The UK is safer with those strict gun laws...


PDA






Mick
June 15, 2004, 10:48 AM
http://www.thisislondon.com/news/londonnews/articles/11340794?source=Evening%20Standard

http://images.thisislondon.co.uk/v2/news/_front/cctvgang150604_100x110.jpg

Steaming gang's terror reign
By Richard Edwards
15 June 2004

A "steaming" gang has been convicted of preying on passengers in a four-month rampage on trains and buses.

The gang, sometimes more than 20 strong, attacked up to 80 victims on public transport.

In an eight-week trial, Harrow Crown Court heard how the mob, aged between 13 and 23, came together from all over London and met at the Trocadero in Piccadilly Circus.

They concentrated on late-night buses in central London and early-morning commuter trains from Gravesend, St Albans and Brighton.

They would surround victims, holding passengers captive and systematically robbing them. As the reign of terror went on, the violence increased.

One man had his cheekbone shattered in an attack on a late-night bus and required surgery to reconstruct his face.

Days earlier, an off-duty woman police officer had been surrounded on a train, covered in spit and threatened with rape.

The mob were caught in a police operation involving more than 250 officers who targeted 20 addresses across London. The last of 15 identified members was convicted yesterday. They will be sentenced next month.

Outside court, Detective Chief Inspector Philip Kent, the officer in charge of the case, said: "The railways, streets and buses are a safer place as a result of this trial.

"It is an excellent outcome and the result of a lot of very hard work by the British Transport Police, the prosecution team and Met police officers.

"The levels of violence in these attacks were increasing and it is important now that they are sentenced appropriately as a warning to others."

The court heard how the gang used street names, such as Evil, Havoc and Boxer, and carried knives, metal pipes and an imitation handgun. They were convicted on 25 counts of robbery and conspiracy to rob between September and December 2002, although police believe they may have targeted up to 80 victims.

Twelve members of the gang pleaded guilty at two connected hearings - Joseph Gbonda, 18, from Herne Hill, Ashraf Ali, 18, from Peckham, Richard Tavenier, 18, from Mitcham, Philip Fahie, 21, from Edmonton, Jarrell Edwin, 22, from Peckham, Malik Jones, 19, from Acton, Faisal Navaid, 20, from Wandsworth, Foday Dumbuya, 18, from Mitcham and two 17-year-old boys and a 16-year-old boy and girl who cannot be named because of their age.

Chelsea Waldron, 18, from Hayes, David Moroney, 18, from Islington, and a 13-year-old boy who cannot be named were found guilty by the jury of conspiracy to rob.

Half the gang were under 16 at the time of the attacks - and yet among them they had 35 previous convictions for offences including robbery and grievous bodily harm.

One senior police source said: "They are opportunist thugs. Their crime was not sophisticated, but they became embroiled in a gang culture.

"They were in it for the kicks and to finance a life based around underground clubs and girls."

Stolen mobile phones were the gang's trophies and plundered cash funded designer clothing and gold jewellery, but the spoils of crime were only part of it. Success fuelled their egos and they began to enjoy the ritual humiliation of their prey.

Victims recalled the laughter as blows rained down upon them.

Damon Murphy, a strapping 30-year-old taking a bus home after a night out in the West End, was so badly beaten he required surgery to reconstruct his face.

The attack only lasted five or six seconds, but the force of the blows shattered his cheekbone. He could not eat for two weeks and feared permanent damage to his sight. Last month, two years after his ordeal, he broke down in court while giving evidence from behind a protective screen. "I am still not over it," he admitted.

Excluded from schools and torn between parents, the gang slipped easily into a life of petty crime on council estates and the streets. The uncle of one of the 17-year-old boys, who had been expelled from school, said: "I do not know how he could do these things. It is very sad and distressing."

Joseph Gbonda, who became known as Flamer after scarring himself playing with fire as a child, took to the streets after his father Joseph, an accountant from Sierra Leone, split from his mother Juliet.

Even when he was locked in his room under a 7pm to 7am curfew, Gbonda would escape through the window. A cousin claimed he preferred the streets to being torn between his mother and father. Youths from estates in Peckham and Mitcham joined with those from Edmonton and Hayes to form a loose-knit group of 15 that could swell to more than 20.

The Trocadero's frenzied music, noisy arcades and flashing neon lights have long attracted groups of youths.

It became the mob's favourite haunt as they waited for numbers to accumulate and the late-night stragglers to start making their way home.

Dressed in bright coloured hoods, baseball caps, beanies and baggy jeans, they greeted each other with a casual press of their fists.

There was no ringleader, but there was always a plan of attack.

The gang would take it in turns to make the first approach, with the youngest member often chosen as a test of his bravery and to add to the humiliation for the victim.

A 13-year-old boy, who cannot be named for legal reasons, became a specialist. A small child, his angelic face belied his vast experience on the streets. He has two previous convictions for common assault and two for theft.

The boy's mother had abandoned her flat on a squalid council estate in Streatham to live with her boyfriend. But during the day the boy and his friends would use the derelict house as a den.

They ravaged the house, breaking all the windows. Neighbours said the boy never went to school and roamed the streets. In the attacks, while he made conversation with victims, the others filed into seats in front and behind the target and some hovered in the aisles. They taunted the victim, watching their fear turn into panic. Then they struck.

The passenger would be engulfed in a flurry of fists and boots.

Hands rummaged through pockets and bags looking for wallets and mobile phones.

Sometimes victims managed to push the emergency stop button on trains, and the gang would flee along the tracks. On buses they burst through the doors and split up, escaping to all parts of London.

Jarrell Edwin, also known as Evil, would return to the flat he shares with his mother in one of Pe ckham's mo s t abject council estates. Gbonda lives nearby, as does Ashraf Ali. Ali, a quiet and shy child from a large Bangladeshi family, developed into an impossible adolescent after falling in with gangs on his street.

His meek mother barely speaks a word of English. His father, who suffers from a long-term illness, is intimidated by Ash and unable to control him.

Richard Tavenier lives in Mitcham and is king of his estate, threatening anyone who confronts him and even breaking into his neighbours' cars parked near his house.

His mother, Beverley, a devoted Christian from Jamaica, does not dare chastise him.

When Tavenier's stepfather, Randolph Nevins, tried to assert himself, it only made things worse.

He is already out of prison after serving half of his two-year sentence. One of his neighbours whose son has been threatened by him said she fears for her boy's life and is trying to move out of the area.

The first trial - which convicted eight members of the gang who had pleaded guilty - served only two prison sentences.

But even as they faced jail, the gang's casual disregard for the law remained unchecked.

In the dock they were noisy and arrogant - swearing, laughing and sneering their way through an eight-week trial.

Police said many broke their conditions of bail and have been reoffending on an almost daily basis.

Even relatives of the mob agree it is a depressing cycle of violence and crime.

"I cannot defend my cousin or any of them," said one relation. "It is a service to society that these kids should be named and their crimes exposed. But I only wish it would impact on the way they act.

"Sadly, I fear it will not make any difference."

If you enjoyed reading about "The UK is safer with those strict gun laws..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
agricola
June 15, 2004, 12:31 PM
"crime happens in world shock"

Lochaber
June 15, 2004, 02:20 PM
But when it happens in the US it is a sign of our failing civilization all because of guns, TV, rock'n'roll, and Pizza Hut. When it happens in England (or the rest of Europe), its just crime.

In fact that is kinda the same thing that can be said about almost everything. When American soldiers rescue Europeans (wholesale such as multiple countries at a shot as in various world wars, or Balkans or .. or .. or individually as the Italian guys that got rescued in Iraq a couple of days ago) they are treated warm but condecendingly at best, and called baby killers while they are doing the same thing in Asia or Africa. Same with "culture", tourism, economy, etc, etc.

It makes us surly.

Loch

Antlurz
June 15, 2004, 04:10 PM
Baahhhhh!!!

They're just kids. Let 'em have their fun.

:barf:

Ron

nero45acp
June 15, 2004, 04:19 PM
Sheep get shorn.:uhoh:





nero

Critical
June 15, 2004, 04:52 PM
But when it happens in the US it is a sign of our failing civilization all because of guns, TV, rock'n'roll, and Pizza Hut. When it happens in England (or the rest of Europe), its just crime.

Who on here has argued that? What gives you any reason to believe that's what non-Americans think?

And what makes you think that we thought gun control would stop crime? We have laws against speeding, do you think we thought no-one would ever speed again?

Bizarre.......

Nice anecdote though. Not evidence of anything mind you, but a nice anecdote.....

Art Eatman
June 15, 2004, 05:24 PM
Easy, there, Critical. There's a lot of sarcasm which derives from comments read in various media outlets from around the world. It's not always exact, of course, but the general thesis is based on fact.

"And what makes you think that we thought gun control would stop crime? We have laws against speeding, do you think we thought no-one would ever speed again?"

Bad analogy. I've not heard politicians make the claim about the laws on speeding, but they commonly justify gun control laws by telling us how we'll be safer, Bad Things won't happen, and the hens will lay twice a day. Kids won't get zits, either.

Look. I've been in the middle of gun-control arguments since the early days of argument over our Gun Control Act of 1968. EVERY gun-control law has been accompanied by an incredible amount of nattering about the good to be accomplished.

The expected good has never come to pass.

Ergo, we are sarcastic about those who've yet to learn. These anecdotes merely serve to justify our views. Now, "anecdotal evidence" isn't justification when you're talking about an isolated instance. However, when these anecdotes pile up over a period of years or decades, they're no longer "mere".

While this particular court case describes an egregious magnification of events, lesser levels have been reported in the press for years...

Art

Critical
June 15, 2004, 05:41 PM
Bad analogy. I've not heard politicians make the claim about the laws on speeding, but they commonly justify gun control laws by telling us how we'll be safer, Bad Things won't happen, and the hens will lay twice a day. Kids won't get zits, either.

No one has ever claimed "bad things wont happen". Again, a lot of fuss and nonsense over strawmen.

The expected good has never come to pass.

That depends on what you think the expected good was? And compared to what? That crime would disappear? That guncrime would vanish?


Ergo, we are sarcastic about those who've yet to learn. These anecdotes merely serve to justify our views. Now, "anecdotal evidence" isn't justification when you're talking about an isolated instance. However, when these anecdotes pile up over a period of years or decades, they're no longer "mere".

Again, compared to what? When Britian had strict gun control laws, or when Britain had very strict gun control laws? 10,000 gun deaths or 23? Which is worse? Whats the context? Why is it happening? is there any reason why London has seen such a rise while Scotland has seen such a fall with the same gun laws?

These aneccdotes are meaningless. They take no account of culture, history or trends. They merely confirm what everyone seems to take as fact already, without actually demonstrating any facts.

Sleeping Dog
June 15, 2004, 06:09 PM
Just a couple of random thoughts -

Congratulations to the British Transport Police for busting the ring. Good work, no matter what the court outcome is.

U.S. politicians certainly relate speed limits to safety, a lot of claims about lowering speed limits in construction zones (which is not a bad idea imho). Also, a lot of claims about the predicted carnage when the limits went from 55 to 70 on a lot of highways, most of the wailing coming from politicians.

The policewoman that was attacked, was she armed? would it have helped, or are the gang tactics so sudden that there's no time to get to the gun?

