PDA

View Full Version : Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun


ForeverNight
11-14-2009, 05:36 PM
A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.

"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."


The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.

In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.

"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.

He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?"

To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.

He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.

"You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.

"Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?"

Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."

Source (http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html)

I found this on a forum I regularly ghost on and originally thought it was a satire piece. After reading the article I'm slightly confused about this situation, maybe a resident Englander could explain this? I think the guy was slightly crazy for just taking it out, but still! 5 years?!

Otherwise, discuss.

Darth InSidious
11-14-2009, 05:43 PM
... Nope, sorry. There's no adequate explanation for the sheer stupidity of this.

ForeverNight
11-14-2009, 05:54 PM
Damn, I was afraid of that.

jonathan7
11-14-2009, 05:58 PM
... Nope, sorry. There's no adequate explanation for the sheer stupidity of this.

The judicial system is run by a bunch of egotistical, mindless bureaucrats? Apparently abusing baby P - results in the same number of years in prison as handing in a gun you found.

The law is moronic and stupid, it with no sense of irony I say whoever came up with the law should be shot.

JediAthos
11-14-2009, 06:30 PM
Wow...that's pretty asinine. I can't guarantee it, but I'm relatively certain there's no case of anything like that happening here in the U.S. so I don't really have any comparison to draw from, there certainly are plenty of other idiotic laws here though :) IMHO I think it's ridiculous that he was arrested and somewhere beyond insane that he could spend five years in prison.

Remind me not to try to be a good Samaritan if I ever find myself in the U.K.

Samuel Dravis
11-14-2009, 06:33 PM
Crazy. Although I certainly wouldn't walk into a police station with a gun, unless I had called and made certain it was ok first. Government buildings are a big no-no for gun toting even in Texas. It doesn't sound like the man warned the police what he had, just asked to see the Chief while carrying a friggan shotgun. I mean, seriously.

Ping
11-14-2009, 06:55 PM
Arrested for turning in a gun? Geez. I'm all for gun restrictions, but this is ridiculous. Who was the idiot who made that law?

Q
11-14-2009, 07:12 PM
I'm all for gun restrictions, but this is ridiculous.
And I'm not, because they allow for precisely this type of stupidity. :dozey:

Way to go, Airstrip One. :golfclap:

What's next, cameras all over, watching your every move? Oh, wait...

jonathan7
11-14-2009, 07:37 PM
And I'm not, because they allow for precisely this type of stupidity. :dozey:

Way to go, Airstrip One. :golfclap:

What's next, cameras all over, watching your every move? Oh, wait...

Since the UK banned Hand guns, and made most fire-arm ownership illegal, with the exception of rifles and shotguns which are highly licensed there have been no repeats of Dunblane (the shooting which caused the anti-gun legislation). In the period since 1996 the U.S. has had 51 School shootings, with at my count at least 47 of those shootings involving at least 1 fatality. In the same period the U.K had 0 school shooting incidents....

Darth InSidious
11-14-2009, 07:43 PM
The US has had 9,236 reported gun homicides in 2004 alone. See table 2.9, page 11 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/CIUS_2004_Section2.pdf).

By comparison, 50 gun homicides were reported in the UK in 2005/6.

Q
11-14-2009, 07:47 PM
So you're both in favor of oppressive gun control, just not the inevitable stupidity, such as this incident, that accompanies it.

Got it.

jonathan7
11-14-2009, 07:52 PM
So you're both in favor of oppressive gun control, just not the inevitable stupidity, such as this incident, that accompanies it.

Got it.

Yes, I'm in favour of Gun control, I don't see why it's oppressive? I imagine the students shot by those armed with guns might find that oppressive. I don't see how the above stupidity is an inevitability that accompanies the legislation; I think this was just laziness on the part of law makers; but I think that incompetence is an accurate description of the Labour government generally.

If the U.S. wants guns, and given how powerful the NRA is, I don't see any gun control legislation coming in to force in the U.S. so you needn't be concerned, but frankly the majority of the U.K. populace is more than happy with our "oppressive" gun control.

I dare say though, I'd rather have "oppressive" gun control than a lot of people dead, who would for the sake of people's right to bear arms be alive.

Q
11-14-2009, 07:56 PM
This type of stupidity is inevitable because laziness and incompetence in government is inevitable.

But, if you are correct and the majority of your population actually wants that type of legislation, then it should have it. I'm just glad that I don't live in the UK.

Totenkopf
11-14-2009, 08:27 PM
Reminds me of the addage "no good deed goes unpunished". If "oppressive gun control" actually could prevent a bunch of dead people and was carried out by a truly benign power.......maybe. Problem is a little thing called borders and human ingenuity. Don't think someone won't kill you just b/c they don't have a gun. Just look how many people get killed by suicide bombers.........(as well as stabbings, beatings, hit-n-run-n -run over-and then run over again, ad nauseam...)

ForeverNight
11-14-2009, 09:24 PM
Take away the guns, they'll use swords, take away the swords, they'll use knives, take away the knives, they'll use clubs, take away the clubs they'll use their fists.

I can understand some gun restriction, I don't exactly want .50 caliber Sniper Rifles in just anybody's hands, but I've always thought more of a permit system than a blanket ban...

Oh well, I'm still in shock after reading/posting that article, if simply handling a gun is a crime...... well, I'm just amazed that my lack of faith in humanity's intelligence has been confirmed.

Darth Avlectus
11-14-2009, 11:09 PM
^^^Yeah but we have RINO douche-nozzles like Mike Bloomberg and Ahnuld Schwarzzenazi who cop an attitude and call current laws "unenforceable".

Since in America we're not a mertiocracy, we are no longer hiring and electing on a basis of best qualified. Seeing as how we are right next to cartel land I don't see how making handguns illegal is going to stop people from hopping the border and buying them, only to come back the USA and stick people up. I only see that the criminal would be further enabled to do more damage in that case.

Having worked alongside law enforcement at one point, I've learned that the criminal mindset is that of a predatory one, less likely to prey upon those who can fight back. They don't *want* a fight or a shootout, they want "easy pickin'zzz". They want to dominate their lack of competition.

All the laws in the world ain't going to stop a determined criminal--or bring their victims back to life. So that in mind I am with you on this.


@ suject: Ok, What the ****? This sounds like an extreme version of playing the blame game. Obviously, the gun had an owner at one point. So, since he didn't know he got pinned with the blame.

That's all it is. Got to have someone to blame, and hell, let's just make everyone potentially and/or circumstantially involved just absolutely guilty. Even if they can prove innocence of any actual crime. Boom, possession is just as bad because even with undeniable proof "we don't *know* that you're innocent". That's just total BS. It's the letter of the law and not the intent behind it. :dozey:

I have $50 that says an officer, or a senator, governor, etc. would get off scott free if not a slap on the wrists for the SAME. ::

The judicial system is run by a bunch of egotistical, mindless bureaucrats? Apparently abusing baby P - results in the same number of years in prison as handing in a gun you found.

The law is moronic and stupid, it with no sense of irony I say whoever came up with the law should be shot.
Multiple times. If not impaled, Vlad Tepes Dracul style.

vanir
11-15-2009, 12:03 AM
Fellers you're missing the agenda here. What we're talking is district regulation (local government) and the way the parliamentary legal process works. In the county of Surrey obviously local council administration related to firearms is hopelessly outdated, but this is not going to reflect regional or national legislation. It is most likely this case is being used as a proxy by the county to secure greater legislative freedom, the constant argument of local government under the parliamentary system.

The defendant isn't going to go to jail for five years, what's going to happen is it gets bumped to the district court (surrey, is that in wales?) and they're going to rule he acted in good faith and is of good character, performing a duty to benefit of the community. If need be, which is unlikely the lower house will convene to pass minutes of parliament enshrining the new legislation nationally.

This is simply how the legal system in parliamentary democracies remains contemporary. It's bureacratic and full of red tape, but it beats US jury trial and constitutional law any day of the week, being there will be a higher authority to adjudicate on this, presided over by reasonable minds. The very premise of parliamentary democracy lay in the ultimate authority of the legislative council, they can wipe anything and everything with a wave of their hand and there is simply no higher authority, not juries, not local courts, not a national constitution.

It's just a matter of playing the game.

Astor
11-15-2009, 07:29 AM
I agree that the police have been astronomically stupid in this instance, but I think Mr. Clarke really should have thought about the situation a little more before walking into his local Police Station with a shotgun. Pulling out a shotgun from a binbag and then it on the reception desk doesn't exactly strike me as a clever thing to do.

I doubt he will go to prison - it's more likely he'll be given a slap on the wrist and sent on his way.

And as for gun control, I don't see why our Firearms legislation is labled as 'oppressive' when the vast majority of the population don't want guns in the first place. There isn't an enshrined constitutional entitlement in Britain for gun ownership - we don't need (or, in many cases, even want) handguns - legal gun ownership is mostly still reserved for the local shoots, and historical re-enactors (black powder weapons requiring a shotgun license).

jonathan7
11-15-2009, 08:25 AM
Here's a facsinating table - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The general rule, that funnily enough the tighter a countries gun control laws the less and less people die from being shot. There will be those who sight knife crime as being more prevalent here in the UK; I haven't been unable to find any stats on death rates from knife crime. But what is true is that you are four times more likely to die from a gunshot wound that you are a knife wound.

What however doesn't lie is homicide rates; found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate The US is top of all Western Nations with on average 5.8 homicides per 100,000 of the population. England and Wales by Comparison has a homicide rate of 1.37 per 100,000.

