is not expected to weigh up the arguments for and against in the heat of the moment - but they have to show that their actions were reasonable in the moment.


So in theory, one can defend themselves by whatever means, providing they can later prove that reasonable force was used, and that they feared for their safety.


What is the situation if the intruder dies?

It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result. However, prosecution could result from "very excessive and gratuitous force", such as attacking someone who is unconscious.


That to me sounds fair, if they die from the first blow (or any blow whilst still standing and conscious, then fair game, however, never kick a man when he is down.

Now on to guns......


What about if someone shoots?

The most recent case was that of Andy and Tracey Ferrie. They were in bed when two burglars entered their home. Mr Ferrie fired his (legally-held) shotgun at the men. The couple were arrested but then released without charge.

The judge at the intruders' trial said: "If you burgle a house in the country where the householder owns a legally held shotgun, that is the chance you take. You cannot come to court and ask for a lighter sentence because of it."

The most well-known case is Tony Martin. In 1999, the Norfolk farmer shot dead an intruder in his home. He was jailed for life for murder but the Court of Appeal then reduced that to manslaughter. He served three years in jail.


So a more recent case while the new laws were in place was deemed self defence and the shooter(s) released without charge, and by the looks of it the judge actually said to the burglars "it is your own daft faults".

The Tony Martin case was at a time when it was still a dodgy subject, that being said, three years for manslaughter is quite a light sentence.

Source

Read the bit at the bottom of the article, "What do top judges think".

I do however believe the law on self defence isn't as clear cut as it should be, by the public, the police and the courts.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by stargatetravels
 


nothing more to say.

100% correct



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingIcarus

Originally posted by mykingdomforthetruth
reply to post by misscurious
 


Youv'e obviously never had your faced kicked in by a mugger, I have been attacked with a baseball bat and again with a machete both cases were robbery and both cases i was lucky not to be killed and both cases i wish i was armed because i would have killed the #er dead.

i guess you dont give a # about it thou do you


To be honest, mate, I'd imagine the sort of people going around with machetes and baseball bats with the express intention of jacking people are *exactly* the sort of people that would go around with guns if they thought their targets might be carrying.

Also, they'd probably be pointing their guns at you before you even realised it.


so whats your point here ? If our citzenry were armed I or someone else would have shot the guy he wouldnt be able to rob anyone else dead would he ? how many armed muggers in america take pleasure in murdering their targets?? have you actually heard gun toting muggers murdering victims after a succesfull mugging ? in britian if your going to be mugged i can guaruntee you the mugger will break your face either before during or after they have your stuff they arn't just after the goods these people are animals they actually get a buzz out of hurting you you see british thugs arn't just motivated by money they are actually motivated by violence they enjoy it



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by stargatetravels
 


You are completely wrong.

There are a lot of people in the UK who feel like Evan, although the majority (myself included) despise guns.

That doesn't mean people like Evan aren't allowed to voice their opinions on the matter.

And I wouldn't say 95% are against, you probably find the percentage much lower, although still a good bit higher than those who would want guns.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by faryjay
I am happy we don't have guns in UK and I'm sure I speak for a lot of the people in UK.

I feel a lot safer without gun wielding crack nuts running around.
i take it you dont live in a city.i can assure you there are plenty of gun wielding crack nuts running around with guns,a lot of them drug dealing nigerian scum.you better hope they dont come to your leafy hamlet or your views may change drastically.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvanB
We have all been angry at the nonsensical obssession with handing our soveriegnty to the EU.. Our unjust laws that put the criminals rights higher than the victims.. Even unto the point that defending our own homes and families against intruders will put us in jail..

Do you think that Gordon Brown would have got away with what is tantermount stealing our gold if we were armed?. Or the constant BS from the EU?.. Open door immigration? Unjust wars?... Man.. The list goes on and on..

All we have left is demonstrations with plackards.. Which they duly ignore.. If like America our citizenry was armed do you think they would ignore our democratic wishes?


You really think that if you had weapons, the government would simply bend to the will of "the people" (who probably differ widely in opinion)

I think your deluding yourself.

In the end, what would you do, round up a possy and start killing government officials until they do what you ask? Would it REALLY go any further then protesting, whether or not you had guns?

The answer, without question, is no. The machine would keep right on chugging, regardless of whether you had the ability to kill people.
edit on 15-1-2013 by SPACEYstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 



No, not at all and I'm not stifling anyone's opinion, merely giving my own.
A 'lot' of people could be 100,000 people, that's a lot right?


Trust me, my figure is far more accurate a number than you realise.
I know plenty of people who have guns, they clay pigeon shoot, they go gaming and go to rifle ranges, these people do NOT want every Tom, Dick & Harry carrying firearms.
edit on 15-1-2013 by stargatetravels because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:33 AM
link   
crim on crim is fine by me. Let the animals kill the animals.

I am not involved in drugs or any other illegal activities.

My chances of being shot by a "nigerian" as you put it, are practically zero, unless there was an unlucky ricochet.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Briles1207
crim on crim is fine by me. Let the animals kill the animals.

I am not involved in drugs or any other illegal activities.

My chances of being shot by a "nigerian" as you put it, are practically zero, unless there was an unlucky ricochet.


I think he's using "nigerian" as a euphemism.