If England had a "shall-issue CCW" law, would that stop the gang attacks?

It'll be interesting to see what sentences come of this, and how much time (if any) is actually served. The perpetrators will probably not be hanged, pity.

Regards.

Standing Wolf
June 15, 2004, 07:15 PM
The mob were caught in a police operation involving more than 250 officers...

It would have taken a single armed law-abiding American citizen to stop those criminals cold.

Rarely does a day pass when I fail to feel grateful to our forefathers for having rebelled against the English and founded a republic.

Critical
June 15, 2004, 07:26 PM
It would have taken a single armed law-abiding American citizen to stop those criminals cold.

And if the mob of 15 or 20 had all been armed too?

Moparmike
June 15, 2004, 07:41 PM
One armed sheep is often all it takes for the wolves to think twice about attacking them.

Critical
June 15, 2004, 07:46 PM
One armed sheep is often all it takes for the wolves to think twice about attacking them.

Sounds great, but judging by the mentality of a hell of a lot of the people I arrest everyday, the theory falls down in reality. Most of them wouldn't bat an eyelid.

When your a wolf you NEED to hunt.......

striker3
June 15, 2004, 07:52 PM
And if the mob of 15 or 20 had all been armed too?

Read the article, they were armed.

DesertEagle613
June 15, 2004, 07:55 PM
Anyone notice that the article didn't list the length of the sentences?

I've heard from anecdotal sources that sentences in Britain are getting shorter and shorter. One person said that the average sentence for break-and-entry is a month of counseling.

I do not know if this is true, but if so, it would explain the defendants' contempt during the trial.

Critical
June 15, 2004, 08:00 PM
Read the article, they were armed.

They carried AN imitation handgun. There is no mention if this was actually used in any of the attacks.

And AN imitation handgun is very different to having 15-20 real ones.......

Antlurz
June 15, 2004, 08:47 PM
Critical? Certainly not about specifics, ey wot?. The court heard how the gang used street names, such as Evil, Havoc and Boxer, and carried knives, metal pipes and an imitation handgun.

Of course, the REST of that stuff isn't weaponry, right, Critical?

Ron

sumpnz
June 15, 2004, 08:49 PM
Sounds great, but judging by the mentality of a hell of a lot of the people I arrest everyday, the theory falls down in reality. Most of them wouldn't bat an eyelid. That's a great anecdote. About as useful as your commentary on earlier anecdotes.

However, interviews with felons, at least here in the States, has shown that they fear armed citizens more than the police, more than extra jail time, more than darn near anything. I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that had one of their (espically eary on) victems been armed, and actually particularly if they had shot one or more of the gang members, that the attacks would have stopped. Now, it is possible that rather than reconsidering the foolishness of such activitity that they would have made sure they had a larger group, and possibly real guns themselves. But most criminals like that are really cowards. They talk tough, but real resistance from potential victems usually keeps them just that, potential victems.

Had a few of them been shot by an armed citizen I would not weep for the goblins, and would probably contribute to the legal fund for the shooter if necessary.

LAR-15
June 15, 2004, 09:11 PM
Don't bring knives and chains to a gunfight.

It reminds me of the scene in the "Gambler" with Kenny Rogers.

There's 3 bad guys and Kenny has just a 2 shot Derringer.

However he asks em whos gonna be the 1st two to die so the 3rd guy can get him.

Critical
June 15, 2004, 09:53 PM
Of course, the REST of that stuff isn't weaponry, right, Critical?

Not the same as being armed is it? the context of the exchange is quite clearly referring to guns. Is trying to change the meaning of words the best you can do?

Or does your second amendment say "right to bear metal pipes shall not be infringed"?

Critical
June 15, 2004, 09:56 PM
Now, it is possible that rather than reconsidering the foolishness of such activitity that they would have made sure they had a larger group, and possibly real guns themselves. But most criminals like that are really cowards.

Most criminals like that are off thier faces on drugs. What sems reasonable behaviour to you or me doesn't apply. Changing the drug laws would have a far greater effect on violent crime than repealing our gun laws.

sumpnz
June 15, 2004, 09:59 PM
****, Critical, the 2A says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That means any arms, including, but not necessarially limited to, guns, knives, swords, pipes, rocks, broken bottles, etc.

Oh, and when I commmented on them reconsidering the foolishness of thier behavior, I was not intending to imply that reason was a part of the equation. Simply that the desire for self preservation would likely kick in. Even someone stoned off their gourd still has that to drive them.

Stand_Watie
June 15, 2004, 10:05 PM
Not the same as being armed is it?

Uhh, yeah.

Critical
June 15, 2004, 10:05 PM
Oooo nice dodge. We have someone claiming without evidence this mob were armed, so you get into the semantics of what arms" means.

Right, now I understand what true believer syndrome is.........

sumpnz
June 15, 2004, 10:12 PM
Critical, go back to (deleted before posting for the sake of maintaining The High Road).

Don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls, don't feed the trolls ...

Critical
June 15, 2004, 10:14 PM
I see. What your saying is you aren't interested in alternative viewpoint. What you want on here is a big circle jerk with your friends about how gun control doesn't work. Obviously I know nothing about my country, culture or history. You know better.

Fine.

Stand_Watie
June 15, 2004, 10:19 PM
Oooo nice dodge. We have someone claiming without evidence this mob were armed, so you get into the semantics of what arms" means.
You apparently are claiming that carried knives, metal pipes and an imitation handgun

are not "arms"?

What alternate universe are you living in?

Rebar
June 15, 2004, 10:24 PM
Ask the guy who had his face smashed in if a pipe is an "arm" or not.

Critical
June 15, 2004, 10:25 PM
There is no evidence in the link provided that this gang carried out robberies with the imitation firearm. Fact.

Being found in possesion of a metal pipe is not being armed. I couldn't arrest someone for that. A knife is an offensive weapon. We classify armed criminals as having guns.


And you are ignoring the context of the discussion which was about guns.

This pathetic attempt to sidetrack the issue is really laughable.

Dave R
June 15, 2004, 10:26 PM
After handguns were banned in the UK, handgun crime in the UK is up. Violent crime in the UK is up.

So what is the benefit of banning the guns? I thought the intent of the Government was to create a safer society?

Critical
June 15, 2004, 10:29 PM
After handguns were banned in the UK, handgun crime in the UK is up. Violent crime in the UK is up.

You are presupposing a connection between the two. And gun crime in "The UK" is not up. In Scotland it has almost halved since the handgun ban. Exactly the same gun laws give a different result.

Why?

Because the rise in gun crime and violent crime is nothing to do with the gun laws. Which, if you people would be prepared to set aside your myopic "gun and violent crime is caused by the gun ban" fixation we might get around to discussing sometime......

Stand_Watie
June 15, 2004, 10:40 PM
Being found in possesion of a metal pipe is not being armed. I couldn't arrest someone for that. A knife is an offensive weapon. We classify armed criminals as having guns

It is indeed being armed. You classify "armed criminals" as having guns. WE classify people as criminals (if their carriage of weapons is illegal) as carrying any sort of weapon. There is a reason the word *FIRE* is in firearm. If "arms" didn't include weapons other than firearms the word "firearm" wouldn't exist.

Critical
June 15, 2004, 10:44 PM
Again, you are ignoring the context of the discussion:

This little sidetrack began like this:



It would have taken a single armed law-abiding American citizen to stop those criminals cold Posted by standing wolf

Are you saying that SW is saying a single American armed with a metal pipe would have stopped a gang of 15-20 yobs, also armed with metal pipes?

Or is he referring to guns?

As I say, sidetracking.........

Stand_Watie
June 15, 2004, 10:46 PM
And gun crime in "The UK" is not up

Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say.

****
Gun crime soars by 35%

Gun crime has risen by 35% in a year, new Home Office figures show.
There were 9,974 incidents involving firearms in the 12 months to April 2002 - a rise from 7,362 over the previous year.

That represents an average of 27 offences involving firearms every day in England and Wales, with guns fired in nearly a quarter of cases.

Overall crime in the year to September was up 9.3%, with domestic burglary up 7.9%, drugs offences up 12.3% and sex offences up 18.2%
Home Office officials insisted, however, that the new system of including all crimes, whether there was supporting evidence or not, was responsible for some of the increases.

When that new recording system was taken into account, overall crime rose by 2%, they said, with burglary up 5%.

Home Office Minister John Denham also pointed to new data from the British Crime Survey - which includes crimes not reported to the police - which he called the most reliable indication of trends

The survey put all crime down 7% in the year to September.

"The British Crime Survey shows crime has been falling since 1997 and the risk of being a victim is very low - around the same as 1981," he said.

The statistics come after the government this week announced a crackdown on gun crime with a series of plans to tighten firearms law.

And they are released ahead of high level talks with police, customs and community leaders on Friday about how to tackle gun crime, hosted by Home Secretary David Blunkett
The latest gun crime figures are more than double the 4,903 firearms incidents recorded in 1997 when Labour first took power.

The latest gun crime figures are more than double the 4,903 firearms incidents recorded in 1997 when Labour first took power.


The community remembers the victims of the shooting
The biggest increases are in the large metropolitan areas.

Robbery was up 13% on the adjusted figures.

But it did fall by 10% between July and September when the government's new efforts against street crime kicked in, said officials.

Earlier this week the government unveiled plans to introduce a five-year minimum jail sentence for anyone illegally possessing a firearm...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm

Critical
June 15, 2004, 10:49 PM
Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say.

England and Wales is NOT the UK. The UK is England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland.

Nice to see you ignored the point about different effects in different places of the gun law.

What I expected really.......

Stand_Watie
June 15, 2004, 10:58 PM
Nice to see you ignored the point about different effects in different places of the gun law

I didn't ignore anything. I simply pointed out that your further restriction of gun rights didn't prevent "gun crime" (a fallacious argument anyway) from rising in 55/60th's of the UK.

If you're claiming that your recent gun laws caused crime to drop in the Scotland and NI, you have to accept that they caused crime to rise in England/Wales which are the vast majority of the UK. I for one am willing to accept much more complex reasoning for the changes on both sides.

Either way, it's no victory for the argument of more gun control.

Critical
June 15, 2004, 11:04 PM
If you're claiming that your recent gun laws caused crime to drop in the Scotland and NI, you have to accept that they caused crime to rise in England/Wales which are the vast majority of the UK. I for one am willing to accept much more complex reasoning for the changes on both sides

No that is precisely what I am not saying. What I am saying is that guncrime is being fuelled by something else. And it is not the gun laws. Banning handguns hasn't caused criminals to pick up guns because we are defenceless. And banning handguns wont stop criminals using them if they want to. It is being fuelled by other factors, social and cultural.

Thats why I bring up scotland. Because Scotland by and large doesn't share a particular set of circumstances which is fuelling gun crime in England. That is borne out by the readiness or lack of it, of criminals to use guns in Scotland as opposed to England.

GUNLAWS ARE THE SAME BUT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DIFFERENT

P95Carry
June 15, 2004, 11:16 PM
On balance - what deters a criminal the most?

Being arrested and then incarcerated? Not a lot ... sentences are so lame and for some anyways, prison is an all expenses paid vacation.