The lowest Sub-region is Western Europe with only 1.5 homicides per 100,000; this also features the greatest number of nations with the strictest gun control laws.

Darth InSidious
11-15-2009, 11:49 AM
There isn't an enshrined constitutional entitlement in Britain for gun ownership
Actually the Bill of Rights (1689) enshrines the right of Protestant citizens to bear firearms.


And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:
...
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;...

Trench
11-15-2009, 02:42 PM
Reminds me of the addage "no good deed goes unpunished". If "oppressive gun control" actually could prevent a bunch of dead people and was carried out by a truly benign power.......maybe. Problem is a little thing called borders and human ingenuity. Don't think someone won't kill you just b/c they don't have a gun. Just look how many people get killed by suicide bombers.........(as well as stabbings, beatings, hit-n-run-n -run over-and then run over again, ad nauseam...)
This.
Take away the guns, they'll use swords, take away the swords, they'll use knives, take away the knives, they'll use clubs, take away the clubs they'll use their fists.

I can understand some gun restriction, I don't exactly want .50 caliber Sniper Rifles in just anybody's hands.
QFT.

It isn't people with guns who are the killers (just listen), its stupid people with guns. If the people who "run" this country (USA) would get off there *sses and do something about educating Americans, and cleaning all the gangs and slime of our street, then we would be okay. But the government isn't doing a d*mn thing.
I own a shotgun, but I've never even thought about shooting it at someone (unless they were to try to break into my house, but that's a different story).

@Thread: The guy should have called first, but I don't think he should go to prison for five years because of an honest mistake. Give him a warning, a slap on the wrist, and send him home.

Darth InSidious
11-15-2009, 03:08 PM
The Pavlovian reaction of the Americans in this thread is simply astonishing.

Darth Avlectus
11-15-2009, 03:50 PM
The lilly-living acceptance by the euros in this thread no less surprising. :xp:

Astor
11-15-2009, 04:10 PM
Actually the Bill of Rights (1689) enshrines the right of Protestant citizens to bear firearms.

Ah, I hadn't realised that. I'll go fetch my Matchlock, then. :p

I own a shotgun, but I've never even thought about shooting it at someone.

Wait, you mean to say that a 14 year old is allowed to own a shotgun in the USA? :confused:

jonathan7
11-15-2009, 04:17 PM
The lilly-living acceptance by the euros in this thread no less surprising. :xp:

It was the Americans who started the argument about Britain's Gun Laws, but you've not presented any arguments which have in anyway answered the arguments presented against you. i.e. the Statistics, for all your arguments against gun control, we still have a far lower homicide rate than you; indeed the place that has the highest regional homicide rate in the UK is Northern Ireland... The only place in the UK where the average citizen can own a gun; coincidence?

Take away the guns, they'll use swords, take away the swords, they'll use knives, take away the knives, they'll use clubs, take away the clubs they'll use their fists.

This argument is disingenuous as it fails to count for the fact that your 4 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound than a knife wound. And as you work your way down the list, the items are less and less efficient at killing people. UK gun law is aimed at "preserving as much life as possible" and in that aim it is very effective.

In reality, there are only really two logical routes to go, either a near total ban, or every citizen is allowed a gun. In terms of saving lives, I think it a mere matter of logic that a society which has very few guns, will have a lot less in the way of violent death (as backed up by the statistics).

That said I don't think any ban on guns would be effective in the US as there are so many in circulation, but sooner or later you need to tackle the fact your nation does have a gun problem related to violent crime.

Darth Avlectus
11-15-2009, 05:35 PM
It was the Americans who started the argument about Britain's Gun Laws, but you've not presented any arguments which have in anyway answered the arguments presented against you.

Neither have you answered how banning guns in the USA is going to stop border hoppers from getting them on the black market and coming back over to the USA to use them on our citizens. With little to fear in the way of counterattack it will mean they get to stick up quite a few people before the cops actually take interest to find and arrest them--if they even care to do that at all. It seems like cops are more concerned with easy busts than actually getting up and hunting down aggressive criminals. Criminals prey upon others because they do not believe they will be harmed or defended against in the process. They get arrested? Well, many of these types don't care: they have already been in jail/prison.

It isn't the LEGAL availability of guns, it's either black market, or that which slips through the cracks. While over there the EU is quite effective, I'm afraid it just doesn't work the same over here in the USA.

i.e. the Statistics, for all your arguments against gun control, we still have a far lower homicide rate than you; indeed the place that has the highest regional homicide rate in the UK is Northern Ireland... The only place in the UK where the average citizen can own a gun; coincidence?

What? Whaat? I was jabbing back at a generalized jab by DI. :p

So far as schools, if it wasn't guns it'd be something else (albeit statistically less dangerous) in the schools, and quite often is. Knife brandishing or attempts at improvising explosives or other is under reported. Many times, these kids feel they have nowhere else to turn because the schools refuse to do anything about or look into problems of bullying, etc.

I can assure you, you even try to buy a gun without a firearms license from a legit store and you'll be sent out with your tail between your legs. Seen it.

People who sell them off the books or illegally are how the guns are obtained that end up used in schools or other. Guns don't kill nor can they act on their own, people kill other people.

That said I don't think any ban on guns would be effective in the US as there are so many in circulation, but sooner or later you need to tackle the fact your nation does have a gun problem related to violent crime.

True--but actually many of us *are* admitting it. However, people are primarily to blame, not instruments that never have and never will be able to act upon their own.

jonathan7
11-15-2009, 06:33 PM
Neither have you answered how banning guns in the USA is going to stop border hoppers from getting them on the black market and coming back over to the USA to use them on our citizens.

Firstly I didn't state guns should be banned in the US. Secondly I didn't come marching into a thread saying that banning guns was bad or criticise the policy of doing such; indeed I've provided that statistics which indicate something entirely to the contrary and I've yet to hear any counter argument, so please feel free to argue why guns in the UK or Europe should be legal.

In an ideal world I think the policy of making guns illegal very sensible, however in any legislature you have to take into account many factors - and banning guns in the U.S. is not a practical to the solution there.

With little to fear in the way of counterattack it will mean they get to stick up quite a few people before the cops actually take interest to find and arrest them--if they even care to do that at all. It seems like cops are more concerned with easy busts than actually getting up and hunting down aggressive criminals. Criminals prey upon others because they do not believe they will be harmed or defended against in the process. They get arrested? Well, many of these types don't care: they have already been in jail/prison.

This argument holds no sway, seeing as the U.S. still has criminals, indeed you have more violent offenders per 100,000 than we do - and our citizens don't have arms to defend themselves.

It isn't the LEGAL availability of guns, it's either black market, or that which slips through the cracks. While over there the EU is quite effective, I'm afraid it just doesn't work the same over here in the USA.

I don't see why you couldn't be as efficient as we are several EU countries have borders with countries less desirable than Mexico. The reason guns couldn't practically be banned is you have so many legally already in circulation, so a ban wouldn't be effective.

So far as schools, if it wasn't guns it'd be something else (albeit statistically less dangerous) in the schools, and quite often is. Knife brandishing or attempts at improvising explosives or other is under reported. Many times, these kids feel they have nowhere else to turn because the schools refuse to do anything about or look into problems of bullying, etc.

Yes a kid could come into school with a knife, but he would kill considerably less individuals, and would be much easier to stop. An individual with a good proficiency in martial arts could stop an assailant armed with a knife considerably more easily than a gun. Improvising explosives is considerably hard, and homemade ones are not reliable, so I find this arguments poor at least; not least because please sight to me the number of schools blown up with victims, and the number of mass knife attacks at school, in comparison to gun wielding assailants. The gun, is clearly a far more efficient weapon for killing large amounts of people, over home made bombs and knifes.

I can assure you, you even try to buy a gun without a firearms license from a legit store and you'll be sent out with your tail between your legs. Seen it.

People who sell them off the books or illegally are how the guns are obtained that end up used in schools or other. Guns don't kill nor can they act on their own, people kill other people.

I seem to recall a number of parent owned legal guns being used in school shootings, so again while guns are available on the black market, they are easily obtainable through legal means in the US.

True--but actually many of us *are* admitting it. However, people are primarily to blame, not instruments that never have and never will be able to act upon their own.

If you take away the Nuclear bomb, then no-one can use it...

I re-iterate I don't think a gun ban in the U.S. is practical because of the number of fire arms that are in the country, but please stop pretending that many people having loaded weapons is a good idea!

Totenkopf
11-15-2009, 07:32 PM
@J7--even if you take away the nuke, you still have to find a way to hide the science behind it from others determined to have one (eg Iran, NK).

As to guns in the hands of the populace, there are something like 200+million firearms floating around in America. Much of the violence is gang-banger on gang-banger (ie criminals killing criminals). While it might be nice to live in a world where everyone practices a variant of live and let live, that's simply not reality. If "loaded weapons in the hands of many people" were as bad as you seem to imply, our death rate should likely be a lot higher. By and large, Americans aren't irresponsible gun users.

Q
11-15-2009, 08:05 PM
^Yup, the yearly death toll would most likely be in the hundreds of thousands instead of less than ten thousand.
The Pavlovian reaction of the Americans in this thread is simply astonishing.
YEEEEEHHHAAAAWWW! :D

Seriously, though, this is a touchy subject for many Americans like myself. To us, outlawing guns is a giant leap towards oligarchy.

