England Gun Ban Update

[edrice]

We have a system in place that allows for reasonable self defence. It is a far more flexible system than in place than in the US, even though it is very similar.

In the UK it would not be the job of a municipality, either county or city, to pass such a thing.
The law comes from the central government of the UK, i'm not sure if Scotland has its own law on this or not.
But the law is clear, you are allowed, in all situations, to defend yourself in a reasonable manner.

I just jumped to the end of this thread, but I find the this post highly intriguing.

If one is in a fight for his life, his very survival, I'm curious as to what manner of self-defense would not be reasonable to thwart a mortal assault?

Ed (reposted again as I think it's a worthy question, given the implied premise)

 

[OMDP]

Glink

I agree that guns can be useful in protecting a democracy. However they can also be used to protect a dictator. The fine line between the two is a difficult one which the US has managed to keep unlike other countries.

The problem is, it is not just the guns that keep freedom, they help. But without the ideas, without the debate, without people being aware of what is going on around them, all the guns in the world are not going to help them.

The Militia as mentioned in the constitution has not been used in war time for nearly 200 years for a reason. The US military might overran the Iraqi army in a matter of days.
This has to be taken into account, because if it were not then people would have too much confidence in the guns being able to save them when everything is too late.
The second amendment is a last resort, yes it may put of someone who is president from doing certain things, but there are other ways of doing this. And this is what i feel is being ignored.
The swiss do have guns, the NRA and gun magazines praise the Swiss, but the swiss political system is amazing, a 7 person executive with a rotating presidency and having to include someone from one french region and only 5 are allowed to be from germany regions. Initiatives and referedum which allow the people to change the policies of their leaders, and scare the hell out of any politician, they cannot be seen to do something which is rejected through these means.
They see the importance of guns for their defence, but they also see the importance of defence through other means and they keep these up far more than americans do.

 

[OMDP]

Tyris

You get a first hand example of a country of complete pussies terrified to fight back against a bunch of ferral youth.

To top it off, I forward some of the stories on to my neighbor who is a Hillary Clinton campaigner who happens to think England's CCTV system is the bees knees.

England, you've become the butt of my jokes.

If i were to mention the word "gangs" to you in relation to this, would you think that maybe the US has the same problem, only much worse?
I have lived in various countries and the gangs of the US make big US cities much more dangerous than other cities in this world.
In Spain and Germany they also have these problems, not as bad as in the UK, Spain for obvious reasons of only having had 33 years of democracy in the last 80 years, and Germany because it is far more conservative than the UK, and has much more restrictive laws than the UK.

Some problems are universal.

 

[OMDP]

edrice + Telperion

I just jumped to the end of this thread, but I find this post highly intriguing, and couldn't bear not to ask -

If one is in a fight for his life, his very survival, I'm curious as to what manner of self-defense would not be reasonable to thwart a mortal assault?

If it is a fight for your life then you may kill. Reasonable is generally what a jury would accept as reasonable.

How is it more flexible, pray tell? As in the Crown has more flexibility to prosecute you?

To continue, it is flexible because it is simply said, reasonable defence. What a jury decides is reasonable. Each situation is different, each situation needs to be seen whether it is reasonable or not.

If someone is robbing your house and you shoot and kill them, is it good law to sasy that that was reasonable, or is it better to examine if it was or not?
Maybe the person robbing your house was robbing a cup of coffee, sat on the sofa, unarmed, said hello to you and acted in a nice manner. Maybe Someone came into your house, had your TV, you went to stop them, they pulled a gun on you and told you that they were going to kill you.

Two different situations which require a flexible approach. Don't you think?

 

[barnetmill]

"The Militia as mentioned in the constitution has not been used in war time for nearly 200 years for a reason"

Not true OMDP. Militia units were used in many of our wars like the civil war and I think TR's rough riders in Cuba would quality as a militia group.

 

[OMDP]

Barnetmill

OMDP you raised some good points and so did my fellow country men raise some good points.

Well it is obviously something that is important and something i take seriously.

For me the major point of difference is not freedom, but that of equality and individual civil rights. You in England are subjects, we are citizens.