Getting hurt?? ... Much more likely. That includes getting shot . What most prisoners confess to fearing most of all (in US) .. is being shot by an armed citizen .. more so even than a cop. Most of that reason is because they expect a cop to be armed .. but have little way of knowing who in the crowd or in a dwelling, just might be armed.

So what do we have here?? ''DETERRANCE'' ...... excellent deterrance. Shown best by crime figures in US concealed carry states ..... which are way below those few states that have no such provision.

Remember .... bad guys do not follow laws ... and will be armed regardless .. and may I add ... ''armed'' does not mean by default firearm .. we are talking weapon.... Armed = firearm only, in UK?? Very odd definition. I though iron bars were excellent weapons ... with which to be armed! Knives too ... effective with which to be armed.

The poor sheep in UK ..... who must be rendered impotent by laws forbidding the carrying of ''offensive'' weapons ..... must lie down and take it .. when bands of punks attack and plunder and beat them. Is this really a wonderful situation? - the ''safer'' society? ... we are again on the ground covered in the thread now closed .. debating self defence etc.

And - eventually 250 cops track down this gang .. after - how many? .... countless defenseless people have been robbed and beaten. Better to nip the crime yourself surely than wait for police ''solving'' after the event - they can't be everywhere.

Not meaning to be flaming here .. but seems like Critical and Agricola are in the same police department .. they present ''facts'' but when challenged on the logistics of same and the validity of some laws .... seem to go round the houses and not really answer people. Answers are obtuse and abstruse ..... sometimes pedantic. As I have said before, it is not just the pond that creates a divide! (And, remember, I am ex Brit .. and was progressively saddened and sickened by the way things were going ... thru the 90's in particular, with 'dear Tony's' crew in control.)

Cops cannot I think always see things like Joe Public ...... they are in a special case situation .. they seem (feel) like they have all the answers but ... this is from a specialized (even insulated) perspective. I challenge any cop to say that he/she can prevent people getting attacked and hurt. Just ain't possible. Cops do best at mopping up (measuring up) and then chasing and catching villians.... except maybe for a pre-emptive case solving, before the trouble can start.

This is why in the few vital seconds that a person is being attacked and maybe killed ... that is when they need a means of self defence .... the brief window of opportunity that only they can exploit ... but with a means, beyond just fists and intellect.

I doubt the divide will shrink .. I am sorry to say. ''N'er the twain shall meet''!

''Round in circles'' is this game!

Stand_Watie
June 15, 2004, 11:20 PM
And banning handguns wont stop criminals using them if they want to. It is being fuelled by other factors, social and cultural.

Thats why I bring up scotland. Because Scotland by and large doesn't share a particular set of circumstances which is fuelling gun crime in England. That is borne out by the readiness or lack of it, of criminals to use guns in Scotland as opposed to England.

GUNLAWS ARE THE SAME BUT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DIFFERENT

Good. Then we're on pretty much the same page. Banning or further restricting guns won't prevent crime. Glad to have you on board with the rkba movement.

Critical
June 15, 2004, 11:20 PM
Not meaning to be flaming here .. but seems like Critical and Agricola are in the same police department .. they present ''facts'' but when challenged on the logistics of same and the validity of some laws .... seem to go round the houses and not really answer people. Answers are obtuse and abstruse ..... .

Care to give an example? Or is this simply what it appears, an ad hominem?

Critical
June 15, 2004, 11:24 PM
Good. Then we're on pretty much the same page. Banning or further restricting guns won't prevent crime. Glad to have you on board with the rkba movement.

No, restricting access to firearms will deter criminals. Not all, but some. Criminals who want guns will get them, but even they will find it hard. Thats why so many are commited with replicas. And most of the time the guns contain no more than 3 bullets.

The sea change is on the criminals who are prepared to get them. This has risen, but not because of the gun laws.

The conclusion you have reached is frankly pathetic............

Stand_Watie
June 15, 2004, 11:26 PM
No, restricting access to firearms will deter criminals. Not all, but some.

Funny that hasn't happened in Engand and Wales then.

Frankly, that conclusion in the face of a crime rise in 55/60'ths of the UK is pathetic.

Critical
June 15, 2004, 11:29 PM
The sea change is on the criminals who are prepared to get them. This has risen, but not because of the gun laws.

This is the point you are ignoring. Don't worry, I fully understand why.......

Stand_Watie
June 15, 2004, 11:36 PM
This is the point you are ignoring. Don't worry, I fully understand why.......

I haven't ignored anything. Your gun laws have become more restrictive. Your crime has risen. An absolute zero score for gun restriction.

Critical
June 15, 2004, 11:39 PM
I haven't ignored anything. Your gun laws have become more restrictive. Your crime has risen. An absolute zero score for gun restriction

Again, you assume, with no evidence, a causal connection between the two......

You are a true-believer. No point in continuing this I think........

P95Carry
June 15, 2004, 11:40 PM
Or is this simply what it appears, an ad hominem? Sorry . was not meant to be as strong as an ad hominem ... try to avoid those! More an observation - purely a personal one. Similarity of approach I guess with the two of you!:)

I am intrigued to know - how even the most draconian gun laws will guarantee criminals not getting guns at all .. OK, so for many the ''easy option'' is conversion of replicas etc .... probably low level low-lifes going the easy route.

But the determined and dedicated villain will .. WILL .. always find access ... it is a market that cannot be closed - money buys anything. Think back to prohibition here .. and the farce that was!

So .... in order to purely try and decrease (not stop - can't be done) criminal access to firearms ... the huge and upstanding shooting public is screwed ... and the public as a whole is rendered impotent for self defence because all ''offensive'' weapons are off limits in public.

Let's forget guns for a minute .. knives instead! Crooks these days over there seem to love blades .. and yet Joe Public must not have anything ''offensive''. Joe Public however is not out to ''chiv''.. every person he sees .. he might just be safer having something with which to answer back .... if accosted. Maybe even manage to survive ER or the funeral director!

Time for a break! :p Too many typo's to edit!

Critical .. you gotta be on night duty .. either that or your sleep pattern is real wierd!:D

Stand_Watie
June 15, 2004, 11:43 PM
Again, you assume, with no evidence, a causal connection between the two......

No, I didn't assume any such thing. I assumed that your further restrictions upon firearms didn't prevent your crime from rising, as it clearly didn't.

You, my friend, are the "True believer". Feel free to break it off any time you wish.

joab
June 15, 2004, 11:48 PM
Anyone notice that the article didn't list the length of the sentences?
He is already out of prison after serving half of his two-year sentence. One of his neighbours whose son has been threatened by him said she fears for her boy's life and is trying to move out of the area.

The first trial - which convicted eight members of the gang who had pleaded guilty - served only two prison sentences

This could be part of UKs problem. A 2 year sentance?

P95Carry
June 15, 2004, 11:51 PM
To quote the ol' metaphor ..... ''lock em up - and throw away the key''. What use on earth - are vermin like this? The planet is way over crowded as it is.

Oh I forgot .... ''they had a deprived childhood'' .... yeah right .... right and wrong cease to matter!:rolleyes:

joab
June 16, 2004, 12:18 AM
I did notice how the article seemed to attribute their desent into worthlessness on their poor upbringing and social status

AZRickD
June 16, 2004, 12:22 AM
The Framers stressed that the importance of maintaining an individual right to keep and bear arms was about resisting a tyrannical government (like the UK). Fighting crime is but a tangent to that, for the purposes of the Bill of Rights which (from Free Speech to Trial by Jury) is about having the tools to resist government oppression.

Rick

P95Carry
June 16, 2004, 12:33 AM
AZ .. this is all down to the ''Citizens/Subjects'' deal!! Eh??:p

Or has ''Subjects'' in fact now been devalued to simple ''peons'' :)

JPL
June 16, 2004, 12:48 AM
A coworker on business in London was attacked by three teens who beat him and tried to rob him at knife point.

He used his briefcase as a weapon, and badly injured the one with the knife.

His "reward" for stopping the crime and saving his hide?

He was arrested for assault with intent to maim and jailed overnight.

Cost him a bunch of pounds before he finally got it squared away and discharged.

The "lad" he maimed?

Apparently never charged with the crime.

He's never had a good thing to say about Britain since.

Dave R
June 16, 2004, 12:51 AM
Because the rise in gun crime and violent crime is nothing to do with the gun laws.

So why is gun crime down in Scotland but not in the rest of the UK? I'm willing to listen.

So far you have not explained much other than to say we're wrong, sea change, etc.

Please explain.

Rebar
June 16, 2004, 12:51 AM
Arms = Weapons
Weapons = Arms

A pipe carried for the purpose of hitting people is a weapon, an arm. Your parsing and redefining words is reminisent of the Clintonian "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." As if someone who is killed with a gun is more dead than someone killed with a pipe.

If your argument needs the redefinition of commonly understood words, then your basic premise is invalid.

Go to your bookstore right now and buy the works of John Lott, The Bias Against Guns and More Guns, Less Crime. Then you would gain a much greater understanding of what we are talking about.

P95Carry
June 16, 2004, 12:52 AM
coworker on business in London was attacked by three teens who beat him and tried to rob him at knife point..................................

Ag - or Critical .. explain that one? It is far from an isolated case as far as my experiences went.

It is why the ''victim suffers most'' scenario gets exposure .....

romulus
June 16, 2004, 01:06 AM
...Ag - or Critical...
I was thinking the same thing...Ag is beginning to blur the line between a nightcap and an eye-opener. Otherwise how to explain such overt hostility

JPL
June 16, 2004, 01:20 AM
Anyone who says that a pipe isn't a weapon, and that you aren't armed if you have a pipe, needs to read the dictionary.

British law may not consider a pipe to be a weapon, or someone wielding a pipe to be armed, but that's ignoring the reality of the situation -- that the individual who has such a device can cause you grievous bodily harm.

I'm curious...

Since Britain and the rest of the UK apparently have such tough anti-gun laws, what kind of sentences are being handed out to those who are convicted of using a gun in a crime?

It would appear that the UK's sentencing guidelines are significantly laxer than those in the United States for similar crimes.

agricola
June 16, 2004, 02:30 AM
p95,

I'm not going to comment on that in the face of no evidence (though i would point out that there is no "assault with intent to maim" in the English legal system).

I would also say that this:

Not meaning to be flaming here .. but seems like Critical and Agricola are in the same police department .. they present ''facts'' but when challenged on the logistics of same and the validity of some laws .... seem to go round the houses and not really answer people. Answers are obtuse and abstruse ..... sometimes pedantic. As I have said before, it is not just the pond that creates a divide! (And, remember, I am ex Brit .. and was progressively saddened and sickened by the way things were going ... thru the 90's in particular, with 'dear Tony's' crew in control.)

is utter nonsense - even on the most recent locked thread, there was only one side providing evidence (ie: me / St Johns) that justified their standpoint. In addition, I have had this debate here and on TFL many times.

Critical is right when he says there is no link between firearm controls and violent crime (as Colin Greenwood found out):

"The British Government seeks to make the most of the confusion caused by its change of statistical recording methods claiming that the ban on handguns may have had some small effect. Some commentators have claimed. that the use of handguns in crime has increased by some staggering amount from the moment that handguns were banned. Neither claim is true. The ban on handguns has been a total irrelevance and underlying crime trends have continued unchanged now that only outlaws have guns."

http://www.pierrelemieux.org/greenwood-citizen.html

There is no link between the 1997 gun ban and rising crime, it has been demonstrated over and over again.