Trench
11-15-2009, 09:02 PM
Wait, you mean to say that a 14 year old is allowed to own a shotgun in the USA? :confused:
As far as you know, yes. :carms:

:xp:
This argument is disingenuous as it fails to count for the fact that your 4 times more likely to die from a gunshot wound than a knife wound. And as you work your way down the list, the items are less and less efficient at killing people. UK gun law is aimed at "preserving as much life as possible" and in that aim it is very effective.
Having seen what gangs can and will do to get what they want, they could be fighting with stumps for arms and glazed over eyes. They will kill.
Take away the guns, they go at you with a knife until you're too dead to recognize.
Take away the knives, they beat you with a club until every bone in your body is shattered.
Take away the clubs, and they wouldn't bother fighting with fists. They'd just craft crude weapons to hack and beat you.

It may not be like that in the UK, but most Americans are willing to go too far to preserve their freedom. The rest of it aren't proud of it, but it takes more than a couple rednecks with shotguns to clean up gangs.:¬:

@Thread: I'll hold by my belief that he should be warned and let go. I don't see why they don't just throw this case out, or why the state would even want to take this guy to court.

YEEEEEHHHAAAAWWW! :D

Seriously, though, this is a touchy subject for many Americans like myself. To us, outlawing guns is a giant leap towards oligarchy.
Well there you go! Git yer gun 'an git 'er dun boy! What's say after this you and me go huntin! :D

Edit-- @below: Maybe, maybe not. But I'd like to see you try to get at a collector's stash. And most hunters wouldn't be too thrilled about they idea either.

Ping
11-15-2009, 09:03 PM
I don't see it as a step towards oligarchy. I mean, it would be nice if everyone could have a gun and use it responsibly, but since that's not the case, the most practical thing to do is to limit or ban the firearms. It wouldn't be high on the popularity scale, but it would on the practicality.

Darth Avlectus
11-15-2009, 09:27 PM
Firstly I didn't state guns should be banned in the US.

Nor I claim specifically you said that.

Secondly I didn't come marching into a thread saying that banning guns was bad or criticise the policy of doing such;

Nor I specifically criticize your policy: I'm not you so I don't know.

indeed I've provided that statistics which indicate something entirely to the contrary and I've yet to hear any counter argument, so please feel free to argue why guns in the UK or Europe should be legal.

I never criticized THAT you (not you specifically Jon, the EU as a whole I mean) have banned guns--it works for *you*. I'm not about to throw a sea crab into the pants of that. Do I think your laws are oppressive? Not for *you*; For me and the rest of Americans, YES.

In an ideal world I think the policy of making guns illegal very sensible, however in any legislature you have to take into account many factors - and banning guns in the U.S. is not a practical to the solution there.

Thank you.


I don't see why you couldn't be as efficient as we are several EU countries have borders with countries less desirable than Mexico. The reason guns couldn't practically be banned is you have so many legally already in circulation, so a ban wouldn't be effective.

Because even if USA entirely disarms, what you put into effect in USA has no sway over Mexico. Guns would still get in, even with a blanket ban. While individuals perpetrating the crimes might be found and dealt with, the source of the problem would still remain.


If you take away the Nuclear bomb, then no-one can use it...

If malevolent people still have information to make another, they will do that. And they won't be honest about it nor submit to a UN inspeciton without hiding or shuffling it so the nuke cannot be found. (Until it's too late!)

I re-iterate I don't think a gun ban in the U.S. is practical because of the number of fire arms that are in the country, but please stop pretending that many people having loaded weapons is a good idea!

I reiterate, I (specifically) never said it was a good idea. Good sir... :D

EDIT: It occurs to me I may have been a tad inconsiderate, however I meant no such disrespect.

Q
11-15-2009, 09:51 PM
I don't see it as a step towards oligarchy.
I do. An unarmed populace is sooo much easier to push around.
I mean, it would be nice if everyone could have a gun and use it responsibly, but since that's not the case, the most practical thing to do is to limit or ban the firearms.
Sounds like curing the headache by cutting off the head to me.
It wouldn't be high on the popularity scale, but it would on the practicality.
I'd say that its not being popular is a gross understatement, and the armed revolt that would most likely occur would not be very high on the practicality scale. ;)

SW01
11-15-2009, 11:33 PM
the place that has the highest regional homicide rate in the UK is Northern Ireland... The only place in the UK where the average citizen can own a gun; coincidence?

Not if you assume that the paramilitaries are/were using perfectly legal firearms, no. Or that they were the only, or even principal weapon used.

so please feel free to argue why guns in the UK or Europe should be legal.

For the same reason shotguns, some rifles and air-rifles are still legal in England: sporting. I do not hold with extending a 'right to bear arms' to all citizens, but I equally dislike the notion of penalising those of us who use a firearm in the same manner as a person is free to use a bow - purely for sport.

I am, of course, rather heavily biased. However, I do not believe that any perceived success of gun law on the mainland can be readily applied to Northern Ireland - there are still reports of people attempting to smuggle weapons into the country from outside the UK, so I believe the impact would be rather less.



Regarding the main point of the topic:

Hopefully, given the motive behind Mr. Clarke's actions, the Judge will opt for the fine option rather than imprisonment as in Schedule 6, Part II, s.1(1)(b)(i) of the 1968 Act - possession of a firearm on indictment. Unfortunately it appears that it would be taken as 'aggravated' seeing the shotgun was shortened (even though not by him!), so it is seven years as the alternative.

Jae Onasi
11-16-2009, 01:00 AM
What I'd really like to know is what the police expected this guy to do. Why was turning a gun that he'd found into the police station a criminal offense? The guy's trying to do the right thing and gets zapped with a criminal charge. That just makes no sense to me.

Tobias Reiper
11-16-2009, 05:16 AM
Remind me if I decide to go to a bank and while I'm in there, if a man starts robbing the bank and turns around giving me the chance to tackle him, possibly take his gun, and shoot him NOT to do so, because despite doing a generally good thing, I still might get charged with murder, because the law is acting stupid.

Darth InSidious
11-16-2009, 05:28 AM
Remind me if I decide to go to a bank and while I'm in there, if a man starts robbing the bank and turns around giving me the chance to tackle him, possibly take his gun, and shoot him NOT to do so, because despite doing a generally good thing, I still might get charged with murder, because the law is acting stupid.

No, you'll be charged with manslaughter, Because you killed someone.

jonathan7
11-16-2009, 09:39 AM
Not if you assume that the paramilitaries are/were using perfectly legal firearms, no. Or that they were the only, or even principal weapon used.

When I made the statement I made it in expectation that the guns would be licensed; the IRA is, I think powerful enough to organise for it's gun to be legal - after all it is nothing but a glorified Mafia ring.

For the same reason shotguns, some rifles and air-rifles are still legal in England: sporting. I do not hold with extending a 'right to bear arms' to all citizens, but I equally dislike the notion of penalising those of us who use a firearm in the same manner as a person is free to use a bow - purely for sport.

UK legislation doesn't penalise those who use such guns for sport, as you can obtain a licence; however Northern Irish legislature is such that unlike the rest of the UK you are allowed a gun in Northern Ireland on the grounds for "personal defence" where as that is not an acceptable reason in the rest of the UK.

I am, of course, rather heavily biased. However, I do not believe that any perceived success of gun law on the mainland can be readily applied to Northern Ireland - there are still reports of people attempting to smuggle weapons into the country from outside the UK, so I believe the impact would be rather less.

Northern Ireland is free to make it's own mind with regards appropriate legislature with regards guns, I was merely commenting on statistics. But certainly I think if it were possible to confiscate all the guns in the entirety of Ireland, it would be a much safer place :xp:

Remind me if I decide to go to a bank and while I'm in there, if a man starts robbing the bank and turns around giving me the chance to tackle him, possibly take his gun, and shoot him NOT to do so, because despite doing a generally good thing, I still might get charged with murder, because the law is acting stupid.

Why on earth would you "tackle" him a foreign country? Especially when unarmed?

mimartin
11-16-2009, 02:38 PM
He found a illegal “shorn-off” shotgun in his garden. Instead of calling the police, he waited until the next day and call the Chief Superintendent, but instead of telling what he had found, he just asked if he could “pop in and see him.” Then he took the gun to the police station? What was this guy thinking? How did he know the gun had not been used in a crime? How did he know his garden was not actually a crime scene?

I really don’t know what being a former soldier has to do with anything, but I would have thought such discipline required for the military would have taught him to think better. You find an illegal weapon on your property, you call the police. Let them handle removing and investigating the reasons that weapon is where it should not be. You do not take that weapon yourself to a police station. I can understand the rule and I can also understand why there is a zero tolerance for violating that law.

Ignorantia juris non excusat - Ignorance of the law does not excuse. However in this case a little common sense could have saved Mr. Paul Clarke a lot of heartache.

Totenkopf
11-16-2009, 03:36 PM
Ignorantia juris non excusat - Ignorance of the law does not excuse. However in this case a little common sense could have saved Mr. Paul Clarke a lot of heartache.

True enough. Though ignorance of the law is frightfully easier when the laws keep coming in copious amounts and ever larger in size. Hopefully, if he's guilty of nothing more than injudiciuos behavior, he gets a slap on the wrist and that ends it.

Darth Avlectus
11-16-2009, 04:03 PM
^ I second that notion.

He found a illegal “shorn-off” shotgun in his garden. Instead of calling the police, he waited until the next day and call the Chief Superintendent, but instead of telling what he had found, he just asked if he could “pop in and see him.” Then he took the gun to the police station? What was this guy thinking? How did he know the gun had not been used in a crime? How did he know his garden was not actually a crime scene? Having once worked along side law enforcement as a Sargent once told me: "Unless you know *every* little thing about an item, you don't know jack squat; where it's been, what it was used for, or even who ELSE it belonged to."