I would say we are both citizens and subjects. Subjects of the queen, citizens of the country. The queen knows that if she messes up we'll just get rid of her. It is subject in name only. But equality and individual rights i would say are almost the same.
I can point to many things in the US that are worse from a civil rights and equality point of view. Gay marriage or union, what is it, three states in the US? Considering that individuals are supposed to have equal protection of the laws, yet a gay person cannot have the tax breaks a straight person can have, because a marriage of convenience is illegal. J-walking does not exist in the UK. Getting told that you are not allowed to have people staying in your home by the police over labor day weekend, being kicked out of someones home because the police did not think that so many people should be in a house a 3am in the morning, homeless people being being moved on from the public sidewalk because apparently there was not enough room and other such things i have experience personally in the US, that i have never had in the UK, Germany or Spain.

A basic premise of our bill of rights is that the government is not to be trusted and must be restrained by law from over stepping its stated purposes. Through our courts we wage a constant battle against that happening.

It must be remember where this came from and who were the first to fight for this, the English. We still hold many of these things as fundamental for our political system. We just do not have a document that states this.

Relative to selfdefense and possession of firearms I do not see that your laws in the UK give you any protection to bear and possess arms. It only you gives the right to be a sheeple or a victim. A related point is that a man's home is still his castle in much of the US. I do not think that it is in the UK. To require the permission of cop to keep arms at home is plain wrong.

How much is a man's home his castle in the US? I would say it is less than you think. But british people are not sheep because of the government, far from it. After 10 years of labour govt, the people are still anti-euro. Why? Because of the press. But then the same happens in the US, but even worse. People accept what they are given, then there are some people like most on this board, who don't take it as it comes wrapped up in a newspaper from their line of politics.

In my opinion the UK sucks.

As i have said, an american thinks america is the greatest, germans think germany is the greatest, brits think britian is the greatest. What does that suggest? Free countries are similar, and people prefer what they know.

 

[30 cal slob]

so... can you apply for a FAC with "self defense" as a reason?

tick tock tick tock

 

[edrice]

If it is a fight for your life then you may kill. Reasonable is generally what a jury would accept as reasonable.

OMDB, at this link to the University of Oxford, under the section, "If the worst happens" -

http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/ouss/psafety/whatmen.shtml

You have every right to defend yourself, with reasonable force with items that you have with you like an umbrella, hairspray or keys can be used against an attacker. The law however doesn't allow carrying anything that can be described as an offensive weapon.

In light of your answer above and regardless of law referred to by the university, would you condsider it unreasonable to use something "that can be described as an offensive weapon" in order to defend yourself from someone who is attempting to take your life?

A follow-on question would be - if you did kill that person who was attempting to take your life, would it matter what object was used, that you used an umbrella or some other weapon that could be described as offensive?

Ed

 

[Tyris]

If i were to mention the word "gangs" to you in relation to this, would you think that maybe the US has the same problem, only much worse?

Some problems are universal.

You do a good job at trying to twist the argument from self defense to gangs because you cannot fathom that your perverted laws prevent you from fighting back.

The "gang problem" may be universal, but the solution is most certainly NOT.

If gang members attack me, Im fully justified in shooting them. You on the other hand will go to jail for self defense for shooting a yob. You have no right to self defense.

-T

 

[Tyris]

Maybe the person robbing your house was robbing a cup of coffee, sat on the sofa, unarmed, said hello to you and acted in a nice manner.

Oh my goodness.

So if they ask nicely and say "pretty please" can they rape your wife in the butt, will you comply? Perhaps you should offer them tea when they're done??

-T

 

[Tyris]

However if they incite violence, that is something quite different. Do you seriously think that if there was a full theatre, filled half with black people, half with skin heads and one skin head stood up and shouted, "Let black people burn" that he would seriously get away without anything happening?
You have libel laws for example, a limit on the freedom of speech which is the same in the UK. In fact i cannot find one example of myself or people i know, or even from newspapers of people not being able to say what they wanted to say.

Once again you twist the argument. I never talked about inciting violence against blacks. We are allowed to "incite racial hatred" your PC laws prevent this (by your own admission, now you twist and lie to get around it).

Try this:
Start publicly denying that the holocaust ever happened -- I dare you. And also advocate that all blacks in brixton be expelled from the country. Next state that you want all mosques in london turned into parking garages. Dont say anything to incite violence, just hold some unpopular opinions and you'll see how far your "free speech" goes in the UK.