Oh, and citing John Lott as evidence............

P95Carry
June 16, 2004, 02:50 AM
There is no link between the 1997 gun ban and rising crime, Ag ... let's turn that on its head. Has there been any demonstrable benefit from the 1997 act.?? By this I mean ... has the removal of ''LEGALLY'' held handguns, really affected and benefitted the stability of society?? I think not. I cannot see what proof there is to this end.

Even before that - when I had to have deactivated, my semi auto Stirling and Mini -14 .... I seriously wondered what real impact this was gonna have on things. Instead .. all it did was totally screw up my shooting recreational enjoyment .... but of course - it sure pacified the peace mongers!

I had to ''turn in'' a collection of some 24 or so handguns in '97 ... because they were all registered... and I was not about to become a martyr! How did that make things safer? The Thomas Hamiltons and Michael Ryans of this world are freaks .. guys who are a miniscule minority ..... and yet, the entire law abiding gun owning populace has to be punished?

Is this ''fair'' ..... is this ''just''? Punishing the majority ....... for the transgressions of the freak minority. I think not - but it gets votes and pleases the anti's. I was no more a risk as a gun owner, than the guy up the road who happened to have a TVR Griffith .. who with all that ''muscle'' could have wiped out several poeple on the highway!

It makes no sense - except to make the sheep feel that ''something has been done''. It's a joke..... and a bad one at that.

I now have twice the number of guns .. and am no risk to anyone ......... but certain Brits would dispute that of course.:)

Critical
June 16, 2004, 04:56 AM
Anyone who says that a pipe isn't a weapon, and that you aren't armed if you have a pipe, needs to read the dictionary.

Anyone who thinks that is what I am saying needs to learn to read. in the context of the question posed by standin Wolf there is no evidence this mob were armed i:e that they used their imitation handgun to rob anyone. This sidetracking is beyond pathetic.

I post again:

This little sidetrack began like this:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would have taken a single armed law-abiding American citizen to stop those criminals cold
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by standing wolf

Are you saying that SW is saying a single American armed with a metal pipe would have stopped a gang of 15-20 yobs, also armed with metal pipes?

Or is he referring to guns?


I then posed to SW what if they were all armed i:e ALL CARRYING GUNS, because that is the scenario envisaged by SW - guns. And like true believers you then sidetrack off this trying to say that knives mean they are armed. In the context they are not. The whole basis of the question is what happens if they ALL have guns.

Sidetracking a discussion like this and then trying to make out a false position isn't debate.

Critical
June 16, 2004, 05:01 AM
So why is gun crime down in Scotland but not in the rest of the UK? I'm willing to listen.

Someone who wants to listen. Wow.......

I will get round to this. But it isn't simplistic. It may very well be the longest post ever on this board. Bear with me.

joab
June 16, 2004, 06:27 AM
then posed to SW what if they were all armed i:e ALL CARRYING GUNS, Then you're screwed OK. But how many times has a gang of 20 gun wielding thugs waited to corner an unarmed victim.
What if they all just had a meal of mother's milk and hard rock candy and it's the 3rd Monday of the 5th week under a full moon asnd they're all closet werewolfs
Thugs armed with guns feel they have the edge and safety that as cowards they must have to engage their victims and would not wait for a group of 20 to show up before they act out

The scenario that Standing Wolf describes has been documented many times ,Bernard Goetz I think is the one that come immediately to mind

Art Eatman
June 16, 2004, 08:20 AM
A couple of points: Critical stated that "armed" in England means "guns"; clubs and knives aren't "arms". This makes discussion difficult when words have different meanings to those involved. "Two countries, separated by a common language."

Causality is irrelevant insofar as gun restrictions and a rise in criminals' misuse. The much more important fact--not conjecture or opinion--is that only law-abiding people obey laws against violence with ANY tool: Firearms, clubs or knives. (Isn't this the very differentiation between "law-abiding" and "criminal"?)

This means that the law-abiding are deprived of any lawful means of self-defense against some thug or group thereof, regardless of the particular type of weapon possessed by the thugs.

The best example I know of about citizen self-defense protection involves the events in Santa Fe, New Mexico, some 30 years ago. The police were not alllowed by law to go on strike, so there was a mass call-in of "Blue Flu". The burglary rate in Santa Fe fell toward zero. A newspaper reporter contacted a professional burglar, asking why the reduction. The burglar pointed out that all over town, armed people were openly performing "Neighborhood Watch". "The police only arrest you. These neighborhood guys will kill you."

Interviews with violent criminals in Florida after the passage of the CHL laws there explained the shift in crime patterns, away from locals and more onto tourists: "Folks coming from out of state (whether cars or planes) don't have guns. You don't know if some local guy's carrying a gun."

The present English system, regardless of argument or "window dressing" language, givess the criminal more advantage over the law-abiding citizen than does ours here in most of the U.S.

Art

nero45acp
June 16, 2004, 09:04 AM
Never trust, support, defend or tolerate a government that doesn't trust you to possess the means to defend yourself or your loved ones.:scrutiny:



nero

BeLikeTrey
June 16, 2004, 09:08 AM
Very well put. So criminals basically will continue to be criminals... Hmmm gun control only disarms the good guys. Criminals by definition, will not obey these laws.

By the Way on the UK thing? Anyone remember my post about taking the Fellow from the UK to the range? He seemed to know exactly where he could get firearms over there illegally. He said that they were a bit expensive but that they could be had easily. Wow a law abiding citizen knows where to get firearms on the "black market"? I'd say gun control doesn't work. The only thing that stops him is decency and respect for the law. Criminals? By definition, they care not about the law.

(UK boys)So if gun control works, by the way, do you have armed police? If you do, why? Is it an elitist thing or a necessity? I think we can follow my train of thought from here.

Art Eatman
June 16, 2004, 10:07 AM
How long have governments been trying to ban or control "things"? Whether booze, drugs or guns, nothing's worked yet.

A major smuggling operation of hundreds of years back was the untaxed importation of French brandy into England. Fast forward to the IRA's smuggling of weaponry--both firearms and explosives.

We read now of all manner of unlawful trade in firearms around Europe. I find it difficult to believe that there is no unlawful smuggling of these into England; a black market is a free market in the purest sense of the word.

That's why I'm unconcerned about "causality". That's why, in the other thread, I commented on the morality of government in its views of its citizenry.

The net result in England is that it is less safe for a law-abiding citizen than it was before all these restrictions were placed upon them; before these "interpretations" of how one can defend against violence of whatever sort via whatever methods.

Art

JPL
June 16, 2004, 10:19 AM
The "assault with intent to maim" was my wording.

I have no clue how the actual charge was worded, but it was along those lines.

Perhaps causing bodily harm, whatever.

That's not the point of the issue, though.

The point is that my coworker defended himself against and armed and dangerous man and was arrested for it.

Something is wrong with that.

Molon Labe
June 16, 2004, 10:46 AM
The expected good has never come to pass.And what if some "good" did accompany gun control? Would you then become a proponent of gun control? The net result in England is that it is less safe for a law-abiding citizen than it was before all these restrictions were placed upon them.But what if we were more safe after gun control? Would you then become a proponent of gun control?

Dain Bramage
June 16, 2004, 12:06 PM
I have to say that all the forum regulars are seriously wasting their breath arguing with the Bobby Twins.

Critical might just as well have named himself "Circular", although I do applaud his creative use of "circle jerk" in an earlier post, proving that American idioms have polluted the world.

As sumpnz presciently declared on the first page of this post, don't feed the trolls.

I do want to get the Brit opinion on some stuff, but they only hang out at Legal and Political:

Which Martini-Henry to buy?

Sten vs. Sterling?

Is a Bren Gun Carrier de rigueur for the stylish Bren Gun owner? :D

BeLikeTrey
June 16, 2004, 12:34 PM
Not finiky and a child could work on them. Rugged and fun. Also parts kits abound. Get the MkII however. ;) the rest of the firearms, I don't know. A Brit I'm not, (but I did stay at a holiday inn express last night HA!) but a friend of mine, here in the states, is and loves the Sten for it's simplicity.

Master Blaster
June 16, 2004, 12:59 PM
Because the rise in gun crime and violent crime is nothing to do with the gun laws. Which, if you people would be prepared to set aside your myopic "gun and violent crime is caused by the gun ban" fixation

Critical: This is a Gun board, people here own, shoot, and collect guns.
Most folks here have a license to conceal carry a gun, I do and I do it everyday.

If you dont want to hear from folks who own guns, believe in Gun ownership, and are against gun control, WHY ARE YOU POSTING HERE???

Is this an intelectual form of Masochistic relief for you??????????????

NOT personal just curious mind you.

Reading the Article in the first post, I am reminded of The Clockwork Orange, Oh my Brothers, have you Videeded Stanley Kubricks work???

Is this evil vision comming to pass in the UK????????

agricola
June 16, 2004, 01:16 PM
art,

The net result in England is that it is less safe for a law-abiding citizen than it was before all these restrictions were placed upon them; before these "interpretations" of how one can defend against violence of whatever sort via whatever methods.

I think you'll find that, since 1920 (when the first of the major restrictions on gun ownership were initiated (though there were others, and factors that mitigated against ownership), the lot of the UK citizen now is much better than then - the UK is more democratic, the average citizen is richer, lives longer, is more educated and has more oppurtunity to use that education (both in terms of further education and vocationally); there is also less chance that he/she will be conscripted by the state for its own ends.

A newspaper reporter contacted a professional burglar, asking why the reduction. The burglar pointed out that all over town, armed people were openly performing "Neighborhood Watch". "The police only arrest you. These neighborhood guys will kill you."

there would probably be a reduction in crime if the state said that anyone arrested for an offence would be immediately shot without trial...

master blaster,

cant speak for him, but I post here because the vast majority of what passes for comment on the UK (which has been highlighted, for whatever reason, as being relevant to the national US debate on gun control) is, to use the colloquial, bollocks.

JPL,

i would have thought "american charged for defending himself" in the UK would have been all over the likes of KABA; accordingly i wont comment until i see some form of proof.

Lochaber
June 16, 2004, 01:23 PM
Wow. My simple reply to Agricola's pithy remark has ended up in yet another killer thread.

I should make a couple of things clear. Critical has asked how do I know how the Europeans view the Americans. He has implied that my position is based on false evidence. He does deserve an answer, regardless of his tone. Are you paying attention? It is really very simple: I am European. I am also a US citizen but I was not born or raised as such. My family is scatered all over that old continent. I still talk to them.

But all that means nothing. I could have been born and raised in some back county of Indiana and never been further then 200 miles from the family farm. There is this thing called the internet, and through this wonderful thing we have access to european papers. All of them. And most of us can read. Some can even read other languages. Crazy, I know.

Also Americans have this wiered thing about following politics, even if they choose not to vote. They even follow the politics of other countries. And they listen to what the politicos of other countries are saying, in public and in print. You you think that the bias I have described in my first post is imagined, then perhaps you should also read your own papers and listen to your own politicians.