I really don’t know what being a former soldier has to do with anything, but I would have thought such discipline required for the military would have taught him to think better.
You aren't the only one, my friend. This sounds like a mistake that no average citizen (with even moderate common sense) should make.

You find an illegal weapon on your property, you call the police. Let them handle removing and investigating the reasons that weapon is where it should not be. You do not take that weapon yourself to a police station. I can understand the rule and I can also understand why there is a zero tolerance for violating that law. Well, now that is true. Least the guy could have done is taken measures to avoid getting handprints and fingerprints on it. :¬:

Ignorantia juris non excusat - Ignorance of the law does not excuse. However in this case a little common sense could have saved Mr. Paul Clarke a lot of heartache.:p

EDIT: I still think the law is overblown and that the penalty is rather steep.

vanir
11-17-2009, 08:43 AM
Darth Insidious,
Actually the Bill of Rights (1689) enshrines the right of Protestant citizens to bear firearms.


It is most definitely not related to any kind of militia but the right of relatively affluent citizens to defend themselves from thugs and highwaymen and for gentlemen to engage in duellling. The idea was a landowner could carry a small short range firearm if he should be walking the streets at night with a purse, which were finally lit in London in 1680 for similar reasoning.
By contemporary reasoning it is the right for stable, law abiding citizens to engage such sports as shooting, and keep shotguns on their estate without too much trouble, or for a wealthy gentleman to defend himself against a home intruder with a Webley in between hunting trips to Africa. It's nothing to do with shoe salesmen and auto mechanics running around on the street strapping 9-mils shooting up criminals for example.
You must understand the cool thing about the parliamentary system is you can't repeal their authority with say constitutional law for example, it doesn't work that way, you can't wave a document in their faces and tell them how it must be interpreted, they'll tell you how it is to be interpreted and generally speaking will do so by examining it "in context as to the reasonable mind."

But then, where examined as a historical document neither is the US constitutional ammendment relating to the "right to bear arms," as it was a State right by intention and for the formation of State controlled militias beyond the authority of the federal government and aside national militaries, it had nothing to do with individuals either defending themselves from criminal activity of any kind, nor running around on the street bearing arms for giggles and inherent stupidity.
Certainly it is used in modern times by lobbyists and individual citizens alike pertaining to individual self defence and vigilanteism however this was clearly never the intention of the document. But then American culture has evolved with ridiculous laws like justifiable homicide, where modern parliamentary legal systems and commonwealth culture observe that homicide is never justified, ever, but it is occasionally unavoidable. Big difference in perspective on the matter.
If the United States was governed by a parliamentary democracy there is no way on earth they would allow the constitutional ammendment in question to be interpreted as a common right for citizens to bear arms wontonly or whimsically, it would enshrine the right of individual States to form paramilitary militias for use by State government officials in the event of dictatorial and oppressive federal government (ie. inadvertant neo-Nazi national election) only. And they wouldn't be using concealed handguns, they'd be using F-16's. It was meant to be State controlled national guards.

It must be recognised that Americentric and Eurocentric views on the entire subject are culturally at odds. Entirely different perspectives on what a democracy entails are being practised and have been for hundreds of years.
The yank way is very bad in terms of proliferent deadly crime pro rata. The same guy that bottles a feller down the pub in the face in England shoots six dead in the US and then starts on a school.

JuniorModder
11-17-2009, 12:12 PM
Yes, I'm in favour of Gun control, I don't see why it's oppressive? I imagine the students shot by those armed with guns might find that oppressive. I don't see how the above stupidity is an inevitability that accompanies the legislation; I think this was just laziness on the part of law makers; but I think that incompetence is an accurate description of the Labour government generally.

If the U.S. wants guns, and given how powerful the NRA is, I don't see any gun control legislation coming in to force in the U.S. so you needn't be concerned, but frankly the majority of the U.K. populace is more than happy with our "oppressive" gun control.

I dare say though, I'd rather have "oppressive" gun control than a lot of people dead, who would for the sake of people's right to bear arms be alive.

I'd personally take the chance of being murdered at a school shooting (I'm homeschooled, but I am going to high school next year) than not be able to protect my family or myself if it becomes necessary. Man the government's going down the tubes..


JuniorModder

Sabretooth
11-17-2009, 01:51 PM
I'd personally take the chance of being murdered at a school shooting (I'm homeschooled, but I am going to high school next year) than not be able to protect my family or myself if it becomes necessary.

So you end up getting potentially killed regardless of whether gun control is strict or not. Note that as much as there is a 'chance' of a school shooting, there is a similar 'chance' of you or your family getting into mortal danger. Also note that when you are on the receiving end of a school shooting, you are in mortal danger yourself, and to protect yourself, you will need guns - in school. This will turn the school shooting into a two-way gang war, which will potentially put at risk dozens of other students. For their safety, they will require guns as well. This turns the scenario into an anarchist free-for-all war.

Hint: Somalia has very lax gun laws.

JuniorModder
11-17-2009, 02:27 PM
Think about it. Which scenario is more likely to have more people dying from guns?

Everyone has guns.
No one has guns.

The answer is b.

I'll tell you why.

If guns are illegal, then it's more likely that the people that will shoot people will get guns anyway, and then shoot people.

If it is required for everyone to own a gun, then the criminals will think "Ohh maybe I shouldn't shoot em' because they might have a gun."

JuniorModder

EDIT Whoops meant b

Trench
11-17-2009, 02:39 PM
Think about it. Which scenario is more likely to have more people dying from guns?

Everyone has guns.
No one has guns.

The answer is a.

I'll tell you why.

If guns are illegal, then it's more likely that the people that will shoot people will get guns anyway, and then shoot people.

If it is required for everyone to own a gun, then the criminals will think "Ohh maybe I shouldn't shoot em' because they might have a gun."

JuniorModder

That's pretty close to my logic. Either that, or all the good people in America can move out to Redneck territory (like me) and start farming. Because everyone knows that if you shoot at rednecks, we shoot back.

On-topic: After reading some of the posts here, and re-reading the OP, I agree that this guy used hardly any common sense. He should have called the police and had someone get it, or at least have told them he wanted to turn in a gun. Maybe he should do a few days of community service.

ForeverNight
11-17-2009, 03:02 PM
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. My issue with the ruling is the 5 years minimum that he's going to get for doing this. I think that a law is stupid if having the shotgun for ~a day makes it yours in the eyes of the law. Maybe Jury Nullification should've come into play?

@Junior: What? Are you saying that if everybody has guns more people are likely to die of gun violence? Or are you saying the opposite? :dozey:

JuniorModder
11-17-2009, 03:07 PM
@ForeverNight: Less people are going to die if everyone has guns.

I'll repeat what I said:

If guns are illegal, then it's more likely that the people that will shoot people will get guns anyway, and then shoot people.

If it is required for everyone to own a gun, then the criminals will think "Ohh maybe I shouldn't shoot em' because they might have a gun."

This is also another difference between European and American thinking about guns.

JuniorModder

ForeverNight
11-17-2009, 03:11 PM
Think about it. Which scenario is more likely to have more people dying from guns?

Everyone has guns.
No one has guns.

The answer is a.

That threw me off, maybe go back and ninja-edit it? :xp:

@Your thought: I'm in almost total agreement with that.

Darth Avlectus
11-17-2009, 03:57 PM
I'll let moderators do their job but maybe suggest another thread be opened on this off-topic but gun related discussion. This thread is about european laws (though maybe not without an implicit scoff, to and fro, Americans and Euros) and someone violating a law with a lack of common sense. Unless this is all part of the same discussion?:raise:

Whose to say the high society we appreciate today with no (apparent) practical need for firearms will last forever? It won't. Societies and all things eventually crumble, wither, or in some way cease over time. It may be seconds long or it may span millenia.

No guns means no gun violence, true. Once guns have been introduced into the equation, however, you'll never get rid of them. I am fairly certain if we got rid of all guns and all plans for them--one day another person would rediscover and reinvent them even given no evidence physically or historically.

At some point arms are involved with preserving and protecting society. We live in an age where threats are minor and docile. But that could all change. Hence my preference for preparedness. I do not share blind trust in government, so I am that of the self reliant, self preserving mind and someone other than military, law enforcement, or government has to keep up on it.

So you end up getting potentially killed regardless of whether gun control is strict or not. Note that as much as there is a 'chance' of a school shooting, there is a similar 'chance' of you or your family getting into mortal danger. Also note that when you are on the receiving end of a school shooting, you are in mortal danger yourself, and to protect yourself, you will need guns - in school. This will turn the school shooting into a two-way gang war, which will potentially put at risk dozens of other students. For their safety, they will require guns as well. This turns the scenario into an anarchist free-for-all war.

Hint: Somalia has very lax gun laws.

Ah Sabre, how did I know you'd say something like this? :rolleyes:

I won't say the likelihoods are uniformly true all across the board and vanir is right: it really comes down to cultural differences and personal preference.

mimartin
11-17-2009, 04:06 PM
Back on topic please.

Also please leave the moderating to those of us trained in such humble arts. :xp:

There are already threads on gun control, but per forum rules do not resurrect unless you have something to actually contribute to the discussion.

Ping
11-17-2009, 05:27 PM
Sounds like curing the headache by cutting off the head to me.

I'm a realist, and that seems like the most practical and best way to go. Not all gun violence will be stopped, but crime rates should go down. I'd love it if guns were legal and people can use them correctly, but, since people can't (school shootings and some murders are evidence of this), then the most practical way to go is to get rid of firearms. I may have read a bit too much of Machiavelli's Prince, but hey, what works, works.

