should uk citizens be allowed to own guns for self defence?

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• Okay. Where's the verbose one they call Shirley?
  
  

  • Report
  

  by gtravels loves her life penguin on March 8th, 2012

• You'll never find me!
  
  

  • Report
  

  by The Chief on March 8th, 2012

Comments

• Just the criminals who are using guns against those stupids you are "defending."

  • Report
  

  by canoeguide on October 24th, 2011

• sorry, please rephrase.

  • Report
  

  by thetriumphantcourtjester on October 24th, 2011

• Simple phrasing: gun control only controls the law-abiding, not the criminal.

  • Report
  

  by canoeguide on October 24th, 2011

• I see - it's a phrase a few people have told to me before. Although it is true that only criminals use guns as weapons in Britain today, it is clear to see, simply from the statistics, that gun crime rates, and murder on the whole, is much, much lower. Also I struggle to see how having a gun could possibly "defend" you, unless you were actually willing to commit murder yourself. Most people aren't (I hope), so wouldn't the criminal always know the man behind the gun is bluffing?

  • Report
  

  by thetriumphantcourtjester on October 24th, 2011

• The US legal system views the use of deadly force (by whatever means) in obvious self-defense or defense of family as permissible. "Murder" is almost exclusively the willful taking of another's life, not the defense of one's own.
  
  A basic interpretation of the lower rates of firearm related homicide in Britain is the general absence of firearms amongst the public. One cannot use a firearm which is not present. However, if one desires a firearm in Britain, I'll wager a pretty it can be had.
  
  In the US, there are more than 80,000 NRA-trained instructors who aid private individuals (and sometimes a business's employees) in the safe, ethical and legally correct ways to own and use firearms. There are various levels of training sanctioned by various State governments, usually through sporting clubs, in firearm safety. Many states will not issue a hunting license until a person has successfully completed such a safety course.
  
  If you examine the US injury/death rates associated with firearms over time, you will see a steady decline.

  • Report
  

  by canoeguide on October 25th, 2011

• If the US legal system allows deadly force, then in my opinion the US legal system is wrong - clearly this is something we disagree on. And yes, Britons cannot use firearms because they are not present, which is exactly why it is safer. Of course firearms can be acquired through illegal means, however the fact they are not made available to the general public simply puts them far enough out of the mainstream for people not to own them as they would any other piece of property, and encourage people to take them as seriously as they should be. I'm not surprised the US take such precaution over training the users of firearms, but this is only one step in the right direction.

  • Report
  

  by thetriumphantcourtjester on October 25th, 2011

• Beyond this thread, your opinion of the US legal system carries little weight. Every jurisdiction from the smallest community to the Supreme Court recognizes that, in extremis, deadly force may be the resource of last resort in self defense. You should also know that deadly force will be recognized as appropriate ONLY as a measure of last resort.

  • Report
  

  by canoeguide on October 25th, 2011

• Yes, I know what the law is, I'm just trying to express what I personally think it should be...jeez...

  • Report
  

  by thetriumphantcourtjester on October 25th, 2011

• Opinion noted.

  • Report
  

  by canoeguide on October 25th, 2011

Comments

• The slippery slope is one of the cardinal logical fallacies. And the US does not have "tens of thousands of gun deaths."

  • Report
  

  by canoeguide on October 24th, 2011

• i take it your american then or your living in a bubble. in the year 2003 alone there was over 30 thousand gun deaths and Since 1960, more than a million Americans have died in firearm suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries.

  • Report
  

  by bigben on October 24th, 2011

• And in the same period, approximately twice that number have been killed in vehicle accidents. Continue digging. Over that time period, the firearm/person ration has increased & the injury rate of all sorts has been declining. By the bye, the rate of deaths in vehicle accidents has been declining as well. I happen to live in the state with the second-highest per-capita ownership of firearms and the third-lowest rate of injuries of all sorts (from superficial to lethal; from accidental to intentional).
  
  You might consider the proposed actions of your erstwhile subjects: http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3344578

  • Report
  

  by canoeguide on October 24th, 2011

• but its still alot of deaths that could of been avoided, guns only complicate matters, im from ireland, now could you imagine if we had the same gun laws as america with the amount we drink and fight here, it would be complete chaos.

  • Report
  

  by bigben on October 26th, 2011

• Ahem . . . the latest reports have Ireland as complete chaos.

  • Report
  

  by canoeguide on October 26th, 2011

• not with gun deaths

  • Report
  

  by bigben on October 27th, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• It is always true that people cannot take the law into their own hands. It just depends what the law is. What was it that the judge said they cannot do.
  
  Tony Martin shot a fleeing thief in the back. The thief was, at that time, no danger to him or his property: it was a vengeance killing. Is it OK to go round to a thief's house and shoot him in cold blood? Because that is just a more exaggerated version of what Martin did.
  
  People seem to think that UK law does not allow self defence. It does. But it does not allow you to use violence when the need for self defence has passed, even if violence would have been justified earlier. There are a lot of urban legends floating around about self defence being prosecuted. Often they turn out to be vigilante-style violence against a fleeing criminal, not defence of self or property.

  • Report
  

  by Im Alec on March 16th, 2012

• I would be interested to know what you base your opening remark on.
  
  The vast majority of gun crime in the UK is drug and gang related and seldom directly affects the people you suggest should defend themselves. Consequently there isn't really a great deal for them to defend themselves against.
  
  Martin shot a fleeing offender in the back. I suspect that would be a crime even in the USA.
  
  In the UK self defence would be a legitimate defence to a charge of anything ranging from assault to murder, provided that the force that was used was reasonable in the circumstances.