Heck, I didnt even bother to pick on the British law system, such as it is. I was only annoyed that Agricola chose a shacky defence. He implied that "crap happens" yet in the past he has used American crime statistics to point out our own failures, of which we have pleanty. However Critical has decided to start a rather strange argument. And unlike Agricola (who I disagree with but he I admit tries to keep arguments based on logic and fact and thus I respect him for it), Critical has launched in a vitriolic passive agressive defence of the laws of his country. I wouldn't even mind that, had he made a rational argument.

The problem is that Critical has taken a strange position. Instead of explaining why we are seeing more and more reports about violent crime in England and Walles (and as far as I can tell he is right about the lesser troubles in Scottland) he has chosen to argue that gun control is not the cause of crime. Well, no kidding. Inanimate objects which can not be snorted, drunk, or smoked rarelly alter the state of mind of law abidding citizens. No one is saying that gun control causes crime, anymore then we would say that guns themselves cause crime. What we are saying is that the current legal and social climate of the UK (or more populous sections thereof) is encouraging crime.

Lets face it folks. Man is not really all that noble after all. For %99.99 of our history we have been ruled the guy with the bigger weapon, from a sharp rock to a cannon. Transpose any of us here into one of those not so far gone times and most of us would quickly revert to some form of kill or be killed view of the world, and for that matter to an attitude fostering the rule of the strong. Don't believe me? Ask the psycologists. They know. They have run experimets that have scared them into self imposed bans on certain types of research. Ask me how I know. (hint: I can read)

To think that those impules are going to go away because we can make cheap soap and expensive MP3 players is somewhat naive, if a bit charming and romantic. There are two ways to stop roving gangs of young and hormone packed young men. One is force, the other is providing them with a healthy outlet for their aggression. Face it, that aggretion is a good thing. It the same thing that keep the cave safe when the tribe over the hill wants to expend. It is the same thing that makes huge nations spend untold billions racing to put a flag on a dust ball in the sky. Aggression and competitve drives are what has gotten us from eating lice from our own fur, to being where we are now.

But take away the constructive outlets for that agression, or the threat of force, and it reverts back to its most basic form: Hitting others with sharp sticks. Western civilization is making a big push to remove the outlets and smother the agressive nature of our men. And the UK is ahead of the curve. Take the same young men, expect nothing of them, tell them that state will take care of them if they dont, and give them no responsabilities. Then take the older generation (still dreaming of lost empires and past glories) and tell them that the Crown will look after its subjects, who need not concern themselves with their own safety. A seducing proposition for many. Now combine the two things and see what you get.

And now back on topic. Gun control doesn't cause crime. Gun control tell the subjects of the regime that they are not to be trusted with their own lives and decissions and it also tells them the government is there to take care of them. Humans like security and comfort and most will believe the lie. Gun control creates victims in search for a crime, and the rest of the social fumes create the gangs and criminals to fleece the victims.

Critical has implied that he is a policeman. I assume he is not often robed, attacked, shot, spat on, while in uniform. Do we think that the street punks have respect for the uniform or fear? The reason why he is not mugged is because everything about him tells the criminals that he is not a victim. He is the wolf guarding the sheep. He has teeth. Lets face it. Criminals are lazy. If they were not they would be making piles of money working hard as opposed to little money risking their lives. And that risk is not that high when the whole culture prepares victims for them. But attacking the guard dogs, or even the loner dogs, is to much like work. They move on to easier prey.

Americans may be seem backward and simplistic to some Europeans, and certainly the beginings of the same social engineering are present here as well, but for the most part they still believe in fighting back, and the best way to do that is with a gun, but any other ways will do. Years ago my less the 5ft tall wife chased down a thug who snatched her purse. With her ridiculosly overpowered sports car. Had the cops not taken over (trying not to laugh at the whole scene) she might have even run down the over 6ft mean looking thug. Oddly she hasn't been bothered by any of the other thugs for the rest of the years we lived in that area. And I'm sure some of them still jump when they hear someone rev the engine of their Pontiac Transam.

Again, gun control doesnt create crime. It creates victims, and criminals know how to find them.

Loch

sumpnz
June 16, 2004, 01:37 PM
Loch,

That has to be one of the best posts I've read for some time. Well said.

agricola
June 16, 2004, 01:47 PM
loch,

I think you'll find that my only use of American statistics (mainly the FBI's UCR programme) has been to challenge others when they state that certain categories of crime are higher in the UK than the US (and when that view is false - I recall a long thread about comparing rape levels on TFL).

theres also a great danger in reading news stories and then basing a viewpoint on a compiled list of "crime rising" scare stories (since the more horrible a crime, the more violent, the more newsworthy it is).

Lochaber
June 16, 2004, 01:56 PM
Agricola

I think you'll find that my only use of American statistics (mainly the FBI's UCR programme) has been to challenge others when they state that certain categories of crime are higher in the UK than the US (and when that view is false - I recall a long thread about comparing rape levels on TFL).

I agree. And those well researched numbers are why I was a bit disapointed in your original post. I expect more from you :)

theres also a great danger in reading news stories and then basing a viewpoint on a compiled list of "crime rising" scare stories (since the more horrible a crime, the more violent, the more newsworthy it is).

Also very much true. By the same token reports of US crime are also overblown. However, my impression is the the nature of crime in the UK is changing. You are of course closer to it then us and you can view it without the lenses of the press. But to us over here it is looking like the criminals are getting more brazen, and the population more sheepish. Are we mistaken? My point is that the events of the article that started this are very much shaping our view of crime in the UK. Are the facts of the article wrong? Because if they are not, they are describing a very scary picture. And please do not misunderstand me, we have our own troubles, but that kind of organized terror of train commuters is not that common around here. There have been past incidents, and we do have our own gangs, but they tend to mostly fight each other. Mostly.

Loch

Antlurz
June 16, 2004, 01:57 PM
I thought it curious and a bit funny, in a different sort of way that when someone is hospitalized....or hospitalised.... (pick one)... that a series of definitions are usually in order describing the worsening condition of the patient. The most undesirable condition to be in, and also the one closest to loosing the battle is:

Critical.

With that, it's time to start the mower.
Ron

Art Eatman
June 16, 2004, 05:25 PM
ag sez to Art, "I think you'll find that, since 1920 (when the first of the major restrictions on gun ownership were initiated (though there were others, and factors that mitigated against ownership), the lot of the UK citizen now is much better than then - the UK is more democratic, the average citizen is richer, lives longer, is more educated and has more oppurtunity to use that education (both in terms of further education and vocationally); there is also less chance that he/she will be conscripted by the state for its own ends."

I don't doubt that in the slightest. I don't see a causal relationship with gun ownership, however. The same is true now in the U.S. and there is a greater percentage of active gunowners now than in 1920.

(When I say "active", I mean those who go beyond having WW II curios in a drawer, e.g.)

Datum: Per BATFE, the increase in firearms in the U.S. has grown by an average of roughly five million per year, for more than ten years (last time I looked at the website). During this time, our homicide-via-firearm and our armed robbery rates have declined.

It is inescapable that psychology always works. Fear and uncertainty keep people from doing certain things. If a criminal fears an armed homeowner, and has uncertainty as to his own danger, he is far less likely to invade a home when the residents are in residence. :)

If a homeowner can properly feel safe from an invasion of his residence, I submit his life is richer, fuller, happier. If a citizen on the street or in a subway need not worry about strongarm tactics to be used against him, I submit the same thesis.

I'm another who browses international newspapers. I don't have to agree with their conclusions from events, but I assume that even a tabloid-style paper doesn't make up police reports about people having cellphones or briefcases grabbed on a fairly regular basis.

So far, home invasion and casual thuggery seem to be more prevalent in England than here. I leave the worries about causality to others...

Art

AZRickD
June 16, 2004, 10:22 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/berkshire/3813115.stm
Man 'fired harpoon in boy's face'
A man fired a harpoon gun into a 15-year-old boy's face as he was attacked with a baseball bat by a gang, a court has been told.

Nathan Kirk, 25, fired the harpoon after being stabbed just short of his heart, Reading Crown Court heard.

The youth's injury was so serious that he lost an eye and paramedics had to use bolt-cutters to remove the three-pronged harpoon from his face.

Mr Kirk denies causing GBH with intent and having an offensive weapon.

Prosecutor Julian Baughan QC told the court that the incident happened after a confrontation.

Survival 'a miracle'

That was said to have been sparked by Mr Kirk's alleged warning to the teenager not to vandalise a phone box near his girlfriend's home in Thatcham, Berkshire.

Mr Kirk told the police in a statement that the teenager was "kicking and swinging" on it and an argument broke out between the two.

Later, Mr Baughan said, the teenager returned with two men and attacked Mr Kirk, who was dressed only in boxer shorts, punching, kicking and stabbing him.

But Mr Kirk, who is alleged to have left the harpoon gun by the front door, fired it in the face of the teenager, he said.

Mr Baughan told the court it was "little short of a miracle" that the teenager survived and added: "Although he was injured, Kirk reacted violently and deliberately."

Mr Kirk told police in a statement that he had cocked the gun to keep his attackers at bay and, as he lifted it, was hit in the face with a baseball bat, causing the trigger to go off.

His lawyers argue that he was acting in self-defence but the prosecution say that the violence had already stopped and that it was a revenge attack.

The trial continues.

P95Carry
June 16, 2004, 11:17 PM
the prosecution say that the violence had already stopped and that it was a revenge attack How in Hades do they know the violence had stopped? Sounds like there could have been more to be dished out.

If you have been attacked and stabbed .. I think the will to survive further mauling takes over ...... doesn't it? Seems logical. Ahh but - sin of sins ... he had the famous ''offensive weapon'' - actually had a means to fight back.

Or does the victim have to stop ... deliberate (whilst remaining open to attack) - and then decide if he can justifiably do anything .. in case he gets arrested.?! The prosecution statement is seemingly all too typical - and a factor in many people sharing the view that even as a victim .. you are gonna get screwed.

I have only gone on the facts as presented.

''GBH'' BTW . ''Grievous Bodily harm''.

AZRickD
June 16, 2004, 11:24 PM
One may rightly suggest that each crime report is merely anecdotal. But these repeated stories, all slanted toward the criminal, the prosecution pressing charges. That is a pattern representative of the Brit legal system.

A travesty designed to breed sheep.

Rick

Art Eatman
June 16, 2004, 11:58 PM
Molon Labe cited and commented:

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The expected good has never come to pass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what if some "good" did accompany gun control? Would you then become a proponent of gun control?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The net result in England is that it is less safe for a law-abiding citizen than it was before all these restrictions were placed upon them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But what if we were more safe after gun control? Would you then become a proponent of gun control?"

ML, my view is that the sun will rise in the west, long before any gun control laws which restrict the law-abiding citizen can possibly work to my benefit. To me, the premises for the questions are just not part of the real world.

I'll believe in the efficacy of gun-control laws when water runs uphill.

Art

atek3
June 17, 2004, 03:27 AM
2nd what master blaster said. The violent stories coming out of england really do remind me of clock work orange.