Q
11-17-2009, 07:51 PM
And "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

jonathan7
11-17-2009, 09:07 PM
@ForeverNight: Less people are going to die if everyone has guns.

I'll repeat what I said:



This is also another difference between European and American thinking about guns.

JuniorModder

Yeah which entirely ignores the statistics I posted earlier which prove quite the opposite; that a ban on guns reduces the number of fatalities; America has the highest murder rate of any MEDC.

Now I really don't care if America wants guns or not, that's your call. However don't ignore things and post things which are false - A statistical fact, I posted earlier in this thread that the more widespread gun ownership is, the more people die from gun related injuries. Furthermore I really fail to see how anything else would be the "logical" conclusion of this!

Guns don't kill people, rappers do, I saw it on a documentary on BBC2!

mimartin
11-17-2009, 09:32 PM
Strange, is post 51 showing up for anyone else, or does this color make it harder to read? :xp:
Hey--you know how it can be with things disappearing in Area 51. --Jae

Back on topic or suffer the consequences.

You too J7, don't make me call Lynk or Jeff.

Who ya gonna call??? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCHFVTQKqdQ) I shall refrain from posting in the rest of the thread ;) -- j7

Sabretooth
11-17-2009, 09:54 PM
Think about it. Which scenario is more likely to have more people dying from guns?

Everyone has guns.
No one has guns.

The answer is a.

I'll tell you why.
What is this supposed to mean? You say yourself that more people will die if everyone has guns. That's my side of the argument. :indif:

If guns are illegal, then it's more likely that the people that will shoot people will get guns anyway, and then shoot people.
To prevent that, we implement a little something called gun control.

If it is required for everyone to own a gun, then the criminals will think "Ohh maybe I shouldn't shoot em' because they might have a gun."
What if the criminal decides to shoot someone in their sleep, when they can't heroically defend themselves with a gun? Or maybe they'll pick on the handicapped, the ones with poor aim, or on children. Would you rather that we give our children guns in the interest of personal security? :eek:

El Sitherino
11-17-2009, 10:07 PM
Think about it. Which scenario is more likely to have more people dying from guns?

Everyone has guns.
No one has guns.

The answer is a.

I'll tell you why.

If guns are illegal, then it's more likely that the people that will shoot people will get guns anyway, and then shoot people.

If it is required for everyone to own a gun, then the criminals will think "Ohh maybe I shouldn't shoot em' because they might have a gun."

JuniorModder
So when the enforcers show up they'll just have to shoot everyone in the school, good idea.
Learning self-defense would seem like a more sensible option.

As for criminals thinking twice about shooting, wrong, as criminals tend to live by a do or die ideal. Not to mention they'll have less hesitation in killing someone than the average citizen. Nearly 68% of all US Military serving in Vietnam shot high of their target, not including the additional 14% who didn't fire their weapon at all. Clearly even trained killers aren't too willing to outright shoot a lifethreatening target.

JuniorModder
11-17-2009, 10:09 PM
I meant that more people will die if b was the scenario.

But anyways, I still don't think that this dude should go to jail. I mean, he told the police didn't he? There are a lot worse things he could have done with the gun. I mean I didn't even know that turning in a gun so that no one else will get hurt was illegal either.

JuniorModder

jonathan7
11-17-2009, 10:11 PM
I meant that more people will die if b was the scenario.

But anyways, I still don't think that this dude should go to jail. I mean, he told the police didn't he? There are a lot worse things he could have done with the gun. I mean I didn't even know that turning in a gun so that no one else will get hurt was illegal either.

JuniorModder

I would very much doubt in the U.S. it is illegal to hand them in; guns are however far more frequent there ;)

JuniorModder
11-17-2009, 10:24 PM
I would very much doubt in the U.S. it is illegal to hand them in; guns are however far more frequent there ;)



"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.

"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."

Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Then am I missing something? Why was he arrested then?

JuniorModder

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-17-2009, 10:31 PM
And "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

There are a lot of things that couldn't have been predicted 200 years ago. Like automatic weapons that can fit in your pocket and that are more accurate than rifles from 200 years ago.

El Sitherino
11-17-2009, 10:35 PM
Guns aren't the only arms. In fact it's illegal in 3 states to purchase, own, or "operate" nunchaku.

Where's the NNA for my nunchaku rights? To be honest we don't need guns for anything other than hunting. Want a gun otherwise, join the military or police (hence the well regulated militia part). If you're afraid the military is going to come into your house and take it over, then you should probably learn how to disarm.

jonathan7
11-17-2009, 10:53 PM
Then am I missing something? Why was he arrested then?

JuniorModder

It is against UK law, which is where this happened.

mimartin
11-17-2009, 10:57 PM
It is against UK law, which is where this happened.
Carry an illegal weapon and shells unannounced into an American police station and see what happens. I have no doubt that you would not get 5 years, but I have even less doubt that you will have wished you used some common sense before doing something so stupid.

HK-42
11-18-2009, 01:13 AM
Wait he got all the way to the chief's office? Do they not stick him through a metal detector first? But yeah, he deserves no more than a small investigation of the gun to make sure he wasnt lying then be let off.

Q
11-18-2009, 01:15 AM
There are a lot of things that couldn't have been predicted 200 years ago. Like automatic weapons that can fit in your pocket and that are more accurate than rifles from 200 years ago.
And yet the law-abiding citizenry was trusted to keep and bear arms that were equivalent to the best that the military had at the time. Not so, now.

As to the accuracy statement; well, inherent accuracy is directly proportional to barrel length, rifling twist rate and projectile weight, now as it was back then, so I'm rather skeptical of that statement, as the laws of physics do not change. In the end, any projectile weapon is only as accurate as its wielder anyway.

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-18-2009, 01:48 AM
And yet the law-abiding citizenry was trusted to keep and bear arms that were equivalent to the best that the military had at the time. Not so, now.

As to the accuracy statement; well, inherent accuracy is directly proportional to barrel length, rifling twist rate and projectile weight, now as it was back then, so I'm rather skeptical of that statement, as the laws of physics do not change. In the end, any projectile weapon is only as accurate as its wielder anyway.

I believe you forgot projectile shape, speed, and material, as well as the fact that musket barrels weren't rifled. Plus, when you can fire 50 rounds in the time it takes another weapon to fire one, your chances of hitting your target go up quite a bit.

El Sitherino
11-18-2009, 02:37 AM
And yet the law-abiding citizenry was trusted to keep and bear arms that were equivalent to the best that the military had at the time. Not so, now.

Not entirely true. First we must face the fact that other than quality of material there wasn't any real distinct difference in the weapons, after that it was merely a matter of what style of weapon. Today we've finely tuned firearms, such as the rifle. There are automatic rifles and bolt-action, these have increased the range of a shot 4x over that 200 years ago, as well as the number of shots per minute even more so than distance.

Second you have to recognize that 200 years ago the average citizen was fully capable of utilizing a firearm properly and people were taught to use them with reasonable efficiency. They were required commonly for defense of animal attack as well as hunting. During the time there was also a very definite fear of home invasion after foreign invasion.
We have since formed a well regulated national army as well as National Guard to defend our homeland and established ourselves as a top-notch military force. The defense used by the NRA of the second ammendment is obsolete and doesn't really have much of a standing in the present day. We also have other means to defend ourselves without presenting more danger to the situation; security systems, self-defense courses, etc.

A quick review over gun crime and crime prevention will show that the possession of a firearm does nothing to actually prevent a crime and often presents only more of a threat. Sure there are instances where a person is shot and a situation is ended, however in these incidents it's an element of surprise and the gun could easily be replaced with a knife or bat.

Now, I'm not against the right of citizens to own guns, but I do think it's pointless for anyone other than active military to possess an automatic weapon. The more we work to prevent them from flowing around the market, the more we'll remove them from the illegal trade. When guns are confiscated they need to be destroyed.

Darth Avlectus
11-20-2009, 03:07 AM
Guns don't kill people, rappers do, I saw it on a documentary on BBC2!

This has been said about the rapper culture for years in America. Interesting.

@ below: Good point. Same goes with even a sword or a guan'dao. Where an attacker is out of range of melee weapons but well within good accuracy range, you try to make a move and they'll just shoot. If he's a scrapper too, you are in for a nasty fight at least. Most average people don't know enough martial arts to effectively disarm and fight off an armed criminal.

Also, greater numbers: if there are two or more and not clustered together which they rarely are. You might KO/whack one guy but the other turns and shoots or beats you down while you're preoccupied. You're no match for the gun out of range, especially if you can't see it. You might be able to fight it out if he is unarmed, and this is a big IF.

Secrecy/element of surprise only works for the stealth. Out in the open, this dies quickly for most.

Web Rider
11-20-2009, 04:17 AM
A quick review over gun crime and crime prevention will show that the possession of a firearm does nothing to actually prevent a crime and often presents only more of a threat. Sure there are instances where a person is shot and a situation is ended, however in these incidents it's an element of surprise and the gun could easily be replaced with a knife or bat.

While I would tend to agree, you can produce some evidence to support this yes? Though I disagree with your point about a knife or a bat. For a bat or a knife to work, you have to be within arms reach of the guy. Say, 3-4 feet, less to really get use out of knife-force. With a gun however, you could be down the hallway, or heck, on the other side of a door. With a bat or a knife, you have to risk a physical confrontation with the attacker, which means if the person can overpower you, or you stab/hit them in a less-than-knocking-out or killing manner, you're gonna be SOL.

Beyond that, there are as well, far too many lawyers who would run a person through the wringer over injuring a person breaking into their home. As the pirates used to say "Dead men tell no tales." And there are actual cases with burglars breaking into a home, being injured or injuring themselves, and winning against the homeowner. I've yet to see a dead robber win a case much less sue.