As to the OP, he's entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't come across as a very enlightened one, as illustrated by several posters already.
edit on 15-1-2013 by IvanAstikov because: remembered "no one liners" rule



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Briles1207
 


so what youre saying is youre ok will foreigners running around with guns but not the indigenious law abiding population?
edit on 15/1/2013 by glen200376 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by stargatetravels
 


No, actually, i agree with the op whole heartedly. They had no right to take our guns, and i too want them back.

An emotional response to the Dunblaine incident is what caused it all - and it was a mistake.
Emotional kneejerk reaction with no logical reasoning or debate behind it. A great mistake on our count.


Yes, i am fully aware that it is still possible to possess a firearms license in the country - but they have made it basically out of reach for anyone but the most rich/affluent of persons with so many hurdles to cross - its ridiculous and unjust.


Noone should have the right to decide what someone can or cannot own - UNTIL they do something society doesn't approve of with it. It's like saying take away cars because they CAN kill people...... Ban peanuts as some people die if they eat them.................... Were trying to be all things to all people - taking no account into the grey areas that make up the human race....... A Blanket ban was not and still is not the right answer.

Registration, sure. Age requirements - absolutely. But banning outright? No, that's not for you (government) to decide. No limit on high cap mags, no banning full auto - it just isnt your place to decide that. It's noones. Either we ALL can have EVERYTHING - or NOONE (including government) can have ANYTHING.


A poster made a good comment earlier regarding the rebutted argument of more guns/guns in general don't make people safer.....

Why do people in power/government surround themselves with armed guards then? Because they look pretty?
Do the army carry guns because they like to look like movie stars? No, they carry them because it makes it safer for them to carry out their operations. Firearms make is safer in that instance. I agree, there are places firearms are NOT appropriate. Schools, malls etc - Technology could help there to mitigate that problem - it has evolved to such a point as to be able to counter some of the issues.

Fingerprint recognition built into the firearm, before the firearm will allow loading/firing. Resets once hand leaves the pistolgrip. I can think of several way this could be implemented into firearms effectively. There will always be work arounds - but there is for every block/stop/check for everything ever. It's about acceptable risk mitigation. Removing the risk entirely is not the option.

I'm with you America - don't let them take them. It's a slippery slope and you WOULD end up like us. A shadow of our former selves. We should NEVER of given them up. It's merely one caveat to the cacophony of problems we find ourselves in now.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 


Got to disagree with you on this one mate - we neither need nor want any relaxation of our gun control laws.

Bit busy at present but I hope to catch up with this thread later when I have more time.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by glen200376

Originally posted by faryjay
I am happy we don't have guns in UK and I'm sure I speak for a lot of the people in UK.

I feel a lot safer without gun wielding crack nuts running around.
i take it you dont live in a city.i can assure you there are plenty of gun wielding crack nuts running around with guns,a lot of them drug dealing nigerian scum.you better hope they dont come to your leafy hamlet or your views may change drastically.


a lot of them are born and bred in the uk, what is your point apart from some xenophobic display of prejudice?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by EvanB
 


They are all a bunch of nonces and who ever gets in is in their gang. Labour liberal tory, or what ever else they want to call them selves.
If I had a gun I would shoot who ever let jimmy so VILE appear on the BBC for decades, raping and abusing children. All funded by our license money. I would also shoot the police who let him do this for over 50 years. Who were the police officers that met up with him every week? He bragged that his friends in the police force, would go down along side him if he was arrested? Who were these friends? Who vetted him and allowed him to be a mentor to prince Charles? MI5?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by misscurious
NO we didn't .. why do we need guns here?

Actually re reading your post I've never heard so Much nonsense.. so instead of demonstrating peacefully we take to the streets with guns? I'm glad we don't have more people like you livng here...
edit on 15-1-2013 by misscurious because: (no reason given)


I would have thought common sense would drive you to have figured out what he was saying is when the peaceful protests fail THEN you have the guns to protect yourselves from tyranny.
edit on 15-1-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by libertytoall

Originally posted by misscurious
NO we didn't .. why do we need guns here?

Actually re reading your post I've never heard so Much nonsense.. so instead of demonstrating peacefully we take to the streets with guns? I'm glad we don't have more people like you livng here...
edit on 15-1-2013 by misscurious because: (no reason given)


I would have thought common sense would drive you to have figured out what he was saying is when the peaceful protests fail THEN you have the guns to protect yourselves from tyranny.
edit on 15-1-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)


taking to the streets with guns is somewhat different from using them for protection. it seems alot more like "if i dont get what i want them i'm gonna start shooting people"..... are you that tactical response berk?



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quadraphobe
reply to post by stargatetravels
 



Yes, i am fully aware that it is still possible to possess a firearms license in the country - but they have made it basically out of reach for anyone but the most rich/affluent of persons with so many hurdles to cross - its ridiculous and unjust.



i'm wondering how a friend of mine who earns a paltry 15k a year can legally afford a couple of them
edit on 15-1-2013 by skalla because: typo



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by skalla
 


He stole them


All jokes aside, i cant answer that question. I can only say that my own review of the gun ownership laws in this country show they are unjust, and unnecessarily obtuse in the requirements. It is VERY hard to get one legally.

And that is not right, IMO.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Quadraphobe
 


it was a rhetorical question, obviously you can buy a decent rifle for a few hundred quid and a gun cabinet needn't set you back much. it's just a case of deciding to budget efficiently and prioritising and planning your purchases, a simple adult skill.





new topics
top topics
 
88
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join