Joseph Gbonda, 18, from Herne Hill, Ashraf Ali, 18, from Peckham, Richard Tavenier, 18, from Mitcham, Philip Fahie, 21, from Edmonton, Jarrell Edwin, 22, from Peckham, Malik Jones, 19, from Acton, Faisal Navaid, 20, from Wandsworth, Foday Dumbuya, 18, from Mitcham and two 17-year-old boys and a 16-year-old boy and girl who cannot be named because of their age.

Chelsea Waldron, 18, from Hayes, David Moroney, 18, from Islington, and a 13-year-old boy who cannot be named were found guilty by the jury of conspiracy to rob.



Nice to see the gangs are 'multi-cultural'. Unlike Alex's gang which was only white.

atek3

AZRickD
June 17, 2004, 09:24 AM
Art asked:And what if some "good" did accompany gun control? Would you then become a proponent of gun control?
The resriction of rights for the Common Good reflects the Utilitarian Theory of Rights. That is, if a majority can be convinced that the exercise of a Right is X% bad vs X% good, then they can vote that Right (or activity) away.

This is called socialism. And it's bad.

That "X% bad" doesn't have to be 50+%. If 10% bad is enough to sway a majority of a legislature, that's all the statists need.

The Bill of Rights is the wedge against the Tyranny of the Majority.

If that document is no wedge against Utilitarian advocates, what good is it?

Rick

ravinraven
June 17, 2004, 09:38 AM
ALL gun control laws are about getting guns out of the hands of honest citizens so that they can become trapped subjects. Blather about "making the streets safer," etc. are just window dressing designed to make idiots willingly forfeit their rights.

School yard shooters, perhaps the worst violent felons, pose no danger whatever to dishonest government. Guns in the hands of honest people DO pose a hazard to crooked government.

The first act of a criminal government is to disarm the people.

Now argue and call me names and drag out all kinds of "anecdotal evidence and forged data" but the facts that I have stated stand now and in history and in the future.

Again. The only reason for gun control laws is to get guns out of the hands of honest people.

rr

cordex
June 17, 2004, 11:21 AM
And if the mob of 15 or 20 had all been armed too?
This has not been properly addressed.

Critical's statment makes the implicit and entirely baseless claim that the legal atmosphere which would allow an individual to arm themselves in defense of their lives would also result in small armies of thugs armed with similar firearms to roam the streets in search of victims.

This is wrong on more levels than I have time to address.

First, I live in a state which allows me to defend myself by giving me permission in the form of a little pink piece of paper to carry one or more handguns upon my person. I've also lived elsewhere where that wasn't an option. Locally, the most common forms of violence are unsuccessful drug deals and related crime between individuals who are willing to break the law outside of violence. That and domestic battery, but that more commonly results in hand to hand combat and thrown items rather than the use of firearms.

While I'm certainly not an expert in these matters, it has been my observation that when criminals are able to arm themselves, they tend to attack in ones and twos. They don't need 15 to 20 people to succeed in most of their attacks, therefore it makes no sense to split the profits up more than necessary. It is when they are unarmed, or underarmed that they fight in groups. The only instances I can think of where a heavily armed group of thugs fight together are during gang gunbattles which are far more rare than Lethal Weapon and movies of the period might suggest. When a criminal is confronted with someone willing and able to defend themselves, they often flee. Dependant, of course, on the type of crime being committed (i.e., a gang might not immediately flee when an opposing gang starts shooting at them, but a would-be rapist can be chased off by an armed individual who refuses to become a victim).

In other words, your scenario of a lawfully armed citizen defending themselves against 20 armed thugs is unrealistic. However, a single armed citizen defending themselves against 20 unarmed thugs is much more possible, as the very state of being unarmed makes them more likely to attack in groups to ensure success. Few unarmed groups, however, would be as willing to engage or continue to fight an individual who they learn is carrying an effective weapon and is prepared to use it.

But further, anyone can think up (or end up in) situations which would be nearly impossible to survive. For instance, what if you were surrounded by 15 to 20 thugs carrying jars of acetone peroxide (an explosive that can be easily made out of household chemicals by anyone with enough knowhow to bake a cake) and cans of carburetor or oven cleaner (commonly available to anyone for no more than a pound or two) you'd be hard pressed to defend yourself whether you're armed or unarmed - even if you had backup on the way, a casually thrown jar or three second squirt of cleaner into your face and you're dead or maimed for life. Does this possibility mean people shouldn't be able to buy household chemicals that can be mixed or used in dangerous fashions?

saddenedcitizen
June 17, 2004, 07:18 PM
Excelent post.

Not being sarcastic AT ALL !!

Had not considered the viewpoint of 'unarmed groups' as
opposed to armed 'duos etc' but it sure stands to reason.

I (as well as others) are still waiting (not with baited breath !!)
about the explanation of the difference between 'crime rates'
in Scotland vs. UK as they have (we are told) identical 'gun
control laws'.

My suspicion is that 'raw' numbers' are being used without
regard to population porportions/urban vs. surburban etc.

ie - try commiting a crime and 'vanishing' in a rural area
(2 miles outside of East Overshoe in middle America)
as opposed to vanishing in an urban area (subway city-midtown NY)

I am slowly coming to the the opinion (perhaps erroniously) that
some of our posters (from the other side of the pond) are almost
delusional. They ACTUALLY seem to think that things are really
no worse in the UK (England ??) than they were only a few
short year ago. Victims of the BBC ? Blinders ? I don't know.

Almost EVERYTHING I read contradicts that viewpoint.

Try to catch the thread on the 'speargun' defence and tell me
again, how the lunatics are NOT incharge of the asylum !!

It's almost as if - "We're so civil/civilized, unlike you crude
backward Americans, we KNOW what we're doing and it
is working !!'

Sorry, but a 'stiff upper lip' isn't a **** of a lot of help when your
being hearded into a cattle car or bleeding to death!!!
That's when civility/sophistication/manners/blind faith
should go right 'out the window' !!!!!!!!!

BeLikeTrey
June 22, 2004, 08:27 AM
It's for the blissninies! Cordex! I second the great post compliment. I furthermore will no longer carry pepper spray;) I got one better!

So where are our lovely elitist weapon banners now? haven't seen a post in awhile... I guess logic has pushed them back like a crucifix in a Bela Lugosi movie ;)

Antlurz
June 22, 2004, 04:26 PM
So where are our lovely elitist weapon banners now? haven't seen a post in awhile... I guess logic has pushed them back like a crucifix in a Bela Lugosi movie

Ummmm, no. I think they are fulfulling their weekley contractual procedure of standing to and presenting their home and posessions the the local Bobbies so they can go through the individuals private home and posessions, making sure there are no offensive articles that could be illegally used as a self defensive tool. As soon as the inspection is complete, the paperwork done, and the new certification of conformity isssued, they will be back in full force, talking about the British superiority in all things pertinent.

Oh. Wait. they ARE the bobbies. At least one of them claims to be. Must be really heartening, going through making sure the subjects are all in conforminty with the Queens wishes.:rolleyes:

Ron

BeLikeTrey
June 23, 2004, 08:22 AM
Where is that roll on the floor gif when you need it?

Art Eatman
June 23, 2004, 08:34 AM
Minor grammatical point: It's "bated" breath. Think of a reduced rate of breathing, of the word "abatement".

"Baited" breath would be--depending on what you're trying to lure (or avoid)--chocolate (for a kid, you dirty old man) or mouthwash (for Sweetthang) or garlic (to avert a vampire).

:D, Art

Iain
June 23, 2004, 08:59 AM
Antlurz -

Good to see you know exactly what you are talking about.

Shame it bears no relation to my reality.

And there is the salient point that Art has made, and so has Ag, different strokes for different folks. By that I mean, it works for us (and it does), and what you have works for you. It would be nice if the rhetorical nonsense could be left out.

We're open to debate by all means, but debate with those who can resist the urge to construct some reality to debate that we don't recognise. After all do we call you wife-beating, govt.-hating rednecks? As you can see, two can play at that game and it get none of us anywhere.

ZekeLuvs1911
June 23, 2004, 09:00 AM
After reading this thread, I know why we are known as "citizens" and they are known as "subjects." They were once a powerful nation, now reduce to a 3rd rate power due to lack of common sense.

Iain
June 23, 2004, 09:05 AM
Hmm.

I wish Ag and Critical would return to this thread. I don't blame them for having left it for much the same reasons I am going to.

Try going and posting on a message board you would consider anti-american and then perhaps you will understand. Many people don't listen, all they do is expose their biases.

BeLikeTrey
June 23, 2004, 09:30 AM
We are not anti British. We just have no idea how you could enjoy having your freedoms infringed upon for the sake of safety. Or how your gov't could actually fund the plaintiff's case for the break in/ self defense shooting that occured over there. (or the harpooning) or the prosecution of a man who defends himself with deadly or critical injuries to the offending party. Perhaps you could logically describe the mentality behind a country who expects you to take your beating and do nothing.

Nothing against you at all. We just wonder where the indignation is. we wonder why you don't seem to mind. I mean how long has gun control been in and yet people like the Cray twins can still run roughshod through your boroughs with impunity and little punishment EACH time they went through the correction system.

We are just trying to understand.

agricola
June 23, 2004, 10:28 AM
st johns,

i think you are hoping for too much. sadly, when it comes to the UK many of the posters here forget that this forum is called "The High Road", in addition forgetting their previously scrupulous attitude to exposing falsehoods and lies of the gun control movement.

BeLikeTrey
June 23, 2004, 10:55 AM
"i think you are hoping for too much. sadly, when it comes to the UK many of the posters here forget that this forum is called "The High Road", in addition forgetting their previously scrupulous attitude to exposing falsehoods and lies of the gun control movement."

Did I not just address that we are not anti British/UK? I take any opportunity to expose visitors from there to the freedom we enjoy here.

I just don't understand the social climate in which a man can be being beaten, defend himself, with whatever he can get his hands on, and be prosecuted for said defense. Nor can I understand disarming the law-abiding populace to enable more criminals. I sited the Cray twins as an example of the failings of previously mentioned justice system. No comment? No comment on how criminals get such a pass and a man defending himself can get such stiff penalties? (man who shot intruders, or the one with the harpoon).

It does project an elitist attitude that the genaral populace is too dumb or needs to be nannied. They cannot be trusted to take care of themselves or be responsible for their own protection. So said effective implements of protection methods must be removed. I cannot see the logic. Pardon me if i dared question.

agricola
June 23, 2004, 11:49 AM
beliketrey,

thats the thing though - you state you arent anti-British, but you then go to perpetuate two stories (namely the failed bid of Brendon Fearon to sue Tony Martin, and secondly you assume that the defence case of Nathan Kirk is the truth - certainly there is some evidence to show that that isnt the case).

No comment? No comment on how criminals get such a pass and a man defending himself can get such stiff penalties? (man who shot intruders, or the one with the harpoon).

again, you ignore the sentence handed out to Brendon Fearon (the surviving burglar - though Barras wasnt sentenced because he was dead), and you ignore the fact that at least two men involved other than Nathan Kirk faced charges for stabbing of him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2985752.stm

if you want to have an intelligent debate on the UK and the pros and cons of living here, then we can have one - but like so many you are building your prejudiced castle on a big, loose pile of sand.