Jae Onasi
11-20-2009, 06:37 PM
@ below: Good point. Same goes with even a sword or a guan'dao.

How many average citizens have either one of those weapons?

And yes, I do have a sword, a foil, and a rapier, but I'm not exactly an average person.

El Sitherino
11-20-2009, 11:17 PM
While I would tend to agree, you can produce some evidence to support this yes?
To be honest, I can't think of any particular instances off the top of my head that can be linked to online, however I know of several anecdotal incidents. As well, while I do dislike police for the most part, I have frequently spoken to detectives. Many of which will tell you the chances of the average citizen getting off a reasonable shot.

Though I disagree with your point about a knife or a bat. For a bat or a knife to work, you have to be within arms reach of the guy. Say, 3-4 feet, less to really get use out of knife-force. With a gun however, you could be down the hallway, or heck, on the other side of a door.
And how many first time people shooters have the skill or nerve to shoot from down a hallway?

With a bat or a knife, you have to risk a physical confrontation with the attacker, which means if the person can overpower you, or you stab/hit them in a less-than-knocking-out or killing manner, you're gonna be SOL.

Which is where the whole surprise attack part comes in to play. Not saying it's a matter of every time, but then neither is reacting to gun violence with more gun violence.

Beyond that, there are as well, far too many lawyers who would run a person through the wringer over injuring a person breaking into their home. As the pirates used to say "Dead men tell no tales." And there are actual cases with burglars breaking into a home, being injured or injuring themselves, and winning against the homeowner. I've yet to see a dead robber win a case much less sue.
True, but I don't believe that was the argument here. Besides, there are few people who receive articles written about them that shoot to kill and are not former/current military or police.


Point is, it's better to receive training in self-defense than to simply brandish a gun.

Tommycat
11-20-2009, 11:23 PM
How many average citizens have either one of those weapons?

And yes, I do have a sword, a foil, and a rapier, but I'm not exactly an average person.

I have quite a collection of edged weapons. Some of which are not exactly inexpensive. I even have my great great grandfather's civil war sword. But like you, I could HARDLY be classified as the average person(I also happen to have a couple of .50 cal rifles). BUT the average person IS likely to have a farther reaching cutting weapon. I mean a machette is cheap, durable and easy to get. As is a fire axe.

Granted none match the stopping power or range of a shotgun(personal preference for home defense), which requires less skill to use than any edged weapon for effective defense(WAAAAAAY better than a 50 cal... cheaper too haha).

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-20-2009, 11:43 PM
no gun will stand against my hanzo steel *caresses katana*

Tommycat
11-20-2009, 11:48 PM
no gun will stand against my hanzo steel *caresses katana*

Better be pretty quick with that blade to stop 00 buck shot.

Web Rider
11-21-2009, 12:55 AM
Point is, it's better to receive training in self-defense than to simply brandish a gun.

I disagree. Self-defense teaches exactly that, self defense. Assuming the person is only after you're valuables, it quickly raises the legal question: why did you attempt to use force to stop them, if you weren't threatened. Of sure there's an argument for "well they might become a threat" but unless you're President, the "pre-emptive strike" argument tends to fall flat.

Fact of the matter is, to incapacitate someone invading your home, even when trained in self-defense(assuming we're talking some sort of martial arts here), requires a high level of skill, or a strong desire to hurt the person. Either of which can put the defender in jail or under the microscope of the law to find out exactly why you went to such lengths. Since the law clearly fails to understand that a single kick is unlikely to stop an invader.

A gun on the other hand, succeeds in that area of "lack of training". People who are well-versed in guns will generally tend to not use them. They are aware that the threat of a gun is greater than it's use. However, for everyone else, you have the argument "he was in my home, I grabbed my gun, and shot." And it plays right into that lack of know-how. You are not well versed with it enough for people to be able to say "you should have known better!"

Sadly, this is because it's not so simple as to just kick the invader's butt and have them run away. In some places, the law works fine just like that. In other places, it's not so simple. Guns leave a wide variety of forensic evidence that allow investigators to find out if you actually shot Invader-Man in your home, or if you shot him outside and drug him in. Self-defense however, does not. There is no evidence left(assuming you don't beat him to a bloody pulp), that you actually were defending yourself inside your home.

I agree people should get self-defense training(in a non-military-lead manner), and that people should be required to annually or bi-annually submit to gun-use and gun-safety tests if they own one(or more)(though in the US that will raise 2nd Amdenment questions). But then, the people invading homes are people would would probably take these classes as well. There is no greater guarantee that knowing kung-fu would give you any advantage over an invader who also knows some form of martial arts. While guns can be acquired illegally, they are still expensive, even more so illegally, and they are an expense that many robbers do not take. As well, if the invader owns the gun legally, it can be easily traced. Where a person learned karate from cannot.

So, while I agree that people need to be trained to defend themselves better, I think that there is great value in "brandishing" a gun in self defense. Particularly within your own home. An invader may or may not be scared of any supposed "martial skill", but they can recognize a gun, and they know what it can do. Some guy in a funny pose threatening to "kick his ass" if he doesn't leave, that's a bluff people will readily call.

Tommycat
11-21-2009, 01:22 AM
@Web Rider: Not to mention anyone can claim to know 17 forms of martial arts. Few know them. But the racking of a pump action shotgun makes it pretty obvious that you have a deadly weapon and it's ready to use.

Web Rider
11-21-2009, 02:40 AM
@Web Rider: Not to mention anyone can claim to know 17 forms of martial arts. Few know them. But the racking of a pump action shotgun makes it pretty obvious that you have a deadly weapon and it's ready to use.

Exactly, not to mention that in this day and age, knowing some form of "martial arts" is "cool" and "hip" and lots of people who know none of them often claim to know some. See: Napoleon Dynamite.

Darth Avlectus
11-21-2009, 04:28 AM
And how many first time people shooters have the skill or nerve to shoot from down a hallway?

...yet going back some...

As for criminals thinking twice about shooting, wrong, as criminals tend to live by a do or die ideal. Not to mention they'll have less hesitation in killing someone than the average citizen.

:confused:

If they live by do or die ideals, they don't care and ought to have all the nerve in the world to muster--even against all reason. If they are lacking in nerve and resolve then they will hesitate.

It can't be both ways at once.

Which is where the whole surprise attack part comes in to play. Not saying it's a matter of every time, but then neither is reacting to gun violence with more gun violence.

Neither is close range martial arts or melee effective all the time either. Neither is waiting for the cops every time. Neither is surrender always viable.
With so many unknowns, we can't know exactly.



Point is, it's better to receive training in self-defense than to simply brandish a gun.

Part of self defense is about perception, deception, and intimately knowing that which you will combat. Self defense against guns requires the subject to be familiar with them in all aspects which would include usage against another armed with the same.

You aren't the only one, BTW, who has had contact with law enforcement--and an uneasy relationship at the same time.

Tommycat
11-21-2009, 04:29 AM
Haha its been that way for a long time. Heck even when I was in elementary everyone "knew" Karate.

Add on top of it that many people actually ARE in some form of training for some random MMA competition, even knowing some form or another isn't protection. An 80 year old gramma isn't going to be able to take on a guy that's been training for <insert local MMA competition>. The gun is an equalizer. The gramma can point a shotgun in the general direction of someone breakin into her home a lot easier than she could beat him down.

Oh and at least one recent story
Shotgun blasts stop home invasion (http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061129/NEWS/611290331)
This is the type of crime I advocate having a firearm as defense against. Again, it doesn't exactly justify having a Barrett .50 cal or SAW. BUT it lends credence to ownership.

The 50 cals I have are for hunting rabbits :D What... You don't hunt rabbits with .50 cal Armor Piercing Incendiary rounds?

jonathan7
11-21-2009, 09:40 AM
This has been said about the rapper culture for years in America. Interesting.

It's a lyric from a UK song of the same name; "Guns don't kill people, rappers do!" Unfortunately the lyrics are not appropriate for a PG-13 Forum, so couldn't post a link to the song.

Quite frankly I'm highly amused how the American contingent has managed to this into a discussion about how they should be allowed guns and how it's effective against burglary.

Perhaps so, but as this thread is about UK and not America, I'm not quite sure how the point is pertinent. Suffice to say, from a statistical standpoint the UK is a far safer society to live in you are statistically less likely to be murdered, robbed and burgled. (Though, I still prefer the States to here... Not entirely sure I count though, as some of my American friends have commented that I'm a "closet American"). Regardless the statistics don't lie, the opposite question is also, does having a fire-arm give a burglar added confidence in committing his crime?

Generally I find your point that having guns equalises things spurious, A shot gun is a big weapon and not easily manoeuvred especially as old age weakens an individual, and is hardly an ideal weapon for indoors combat.

I spent two years living in the poorest estate in the UK - various people there had guns, indeed one of the main drug dealers lived on my street and his house was raided at least 5 times by armed police.

Regardless however, I never had any problems, nor did the elderly couple who lived next door. Neither of us had guns and we coped just find. I again also am amused that guns are an "equaliser" someone training in fire arms is going to be an awful lot more proficient with a gun than someone who just owns one. The fact is guns still take a lot of skill to use (even shot guns) and they just increase the lethality factor.

If the majority of Americans want guns that's cool, but you do frankly keep throwing out some considerably silly arguments.

For instance having guns to keep the government in check? Seriously, do you really think with today's military the American people could stop them? If you do you have been watching far too many films. This entirely ignores the fact that prior to Nazi Germany all Germans were allowed guns, and further more peaceful protests have always proved far more effective than violent ones. And you don't need weapons to scare governments - just ask the French government about lorry drivers.