They'll kick your monkey ass up and down the street.

-T

 

[phoglund]

OMDP,

I'd like to see your comments on the articles previously quoted regarding the use of surveillance cameras by non-law enforcement entities to watch citizens for minor infractions of law.

I also think you have a bit of a warped view of the current situation regarding Native Americans. There is nothing compelling Native Americans to stay on reservations and take handouts from the US government. The treatment of Native Americans by this country has been appalling in the past. Of this there is no argument. I think you can agree from your previous statements that at the time Native Americans were being treated as less than human by the American government native peoples of many countries under the colonial rule of pretty much all the European colonial powers was equally appalling or at least not acceptable by modern standards.

Native peoples can either lament the past injustices put upon them and stay as wards of the state...or accept the reality of their current situation and exist within the societal structure they find themselves in. In point of fact there is nobody alive today with ancestors that have not at some time in the history of our world been trampled upon by the dominant peoples of their day. Slavery was common all over the world until a mere 200 years ago or so. It just so happens some groups such as Native Americans and Blacks in this country were some of the last groups of people to be treated in this way under the law.

 

[agricola]

At the risk of returning here from my comfortable berth on APS, a few points:

Self defence in the UK is legal and has many, many incidents of caselaw to demonstrate that fact. In the past forty years, there has been one wrongful conviction regarding self-defence (R v Shannon) which was overturned on appeal. The rest of the oft-cited cases - Tony Martin being the most famous - are not about self defence.

Using Tyris's example, a person who shot a yob who was threatening their life would not go to jail for the shooting. The shooter may be prosecuted for possession of the firearm, depending on whether they had a licence for it. Over here, the legal status of an object does not affect the legality of its use in self defence.

 

[Phil Lee]

OMDP says

The Militia as mentioned in the constitution has not been used in war time for nearly 200 years for a reason

This statement is wrong.

In Maryland, the most recent use of Minutemen (militia) was for local security during WWII. On March 10, 1942, Maryland Governor Herbert L. O’Conor called for volunteers who will furnish their own weapons in a radio address saying, in part:

I propose to meet this need by the organization in every part of the
State of a Reserve Militia. The completed plan has just been approved
by General Reckord, as Commander of the Third Army Corps. It offers the
opportunity for every able-bodied man to assist in protecting his home
and his community against enemy activities. The militia will be organized
under our State Law, and the men who enlist at this time of our grave
emergency will be known as the "Maryland Minute Men."

The mission of the Maryland Minute Men is to furnish immediately, local
protection against parachute troops, saboteurs, or organized raiding
parties. It is planned that the units be confined to their own
communities so that there will be assurance at all times that every
residential section of Maryland will have protection.

No prescribed complete uniform will be required. Distinctive arm bands
and caps or other items may be furnished by the State, the County, or
by the men themselves. For the present the hard-pressed Ordinance
Department of the United States Army cannot be expected to furnish
sufficient arms, ammunition, or equipment. Hence, the volunteers, for
the most part, will be expected to furnish their own weapons. For this
reason, gunners (of whom there are 60,000 licensed in Maryland), members
of Rod and Gun Clubs, of Trap Shooting and similar organizations, will
be expected to constitute a part of this new military organization.

The text of the full address may be found in the Archives of Maryland Online, Volume 409, Page 616.

The militia function is defined in the Maryland Constitution and recognized in an opinion even by anti-gun Attorney General Joseph Curran, Jr.

Less than 200 years ago a largely militia army defeated a professional army of Great Britain in the battle of New Orleans.

Our army in the war with Mexico had significant militia components.

Lincoln called up the militia for a limited service to suppress the rebellion of Southern States. That call, issued on April 15, 1861, called for 75,000 men in conformity with the Militia Act of 1795 which authorized the President to call out the Militia whenever the laws of the United States were opposed by "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the course of ordinary judicial proceedings." It was Lincoln's call for the militia and the threat of violence offered that propelled Virginia and three other states to secede.

Confederate armies were initially built from state militias. Freed slaves comprised militias in former Confederate states to maintain the power of Republican Reconstruction governments.