ZekeLuvs1911
June 23, 2004, 12:37 PM
I'm sorry that you guys over in Merry ol' England feel jumped on but to me, it seems all the BBC articles of what the average subject is forced to endure by the criminal element just doesn't make any sense. The moment the private populance is forced to defend defending themselves from a break in is a sign that the govt. is starting to strip the subject of their God given right to self defence. As we say here, "If can stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." :neener:

BeLikeTrey
June 23, 2004, 01:11 PM
AG I'll withhold judgement until this story resolves itself. Jury is still out so to speak according to an article today. "Grievous bodily harm" I hope is "attempted murder's" equivalent over there.... These guys tried to stab him in the heart!
The link you sent didn't have much but that they would ALSO be charged.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3833445.stm


------------

on the Tony Martin Thing...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/politics/martin.shtml

"Well, if there's one issue during the last parliament which crystalised the entire debate about law and order it was the conviction, last year, of Tony Martin for murdering a teenager who attempted to burgle his remote farmhouse in Norfolk."

He was convicted!
It was found that he should serve Life originally. That this was found at all is ludicrous. nevermind that he had an appeal on his behalf that reduced it to manslaughter. It should have never been life. this is the ideaology I refer to when I fear for those who defend themselves and the social climate.
Here in the states, it is considered a violent crime to burgle a home occupied by someone. thus deserving a violent reaction to said intrusion. What is this guy guilty of.

These prosecutions are scary AG! This is what we are talking about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3672701.stm

agricola
June 23, 2004, 02:21 PM
beliketrey,

again, you are basing your assumptions on very shaky ground. Martin tried to claim self defence (via the tabloids rather than the Court), and a jury of his peers, based on all the evidence, found that it was not the case - he had shot Barras as he was running away from him (in direct contradiction to Martin's story - which, though disproved, remains the "truth" of what happened that night according to almost all).

Now you may think thats a disgrace - as is your right - but those men and women of the jury had access to all the facts, minus the BS coverage, and so I trust their judgement, rather than yours. As it happens, I think they made the right decision, just as they did in the Hastings case, and the Lindsay case. Crying "self defence" doesnt make it so.

With regards to Gale's bill - I like common law, I like its sensibility; it sees the truth far more than any piece of legislation brought in in the past hundred years, which is why a succession of Governments have tried to harm it. Gales proposed PMB - which is fortunately dead - would have damaged it, which is why it was got rid of.

Iain
June 23, 2004, 02:41 PM
What Ag said.

The Martin case is not a good one to discuss, as I have said before it divides opinion to the point where rational conversation seems impossible. Transplant the case, in all its details, to your own home state and see what you come up with.

Have there ever been cases where a person later found guilty of murder (with all associated pre-meditation) has initially claimed self-defence? The implications of such a thing would mean that we do have to look closely at self-defence cases.

BeLikeTrey
June 23, 2004, 03:27 PM
They were in an occupied house after hours. So they ran...so? That is besides the point. This is a violent crime due to the fact that you EXPECT resistance by inhabitants. they had been there before and burglarized him. Police were asked to help according to accounts...
"Despite the fact that Barras and Fearon were repeated offenders with 62 convictions between them, the jury at the trial concluded that "reasonable force" could not have been applied to fend off an assault, because the two were already trying to make their escape. Martin was in illegal possession of an unlicensed shotgun and the jury discounted the fact that Martin predicted to the police that a further burglary was likely. "

The most incredible? "The family of Fearon applied for, and received, an estimated £5000 of state legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injury he sustained." Loss of earnings doing what? This is amazing! state funding for this miscreant?!

I have searched extensively for all the facts... I concede they may have been leaving but they posed an immediate and future threat and had established a pattern of behavior. If I have mad "assumptions on shaky ground", I did this with research from the source you cited earlier as well as any other that looked like a non-biased account.

With poor enforcement and penalties on the criminals, there will be more Tony Martins abound. People will naturally try to defend themselves and what is theirs. So you may be able to remove the means to do so but man is an enginuitive creature. And Spear guns will be next to be banned. There are so many bans and the violence between men has not changed. Perhaps the tools are not the issue? Perhaps it is in man's nature?

My humble opinion is that banning guns will not change a thing there are spear guns, there are house hold chemicals capable of destruction on a large scale. Petrol itself in a glass beer bottle is enough. The implement isn't the problem. We just don't see eye to eye on that issue of laws banning implements of defense. Defense or offense; It is in the user. Also other laws that punish those who defend themselves... And definitions of defense. Catch ya tomorrow with a follow up. I promise to try and keep it civil ;)

Mk VII
June 23, 2004, 03:30 PM
`Grevious bodily harm' [as defined by the Offences Against The Person Act, 1861] is `serious bodily harm', that is, more harmful than `actual bodily harm'. GBH has been taken to include broken bones, internal injuries and psychiatric damage. A `wound' is any injury that penetrates the skin; technically a pin-prick is sufficient. Of course, many charges will be of wounding and GBH, but either will suffice alone.
This offence differs from `wounding with intent' (s.18) largely because it does not require that the perpetrator intend the full consequences of the harm. The perpetrator must intend some harm, but need not intend GBH or wounding.

see
http://law.web-tomorrow.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/OffencesAgainstThePerson

agricola
June 23, 2004, 03:54 PM
beliketrey,

again, you miss the point. the point is our country is not your country.

Martin was found guilty, rightly, of murder. To say:

I have searched extensively for all the facts... I concede they may have been leaving but they posed an immediate and future threat and had established a pattern of behavior.

but you cannot be, because the reporting (as any UK poster will be able to tell you) was overwhelmingly pro-Martin. You "concede" they were leaving and yet state they pose an immediate threat - on the basis of what exactly?

The most incredible? "The family of Fearon applied for, and received, an estimated £5000 of state legal aid to sue Martin for loss of earnings due to the injury he sustained." Loss of earnings doing what? This is amazing! state funding for this miscreant?!

"Legal Aid" is akin to your "public defender" programme. While the granting of moneys to Fearon's legal team (note: NOT Fearon himself) was a waste (though not really, as the case was dropped before going to trial), it is to an extent justified because it shows the fairness of the system - the granting of legal aid should not be dependent on the claimants popularity, but rather the strength of the case.

Antlurz
June 23, 2004, 04:38 PM
I've read and re read this and tried to come to some sort of understanding that can agree with our British friends, but I come to only one conclusion time after time.

The conclusion is thus: If a person comes into my house uninvited and is carrying a gun, proceeds to rob me of my hard earned posessions and then happens to face away from me at the time I retaliate with my own gun, it matters not in the least which way he was facing. He was on MY property. He was ARMED. His intentions were deprive me of my posessions and the fact he was armed is a clear and present threat to my well being and even my life. It is not uncommon for an armed intruder to finish his business and while departing, fire at, and kill the person he has robbed. I can even give you an example of where the robber did exactly that, shooting the victim between the eyes AFTER he had done his dirty work, and in the process, loudly proclaiming for all to hear: "Merry Christmas".

Well screw that! Given any chance at all, I will deprive him of any further ability to harm me or mine.

....and sleep well afterwards, regardless of the fact the Queen may be incensed at my less than civilized manner in the situation.

You Brits are more than welcome to bow down in servitude if you so wish. It's your life to lead as you feel necessary. More power to you.....

Ron

Sgt Stevo
June 23, 2004, 05:15 PM
I was in london for a ouple of days on my way Kuwait a couple of years ago.

Most people think the boobys are not armed. Yet I saw alot of MP-5s in Heathrow and around the streets. My buds and I were ten thick. SO no problems for us. we went to Soho. Lots of freaks. and more thugs per capita than New york. But pale skinney wimpy looking thugs.

sumpnz
June 23, 2004, 05:23 PM
Antlurz, I think that a lot of our disagreement with our British cousins comes from a fundamental difference in how we define reasonable force, and particularly when lethal force is justifiable.

When I lived in New Zealand 10 years ago, my host-family (or it might have been someone else in their extended family) explained to me at the time that in order for lethal force, or for that matter any force against an intruder to be justified you (the homeowner) had to have first retreated to farthest reach of your property, or prove that the route of retreat was cut off and that there was no alternative route of retreat. In other words, if you discover a burglar in your family room you have to retreat to the back door, exit the house, and have your back to the fence before you can use force, especially deadly force against said intruder. I would assume the laws in the UK are similar though I do not presume to know for certain.

Here in Arizona, and in many other states, there is no duty to retreat. Thanks to the "castle doctrine" if I find a burglar in my family room, even if he's only half way through the window, I can use deadly force against him whether or not he is armed (note that armed can mean any weapon, including pointy sticks, baseball or cricket bats, knives, broken bottles, guns, etc). Even if he does nothing to overtly threaten me directly I can still use deadly force. And the courts will find me to be full justified in doing so. This is because when a criminal breaks into a home, the rightful resident is presumed to be threatened with physical harm and may therefore use whatever means they determine necessary to prevent that threatened harm from being realized.

Our esteemed British members believe that Tony Martin was not justified in his use of deadly force against the burglars. Here in the states, maybe he would have been found justified, maybe not. I haven't bothered to find out all the small details of the incident so I cannot pass judgment in that regard.

However, the fact that things got to the point that Mr Martin felt he needed to take such action should be troubling to every Brit, at least IMHO. The fact that he had been the victim of burglary several times, with the police seemingly doing very little about it and the courts essentially not punishing the perps when the police are bothered enough to catch them is a very troubling aspect of this case (both the Martin case and the events from the original post). Combine that with the fact that the news media, at least from our perspective on this side of the pond, makes it seem that it is very legally risky to use any force to defend your self, never mind your property, and it seems little wonder that crime rates are going up so much. Now I know that some of our British members have disputed the rapid rise of crime in their country but I haven't seen a whole of convincing evidence to back them up. In fact I have seem much more evidence that our perception of their crime rates is accurate.

When people feel like they will be treated as the perp if they dare defend themselves, especially with any weapon, contact crime will go up. If the criminals know they have nothing to fear from their victim, and little to fear from the courts, what is there to stop them?

Edited to fix bad speling nad tyops.

The Real Hawkeye
June 23, 2004, 06:50 PM
It's encouraging to see that the average Brit (if Critical and Ag are any measure), appears to be no better at spelling the English language than we typical Colonials. :D

Stand_Watie
June 24, 2004, 12:09 AM
"Legal Aid" is akin to your "public defender" programme.

?

romulus
June 24, 2004, 12:21 AM
"Legal Aid" is akin to your "public defender" programme.
??

Public defenders have nothing to do with civil suits. If you want to sue someone here it's on your own dime

agricola
June 24, 2004, 02:26 AM
antlurz,

If a person comes into my house uninvited and is carrying a gun, proceeds to rob me of my hard earned posessions and then happens to face away from me at the time I retaliate with my own gun, it matters not in the least which way he was facing. He was on MY property. He was ARMED.

and if Barras and Fearon had been armed, then the verdict would have been different - but they werent, which is why he was convicted. As I said to beliketrey, if we are going to have a debate lets at least use facts, rather than imagined half-true scenarios.

sumpnz,

Combine that with the fact that the news media, at least from our perspective on this side of the pond, makes it seem that it is very legally risky to use any force to defend your self, never mind your property, and it seems little wonder that crime rates are going up so much.

thats the thing though - your news stories on "self defence is illegal in the UK" are so full of half truths, and missing massive swathes of the presented evidence (usually the entire prosecution case) that its no wonder most of you hold that erroneous view.

sump,

think that a lot of our disagreement with our British cousins comes from a fundamental difference in how we define reasonable force, and particularly when lethal force is justifiable.

cant speak for St Johns or critical, but certainly I understand the difference here between reasonable force and justifiable force. If you face a deadly threat (ie: that you perceive to be deadly) then you can use deadly force. If you face a less serious threat (ie: man stamping on your geraniums), then you cannot use deadly force.