JediAthos
11-21-2009, 11:09 AM
I will say this...I live in America...and I own a gun. I bought it while I was in the military primarily because I like to target shoot at the gun range, and while I hope it never comes to it, but if it ever helps me defend my family and home then great.

At the same time, frankly, if I was told some day that firearms were no longer legal to own in this country and everyone had to turn their weapons into the police I don't know that I'd be upset either. If that makes me "unamerican"(which is a ridiculous term in the first place) then so be it. I am of the opinion that there is too much armed violence in this country and there are several incidents that could and have been pointed to in this thread that support my opinion and of course there is the most recent tragedy at Fort Hood as well.

@original topic: I understand that this gentleman exercised extremely poor judgment...and that he broke the law..but I do still think that 5 years in jail is a bit much. I would say perhaps 1 year would be more along the lines of what I would give him, but then I don't live in the U.K. and I'm not the judge :)

ForeverNight
11-21-2009, 01:33 PM
Quite frankly I'm highly amused how the American contingent has managed to this into a discussion about how they should be allowed guns and how it's effective against burglary

Which is why I've stayed out of the discussion. As an American I would've ended up joining in that, well, the first part at least.

Anyway, yeah, the guy was stupid to bring it in w/o declaring it, but I don't think that is deserving of a minimum of 5 years. I just think that the law is stupid if a guy can earn a minimum of 5 years in jail/prison for just possessing a firearm for ~a day afte finding it in his yard w/ intent to turn it in.

But, well, I'm not able to influence the decision, just jeer from the sidelines w/o knowing everything.

....Still think it's a stupid law :xp:...

Ping
11-21-2009, 09:06 PM
Wow, I actually agree with everything j7 said, and yet, I'm American (that must make me a "closet Britain" :xp:). Some of the gun arguments are very silly. To keep the government in check? Really? I doubt a bunch of shotgun and rifle toting citizens with little or no combat training could take on a government. And look at the plus side to not having guns. Last time I was in England (I visited England about two or three years ago, so this stat probably isn't that accurate) I learned that the homicide rate in London was eight a year. Eight. And now look at the homicide rate in America. Way higher. Why? Because of guns.

Web Rider
11-21-2009, 09:39 PM
Quite frankly I'm highly amused how the American contingent has managed to this into a discussion about how they should be allowed guns and how it's effective against burglary.
I'm highly amused at how the Brits keep letting their government take away their rights, but you don't see me ragging on it.

Perhaps so, but as this thread is about UK and not America, I'm not quite sure how the point is pertinent. Suffice to say, from a statistical standpoint the UK is a far safer society to live in you are statistically less likely to be murdered, robbed and burgled. (Though, I still prefer the States to here... Not entirely sure I count though, as some of my American friends have commented that I'm a "closet American"). Regardless the statistics don't lie, the opposite question is also, does having a fire-arm give a burglar added confidence in committing his crime?
I believe it is Stalin who gave us the wonderful quote about statistics and tragedies. If we keep reducing people to numbers, then life is irrelevant. A million dead in China? Who cares, there's a million more in India who were just born. I'd like to see those statistics BTW.

Generally I find your point that having guns equalises things spurious, A shot gun is a big weapon and not easily manoeuvred especially as old age weakens an individual, and is hardly an ideal weapon for indoors combat.
You're thinking of a rifle-style shotgun. Shorter shotguns, which are readily available, are very easy to maneuver. Besides, guns are really a point-and-click weapon, you're not going to have awesome matrix-meets-rambo vs the terminator moves while trying to get a guy out of your home. The likelyhood is that neither of you know how to do that and you're going to take the cowboy route and step into plain sight and shoot. "indoors combat" is something trained professionals do, not homeowners and sub-par burglar.

Regardless however, I never had any problems, nor did the elderly couple who lived next door. Neither of us had guns and we coped just find. I again also am amused that guns are an "equaliser" someone training in fire arms is going to be an awful lot more proficient with a gun than someone who just owns one. The fact is guns still take a lot of skill to use (even shot guns) and they just increase the lethality factor.
The argument "I never had any problems...." is not a good one. It only means YOU didn't have any problems.

If the majority of Americans want guns that's cool, but you do frankly keep throwing out some considerably silly arguments.
Most arguments are silly. It's generally just contradiction.

For instance having guns to keep the government in check? Seriously, do you really think with today's military the American people could stop them?
Would NOT having them make the situation better? I don't think a karate-chop is going to stop a soldier any more than some redneck's 9-mil.

If you do you have been watching far too many films.
We do have Hollywood after all.


This entirely ignores the fact that prior to Nazi Germany all Germans were allowed guns, and further more peaceful protests have always proved far more effective than violent ones.
Goodwin's Law, sorry. You've just invalidated your argument. Seriously, kidding. And what was the first thing the Nazi's did after taking over? take all the guns away. Nazi Germany was in a serious depression, and most people living there voted FOR the Nazi party. They really did believe that they would help pull Germany out of it's hole. And to some degree, they did, only to dig it deeper later. The people were not in a position to organize much less fight, not to mention that WWI which took place barely a decade earlier, had obliterated most of the male population(from young to old), and women weren't trained in the use of firearms. In short: bad comparison.

Darth Avlectus
11-21-2009, 09:47 PM
It's a lyric from a UK song of the same name; "Guns don't kill people, rappers do!" Unfortunately the lyrics are not appropriate for a PG-13 Forum, so couldn't post a link to the song.

I thought you were being more serious than just a song. :dozey:
(one type of sarcasm misses another :xp:)

Perhaps so, but as this thread is about UK and not America, I'm not quite sure how the point is pertinent. Which is why I have kept away from how it works for Americans.

Suffice to say, from a statistical standpoint the UK is a far safer society to live in you are statistically less likely to be murdered, robbed and burgled. I never disputed it.

Something on the order of we can live with it.

(Though, I still prefer the States to here... Not entirely sure I count though, as some of my American friends have commented that I'm a "closet American").
What? Odd. You never really struck me as such, and on occasion you seem more a proud Englishman that you are not American. :confused:

Regardless the statistics don't lie, the opposite question is also, does having a fire-arm give a burglar added confidence in committing his crime? Depends on the burglar in question. Some don't need a gun to be deadly as they have the art of "shanking" down quite well.

Generally I find your point that having guns equalises things spurious, A shot gun is a big weapon and not easily manoeuvred especially as old age weakens an individual, and is hardly an ideal weapon for indoors combat.
My point? Shotguns are big, but where did I specifically ever say anything about a shotgun here? I reiterate your laws work for you so you probably are just fine there. Since handguns are far more maneuverable but illegal there in the UK, then I guess that's just the way for your people.

That you aren't really saying America needs to ban guns anyway, yet I'm not sure why you keep implicitly pointing in the direction of this particular subdebate. Or are you trying to avoid admission of guilt to derailing a thread and goading Americans to cover your tracks? :dev9:

I spent two years living in the poorest estate in the UK - various people there had guns, indeed one of the main drug dealers lived on my street and his house was raided at least 5 times by armed police.


Really? The police actually cared enough to respond in a timely manner? (I'm being serious, too.) There's some places in America where the police come hours later if at all. Sounds like they were coming primarily just for the guns, and drugs only being the cover story.

Just b/c they are drug dealers does not necessarily make them violent. Paranoid, yes, but if they are reasonably rational and they get no threat from you, they typically leave you alone unless you want to do business.

And the Poorest? I wonder. Was where you were living largely without power and running water? (Heat being an optional luxury, yes that includes for water). Was all of the living quarters indoors or is some of it outside? Were there walls uninsulated and/or falling away? Leaks? (Just comparing 'poorest' from one area's definition to another and yet still another.)

If the majority of Americans want guns that's cool, but you do frankly keep throwing out some considerably silly arguments. For instance having guns to keep the government in check? Seriously, do you really think with today's military the American people could stop them?

If you do you have been watching far too many films.

If it's really cool, then you shouldn't care one way or the other. I'm not sure what everyone else here keeps pounding on this whole thing for, 'if it were in America' though. Since it was about the UK.

As they say "let the chips fall where they may", that is about the extent of the government's care for people who live out in the middle of nowhere. Or I guess in the middle of "floodsville". Think hurricane Katrina for modern example. Government who can't (or won't) reach out to you, and after a while doesn't care about saving/punishing you (whatever your predicament) means fending for yourself. So what if out in the boonies we have guns? They want to take that away? That's just flexing its muscles--screw that.

I'll admit other gun enthusiasts are perhaps a little whacky in the instance of keeping the government in check. Then again with so many laws and political correctness, it's a wonder the military can do anything at all sometimes.

Anachronistic types and gun advocates are more of the attitude that should the government become fascist, they won't care what happens to us. We wouldn't fight toe to toe with them, that'd just be suicide. More let it starve and collapse upon itself. It'd be more about attrition and survival. Granted, most people are not myself, living out in the middle of bum-freaking nowhere. Just saying for what validity I can recognize even if it is not across the board. While most people are too tame to be this (your point is well taken) that doesn't mean nobody is this either.

Web Rider
11-21-2009, 09:55 PM
And look at the plus side to not having guns. Last time I was in England (I visited England about two or three years ago, so this stat probably isn't that accurate) I learned that the homicide rate in London was eight a year. Eight. And now look at the homicide rate in America. Way higher. Why? Because of guns.