  • Report
  

  by Brian I on March 16th, 2012

• Quite simply, the law is the law and applies at all times. The statement is a truism. If you obey the law, you are not taking it into your own hands; if you break the law, you are taking it into your hands. Taking the law into your own hands is just another way of saying breaking the law.
  
  I don't think the Marting case would be illegal in all states: some take the view that any intruder on your property can be shot. Some years ago, two drunk Brits walked up to the front door of a house in Texas at 2am, to ask the way. The householder shot them, and was found to have been in his rights because they were on his land at an unsocial hour. Since they were even less threat than the burglar in the Martin case, he would presumably have been able to argue the same.
  
  For the rest of your remarks - yes, that was what I was saying, just that most people dont understand it.

  • Report
  

  by Im Alec on March 16th, 2012

• @Brian - It wasn't a vengence killing, he was defending his property, which in my opinion, is everyone's right. Using a gun to defend your property is, again in my opinion, reasonable. I guess what it comes down to is that you think it's okay that those guys who continue to burglarize people and get away with it, are actually the victims.
  Take a look at the Joe Horn case in Texas. Prime example. Even the Bernard Goetz shooting in New York. Take a look at what's become of Goetz's shooting "victims" and their innocent little livers.

  • Report
  

  by Hardcore Conservative on March 16th, 2012

• Alec - I was asking Hardcore what he based his opening statement on - your comment hadn't appeared when I started writing and we were almost simultaneously saying similar things.

  • Report
  

  by Brian I on March 16th, 2012

• Hardcore - defence means carrying out an act to prevent harm. If the act that would be defended against has already stopped it can no longer be considered defence (in my view and also in UK law).
  
  Any discussion of private gun ownership between UK and US based citizens is doomed to stalemate unless each of us accepts that we have very different opinions about what is right and proper. I would consider myself to be extremely rude if I told an American that the gun laws in his country were wrong - the law in the USA is none of my business. By the same token, it is extremely rude when an American says that UK firearms laws are wrong.
  
  As I suggested in my own answer to this question Americans who believe Britons should own more firearms base that opinion on neither knowing nor understanding British culture.

  • Report
  

  by Brian I on March 16th, 2012

• @Hardcore: The point is that Martin was /not/ defending his property. The threat to his property had disappeared. The burglar was running away as fast as he could. Had Martin not fired, the burglar would heve been out of there as fast as he could without any further damage to martin's property. /Earlier/ he had been a threat to Martin's property, and Martin might have been justified in fearing a threat to himself. But by the time he fired, it was clear that the intruders were fleeing, and firing was vengeance not defence. Or so the court decided.

  • Report
  

  by Im Alec on March 16th, 2012

• Brian, if the guy is still in your house and he's still breathing, he's still a threat. Plain and simple. No gray area.
  And while I take no offense if a Briton said our laws are wrong, I'm merely answering a question posted on a website with no indication that is was to be answered by Britons only.
  
  @Alec - He was defending his property. The threat was still there (he was shot inside the house) and you have no idea what he would have done if Martin didn't shoot him. I can make the opposite contention, that had Martin not had a firearm, he would have been the victim of a beating or worse, been killed by the home invader.

  • Report
  

  by Hardcore Conservative on March 16th, 2012

• I'm quite happy to agree to disagree about whether a fleeing villain represents a threat (in British law he doesn't, but apparently US law sees it differently). However, I still wonder on what you base your claim that, "the crime rate in Britain is actually higher than here in the US."

  • Report
  

  by Brian I on March 16th, 2012

• "Compared with the United States of America, the United Kingdom has a slightly higher total crime rate per capita of approximately 85 per 1000 people, while in the USA it is approximately 80."
  "Total crimes (per capita) by country. Definition, graph and map". Nationmaster.com. 2011-05-15.

  • Report
  

  by Hardcore Conservative on March 16th, 2012

• Thank you. As the question was about guns I must have been concentrating on murders - England and Wales,with 1.6 murders per 100,000 inhabitants (Scotland, 2.6) compared to the USA, with 5.9 per 100,000 inhabitants.

  • Report
  

  by Brian I on March 16th, 2012

• Sure, but taking away guns from the population only harms the law abiding people anyway. Like the old adage, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Retricting guns from the law abiding citizens only makes them easy prey for the criminal.

  • Report
  

  by Hardcore Conservative on March 19th, 2012

• But conversely, it makes it harder (but certainly not impossible) fro criminals to have guns, and much easier to arrest criminals before they set out on armed crime. The act of buying a gun makes you a criminal in the UK, whereas largely you are not a criminal until you fire the gun in the US - by which time it is too late for the person you fired it at.

  • Report
  

  by Im Alec on March 19th, 2012

• I give up. It's obviously impossible for Hardcore Conservative to grasp the simple fact that UK culture is different from US culture.

  • Report
  

  by Brian I on March 19th, 2012

• I get it Brian. If you're no longer interested in talking about it, say goodbye. Again, the question didn't state that only Brits should answer, so, I'm giving my opinion.
  
  @Alec - I disagree. It only makes it harder for law abiding citizens to buy guns. Just like drugs, criminals can still get them easily enough.

  • Report
  

  by Hardcore Conservative on March 19th, 2012

• It isn't that I'm not interested in talking, it's just that banging my head against a wall is no fun. I haven't suggested that only Britons should have answered, just that you seem to have no understanding of the situation and culture in Britain.
  
  Your insistence that a country in which you don't live, and evidently have no real knowledge of, should alter its laws and traditions doesn't stop it from being a valid opinion, despite it being ill-informed, arrogant and just plain wrong.

  • Report
  

  by Brian I on March 19th, 2012

• Apparently you're illinformed about whether or not I've lived in England and whether or not my opinion is based on ignorance or experience.

  • Report
  

  by Hardcore Conservative on March 20th, 2012

Comments

Comments

Comments