I would assume the laws in the UK are similar though I do not presume to know for certain.

there arent - there is no "duty to retreat" although a retreat would a self defence defence.

hawkeye,

where are my spelling errors? i cannot seem to find any.

BeLikeTrey
June 24, 2004, 08:14 AM
AG: "Half truths".... I went to the BBC site (the link you sent me to prove your point) and pulled all of those other articles. If it is half truths then I would assume you didn't mean to send me that link to prove your point?

"Missing the point"... I think we both are ;) I and others have made the IGNORED POINT of that you intend violence and have a reasonable expectation of it when you invade an occupied home. You deserve the violent reaction you get in that case.

"Not Armed"... Not with a firearm. The account I found in every source that I could find had him half blinded by a torch and something raised at him afterward.

I will argue with you guys no more. I understand to some extent what you mean. I don't agree with the continued freedom of criminals that have such an extensive Rap sheet. It gives the impression of permissiveness to criminals. It also encourages distrust in the system and that filters to the entire legal system. Once a person realizes the system is flawed (or percieves it that way) he/she then seeks to protect himself, which the police have no duty to do. In a perfect world Police could prevent crime. This is is an impossibility, the police have a duty to solve comitted crimes. This isn't always done well. So one must do what one must to prevent being a statistic/victim. Since you cannot prevent, should one be subject to the inability of the system to prevent or should one do what one can to protect himself? Once the system admits it is flawed in that regard, the system will become more permissive of people filling in the gaps on self preservation. Even Your own articles show the cops did nothing and/or were powerless to do anything when approached by Martin.

I don't think we will see eye to eye on this ever, so I concede, there is more of a gap between us than the ocean. ;)

The Real Hawkeye
June 24, 2004, 09:14 AM
hawkeye,

where are my spelling errors? i cannot seem to find any.Ag, don't take offense. You are an excellent speller, as it Critical. That, combined with the fact that you are both Brits, caused me to sit up and take notice when I saw such mistakes as "your" in place of "you're" and "to" in place of "too." I'm sure that I am falling prey to a false assumption, i.e., that since English originated in England, this would be the place where the best English spellers on average would reside. That may, in fact, actually be true, in which case my assumption would not be false. Even those few and very slight errors, however, seem to have vanished, so I cannot, unfortunately, show you. Good job.

Note to self: When being critical (no pun intended), even in good humour (my salute to England), ALWAYS "cut and paste" the example, and include it in the critique. :D

Paco
June 24, 2004, 11:04 AM
Wow! This has been one of the most intersting threads in a while!

-My take is somewhere between Arizona and the United Kingdom. I think it's brutal, barbaric, and very, very bad kharma to gun down a person who is leaving through my window with my radio, or to kill him 'cause he's stomping on my flowers, even if it's my right.

-These are people, gentlemen. Call me soft, but I have a high santicty of life that goes beyond my own life, or the lives of those I know. You directly threaten my life and you're done... Otherwise, I'll probably let you have some mace or a bat to the knees.

-I've been jumped before by five dudes in my campus and thankfully I took care of them without the need to pull the knife I had on me. I could've said they were threatening my life and stabbed a few, but why, if I could handle it in less lethal means. I hospitalized two with a foot in the face to each, with jaws and nose broken respectively and took out the other with an elbow (the fella promptly passed out) and the other two were done!:evil:

-Point being: going the Highroad in not supposed to be easy; just cause you have the right to blow someone away shouldn't mean you should do so. Sounds like the Brits are making an attempt at a higher sanctity of life than we have here.

Stereo+ dead thief= sad paco. I can always buy another...

agricola
June 24, 2004, 12:10 PM
Nathan Kirk was found not guilty today btw

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/3835537.stm

sumpnz
June 24, 2004, 01:24 PM
-My take is somewhere between Arizona and the United Kingdom. I think it's brutal, barbaric, and very, very bad kharma to gun down a person who is leaving through my window with my radio, or to kill him 'cause he's stomping on my flowers, even if it's my right. Paco, I think you're taking this a little far. Even AZ doesn't allow you to blow away someone just because they're "stomping on my flowers". I'm not positive, but shooting at someone who is retreating out of your home is also no longer a fair target. If they're still physically inside the house then sure. But if they are already out the window, you'd best hold your fire. Besides, I never said I would kill someone who I found in my house. I would at least give them the chance to surrender or flee after receiving a warning in the form of hearing the slide on my pistol being racked.
Sounds like the Brits are making an attempt at a higher santity [sic] of life than we have here. I would submit that to be true to the extent of making the life of the criminal at least as, if not more sanctified than the life of the victim.
Stereo+ dead thief= sad paco. I can always buy another... Sure, you can always buy another stereo, or whatever other item they are trying to steal, but can you buy back your daughter's dignity and sanity after she's been raped? Can you buy another life for your wife after they've beaten her head with a baseball bat? Will your life insurance policy buy you another life after the "thief" shoots/stabs/bludgeons you? Point is, you never know the intentions of an intruder into your house, or a robber on the streets. Even if they tell you "Do what I say and nobody gets hurt, all I want is your money/stereo/whatever" are you supposed to believe them? How many robbery victims gave the crook what they wanted and still got hurt or killed because the criminal "felt like it" or decided witnesses were a bad thing to leave behind? The people on three airplanes on 9/11 believed the criminals who hijacked their planes and didn't resist. We all know what happened because of that. The people on the fourth plane did resist and, although they still lost their lives, they saved untold hundreds, possibly thousands more.

sumpnz
June 24, 2004, 01:30 PM
Nathan Kirk was found not guilty today btw From your source article Hawkins, Lovegrove and Watkins were also charged in connection with the fight and tried at Reading Crown Court earlier this year.

Watkins, 37, of Thatcham, was discharged on all counts.

Hawkins was discharged on two counts but convicted of affray and given a community punishment and rehabilitation order.

Lovegrove, 28, of Thatcham, was jailed for 18 months for affray.


So after trying kill him, one gets off scot free, one only serves community punishment and visits to a shrink, and the last one gets all of 1.5 years in jail. Damn, that's a rough penal system you've got there.

BeLikeTrey
June 24, 2004, 01:45 PM
:scrutiny:

agricola
June 24, 2004, 02:01 PM
sumpnz,

regrettably, if Nathan Kirk withdrew his evidence (which is why the charges of GBH would have been dismissed), thats the limit of what can be done.

sumpnz
June 24, 2004, 02:03 PM
Oh, and Ag, in that article it said The jury at Reading Crown Court decided that the gun had been fired by Mr Kirk accidentally during the fight. That means they acquitted him becuase harpoon gun going off was "accidental" rather than reasonable force used in self defense. I wonder what would have happened Mr Kirk if he had admitted that the intentionally fired the spear gun in self defense?

You know, in most states here Mr Kirk would have been taken to the hospital for treatment, and after being released that would have been the end of it. The most the police would have done to him would be to shake his hand and say "good job."

The goblins would have been charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault and battery, and possibly a few other crimes. They would have most likely been convicted and sentences to at least 10 years in jail, possibly as much as life with no parole for 25 years at least and maybe longer.

sumpnz
June 24, 2004, 02:07 PM
regrettably, if Nathan Kirk withdrew his evidence (which is why the charges of GBH would have been dismissed), thats the limit of what can be done. I haven't read anything about that. Do you have an article explaining that. I'm curious as to why he would withdraw evidence, what that evidence could even be, and even how he could do that.

agricola
June 24, 2004, 02:33 PM
sumpnz,

the only common way for a charge to be dismissed totally is for the victim to decline to appear to susbstantiate his statement.

Since the facts of the case were not really in doubt, this would have meant that he would refuse to substantiate his injury (this can be got round in some cases, especially issues of domestic violence), thus resulting in (legally) noone to be GBH'ed, thus no case.

As to why it was done, I rather suspect Kirk's defence team not wanting him cross examined before "their" trial.

Also, I suspect "accidentally fired" is journalese gibberish, since they also found he acted in self defence.

Oleg Volk
June 24, 2004, 02:56 PM
Stereo+ dead thief= sad paco. I can always buy another...

There's more thieves were this one came from. A stereo might not be worth much, but you'd be defending your space, not just the stereo. And the worth of a perp is negative, so even a paper clip is worth more. It may not be practical to shoot perps at times, but morality is a different matter.

halvey
June 24, 2004, 03:22 PM
It is a service to society that these kids should be named and their crimes exposed. Yeah, that will stop them.

Stand_Watie
June 25, 2004, 02:53 AM
the only common way for a charge to be dismissed totally is for the victim to decline to appear to susbstantiate his statement.

Since the facts of the case were not really in doubt, this would have meant that he would refuse to substantiate his injury (this can be got round in some cases, especially issues of domestic violence), thus resulting in (legally) noone to be GBH'ed, thus no case.

As to why it was done, I rather suspect Kirk's defence team not wanting him cross examined before "their" trial.

So the victim refuses to testify against the criminals because he's afraid (rightly, apparently) of being prosecuted for his self defense.

Nice.

iapetus
June 25, 2004, 05:47 AM
agricola
Senior Member

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 1149


antlurz,

quote:If a person comes into my house uninvited and is carrying a gun, proceeds to rob me of my hard earned posessions and then happens to face away from me at the time I retaliate with my own gun, it matters not in the least which way he was facing. He was on MY property. He was ARMED.



and if Barras and Fearon had been armed, then the verdict would have been different - but they werent, which is why he was convicted. As I said to beliketrey, if we are going to have a debate lets at least use facts, rather than imagined half-true scenarios.

Or maybe even if he had said "I thought he had a gun[1], and was falling back to a better firing position".

But Martin didn't make that defence - he just lied about what had happened. Shooting a teenager in the back, with an illegaly-held shotgun[2], and then lying about why you did it are not very good ways of getting the jury on your side, even if it was actually justified.




[1] A policeman I know told me of a man who, armed with a sword, confronted a burglar, in his home, in the dark. The burglar raised his hand, and the man saw a glint, thought it was a knife, and cut the burglar's hand off. Actually, it was just the burglar's watch, but the man was cleared because it was judged "reasonable" to believe he was about to be knifed.

[2] I believe he had formerly been allowed to own shotgns, but had lost his licence for some infraction of the firearms laws (and then not only kept the guns he wasn't allowed to own, but got more). Now, I'm sure many here will see that as showing how ineffective gun control is, but in the UK it would tend to make the jury think "Dangerous nutter".


Edited for typos

BeLikeTrey
June 25, 2004, 07:07 AM
:D

If you enjoyed reading about "The UK is safer with those strict gun laws..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!