It isn't. And really, to be fair to BOTH nations, it's hard to compare them. The US has empty space larger than the entire United Kingdom. It's hard to police all that, and the police are often under-funded and over-worked. Though to be honest, it's difficult to balance a police force large enough to be effective, without having them being so big that everyone feels like they are under surveillance.

According to this article: http://www.londonnet.co.uk/news/2009/mar/london-murder-rate-not-going.html the number stands at 170 for London as of 2008.
According this article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/04/25/2009-04-25_city_crime_still_falling.html New York City was at 116 as of 2008.

I am unclear if either article refers to London proper or NYC proper(somewhat smaller population), however, as you can see, there is either a lack of reporting, or an actual drop in crime. Probably a bit of both. In any case, the numbers are rather close.

jonathan7
11-22-2009, 05:27 PM
....Still think it's a stupid law :xp:...

No-ones really disputing the fact the wording of the law need to be changed, or that this is a silly case :xp:

Wow, I actually agree with everything j7 said, and yet, I'm American (that must make me a "closet Britain" :xp:). Some of the gun arguments are very silly. To keep the government in check? Really? I doubt a bunch of shotgun and rifle toting citizens with little or no combat training could take on a government. And look at the plus side to not having guns. Last time I was in England (I visited England about two or three years ago, so this stat probably isn't that accurate) I learned that the homicide rate in London was eight a year. Eight. And now look at the homicide rate in America. Way higher. Why? Because of guns.

It depends what you classify as London, and as WR has pointed out, the homicide rates of London and New York are similar - though, I imagine if you took areas like Harlem and Croydon out of the survey the number of murders would vastly going down.

I'm highly amused at how the Brits keep letting their government take away their rights, but you don't see me ragging on it.

What rights? I had a meeting with my MP about erosion of civil liberties, on the other hand, I don't think owning a gun is a right I need.

I believe it is Stalin who gave us the wonderful quote about statistics and tragedies. If we keep reducing people to numbers, then life is irrelevant. A million dead in China? Who cares, there's a million more in India who were just born. I'd like to see those statistics BTW.

Statistics show more than that, and I stated my point that if you want guns that's your decision, but spare NRA arguments about how it reduces deaths.

You're thinking of a rifle-style shotgun. Shorter shotguns, which are readily available, are very easy to maneuver. Besides, guns are really a point-and-click weapon, you're not going to have awesome matrix-meets-rambo vs the terminator moves while trying to get a guy out of your home. The likelyhood is that neither of you know how to do that and you're going to take the cowboy route and step into plain sight and shoot. "indoors combat" is something trained professionals do, not homeowners and sub-par burglar.

I'm not an expert in guns, however it seems a matter of logical course to me that a young person with gun, is going to be more proficient in using and weilding it, than an elderly grandma, as per an earlier example.

The argument "I never had any problems...." is not a good one. It only means YOU didn't have any problems.

Why not? I've seen an awful lot of apparent talk of gangs wielding guns, by individuals I doubt have walked in many rough streets.

Would NOT having them make the situation better? I don't think a karate-chop is going to stop a soldier any more than some redneck's 9-mil.

Why is it you think I'm advocating violence at all? I would pretty much better if there was a civilian peaceful protest the military would not fire live rounds at them. Where as I'm pretty sure if a bunch of red-necks started shooting at the military, there would only be one result. Indeed it seems to me that peaceful protest has achieved a considerably amount more than armed protest. Especially over the course of the latter 20th century.

Goodwin's Law, sorry. You've just invalidated your argument. Seriously, kidding. And what was the first thing the Nazi's did after taking over? take all the guns away. Nazi Germany was in a serious depression, and most people living there voted FOR the Nazi party. They really did believe that they would help pull Germany out of it's hole. And to some degree, they did, only to dig it deeper later. The people were not in a position to organize much less fight, not to mention that WWI which took place barely a decade earlier, had obliterated most of the male population(from young to old), and women weren't trained in the use of firearms. In short: bad comparison.

Perhaps, you'd like to review history; the Nazi's didn't ammend the gun control act until 1938 - which in actuality reduced a lot of the regulation and it's basic terms only lowered the age you could own a weapon, introduced permits, and as with pretty much all Nazi legislation being horrifically predictable didn't allow the Jews fire arms. That's all the Gun act really did; so I fail to see how that undermines my point.

Furthermore Germany lost 15% of it's male population because of World War 1, and while a significant figure, I wouldn't say that had obliterated Germanies Male population.

What? Odd. You never really struck me as such, and on occasion you seem more a proud Englishman that you are not American. :confused:

Please do NOT ever call me English! I am WELSH! And trust me, I am not "proud" of Britain, I am more than anything a citizen of the world.

That you aren't really saying America needs to ban guns anyway, yet I'm not sure why you keep implicitly pointing in the direction of this particular subdebate. Or are you trying to avoid admission of guilt to derailing a thread and goading Americans to cover your tracks? :dev9:

I am not guilty of anything, nor am I guilty of derailing a thread. Perhaps you'd care to review the start of the thread to see where it "went wrong".

I've already stated that I don't think a gun ban would work in America due to the number of guns already in the system. Nor have I attacked American legislation, aside from pointing out, you may well need some reform. Some of your fellow Americans kicked this all off; I have merely provided evidence against the position that guns = freedom; which I entirely disagree with, or that citizens need guns to "scare their government".

Really? The police actually cared enough to respond in a timely manner? (I'm being serious, too.) There's some places in America where the police come hours later if at all. Sounds like they were coming primarily just for the guns, and drugs only being the cover story.

I can't comment on American police responce times, and I dare say as Sherlock Holmes once did "I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts". So I don't think you can have anything to say about British police motives in going in there.

And the Poorest? I wonder. Was where you were living largely without power and running water? (Heat being an optional luxury, yes that includes for water). Was all of the living quarters indoors or is some of it outside? Were there walls uninsulated and/or falling away? Leaks? (Just comparing 'poorest' from one area's definition to another and yet still another.)

I used the word "Estate" - to clarify that is "Council Estate" - which is government provided housing, and some of the houses did have the above issues with them. (We didn't run heating during the winter as we couldn't afford it).

If it's really cool, then you shouldn't care one way or the other. I'm not sure what everyone else here keeps pounding on this whole thing for, 'if it were in America' though. Since it was about the UK.

Why on earth do you equate anything of what I said relating to America. How many times do I have to state America is a democracy and your free to have guns if you want them?

As they say "let the chips fall where they may", that is about the extent of the government's care for people who live out in the middle of nowhere. Or I guess in the middle of "floodsville". Think hurricane Katrina for modern example. Government who can't (or won't) reach out to you, and after a while doesn't care about saving/punishing you (whatever your predicament) means fending for yourself. So what if out in the boonies we have guns? They want to take that away? That's just flexing its muscles--screw that.

Here, you don't have to fend for yourself, and the UK governmental response is pretty good in when responding to disasters. I don't know enough about Katrina to comment.

It isn't. And really, to be fair to BOTH nations, it's hard to compare them. The US has empty space larger than the entire United Kingdom. It's hard to police all that, and the police are often under-funded and over-worked. Though to be honest, it's difficult to balance a police force large enough to be effective, without having them being so big that everyone feels like they are under surveillance.

Agreed, my only points are that more guns in circulation means you will have more deaths, and that citizens do not need to be armed to be "empowered"; a well informed citizen, is a far more dangerous weapon against tyranny than an armed one.

According to this article: http://www.londonnet.co.uk/news/2009/mar/london-murder-rate-not-going.html the number stands at 170 for London as of 2008.
According this article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/04/25/2009-04-25_city_crime_still_falling.html New York City was at 116 as of 2008.

I am unclear if either article refers to London proper or NYC proper(somewhat smaller population), however, as you can see, there is either a lack of reporting, or an actual drop in crime. Probably a bit of both. In any case, the numbers are rather close.

I'd imagine the numbers would be pretty close; and it does depend on the jurisdictions you take as to what are the city limits. NYC has done a wonderful job over the last 20 years of cleaning it streets up, and I dare say the NYPD has played a large role in that.

However if you refer to some of my earlier posts I had posted homicide rates; and the U.S. has the highest of any Western Nation.

Totenkopf
11-22-2009, 07:35 PM
No-ones..........Western Nation.

Just two things, really. One, you might understand had you been a German jew circa the 1930s. You might have died anyway, but you'd probably have made them pay for your life rather than died in a camp. Also, we're a republic and NOT a democracy (otherwise, your point is basically taken). Seems a lot of these posts could be pruned and put into a thread about the effects.....good and/or bad....of gun ownership.

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-22-2009, 08:13 PM
Just two things, really. One, you might understand had you been a German jew circa the 1930s. You might have died anyway, but you'd probably have made them pay for your life rather than died in a camp. Also, we're a republic and NOT a democracy (otherwise, your point is basically taken). Seems a lot of these posts could be pruned and put into a thread about the effects.....good and/or bad....of gun ownership.i will remember this in case hitler comes back from the dead and revives the 3rd reich, thanks

hitler thought he could impose his final solution on god's chosen people..... this march, one man will prove him wrong..... this march, sylvester stallone is...... rambostein

Totenkopf
11-22-2009, 10:13 PM
@Bart--There was more than 1 Jew in Germany in the 30s, so 10s-100s of thousands of armed Jews would have been a considerable headache for the Nazis. Then again, maybe you're the type that would prefer passively walking to your doom rather than stand up for yourself. :rolleyes:

mimartin
11-22-2009, 10:19 PM
Yes, there was more than one Jew, but owning a simple hunting rifle or pistol would not have stop a Tank.

Everyone back on topic or the next time I post here will not be pleasant for any of us.