Militias were used in the Spanish-American War and one ship, U.S.S. Yossemite, was staffed by naval volunteers except for officers. The Yossemite was a converted cargo ship to which steel plates and guns had been added.

 

[BAT1]

Stand up Britain, Like the scots had to do. Show them the facts.

 

[Tommygunn]

The problem is, they SHOULD HAVE BEEN POWs, but weren't. Why? If they were POWs they would have been subject to the geneva convention, this suggests something is not right. Then we could talk about Abu Graib, the secret prisons in other countries, poland if my memory serves me.

This is all from a country you claim to be the most free. I'm not suggesting the UK is any better, i'm suggesting the US is not as free as you are suggesting.
One thing is looking at the press that manages to get itself to the american press, another is looking at your own press which has a tendancy to ignore much of what goes on. ....
So it is acceptable that your govt picks people up somewhere in the world, kidnapps them and holds them captive for years on end is it? Maybe the govt should do that to americans as well. Wait, it did. Just go to france, take an american, and lock him up, not a POW, not a prisoner, just illegal kidnapping.

Hell, why not do it in the US as well? I mean, the US constitution is about how the US govt functions. It got away with it once, twice, three times, why not again?
Does that not scare you?

As I believe I have suggested already (maybe elsewhere as I have argued this point on a number of forums I visit now) these terrorists we've caught were caught on a field of battle by our soldiers. These are terrorists with a deep personal commitment that, IMHO, goes beyond that of an ordinary soldier, to do whatever damage he can do to innocent people.
Some of these people have been released -- and have returned to battle with us again.
Do you have a pragmatical plan for dealing with these people? As others here explain, they are not signatories to the Geneva Convention, and they should not be (whatever you say). Putting them through our judicial system would clog it up as the lawyers bring up all sorts of legal points and technicalities. These may be all that good for dealing with criminals in a relatively peaceful society, but not for war combatants.
As far as our press "ignoring" things, we have plenty of reporting over here about what "should" be done with these POWS. I've been to Great Britain and Italy, and have noticed how respective media/press handles things differently. DIFFERENTLY being the significant and operative word. Our press isn't any better than is europe's, in most ways, but your press does "ignore" things -- just different things than does ours.

"Does that not scare you?" ~~OMDP.

A lot of things scare me, OMDP. It scares me that we're in a war with terrorists that are quit willing to kill thousands at a time to suit their purposes ...it scares me because so many people here ... and apparantly in europe too ... don't take this threat as seriously as I believe they should. It is not written in granite that we will "win" this war.
I also do fear what the government will do in prosecuting this war. I am mediocrely (if I might play loose with English for a bit) satisfied that so far our government is using its devices in an attempt to defend the citizens and defeat the terrorists.
Might not the government use these measures to go after innocent citizens, especially those they feel are politically opposed to the administration?
Possibly. But these things happen outside of war and were happening prior to the war. Ever hear of echelon? That didn't require a "Patriot Act." Many people who severely criticize Bush today for his supposed "war crimes" were great admirers of Bill Clinton during the '90s, when he was obstructing justice and lying under oath over a assinine affair with a blue-dressed intern. A great deal of this "angst" against Bush is nothing more than pure visceral politics deceitfully passing itself off as concern over the violations of civil rights ... when "their guy" was in office, he could do the same and more and be applauded for it at the same time.

I could go on and on here. let me try to be brief with the rest of my points.
"Gay marraige." Why should that be considered a "right??" Why should (for that matter) heterosexual marriage be considered a "right.?" I generally think of rights as individual possessions, that is, I have a "right" to do so many things ... as long as I do not hurt or injure others or infringe on their activities or whatever. A lot of things can be done within this rubric. But not marraige. It requires the consent of another. I just can't bash a gal over the head, drag her off to a justice of the peace, and marry her.
Marriage has been traditionally defined as a legal/social/religious<=>spiritual union between one man and one woman.
I don't have a problem with homosexual "civil unions." A lot of gays are concerned about things like visitation rights if one is hospitalized, and inheritance rights ... and all of these problems can be addressed without rewriting the concept of marriage.


And ...yeah, probably Germans will still think Germany is tops, French will continue to think France is tops, you will continue to think the UK is ... and I will continue to think America is ... despite our warts

 

[H088]

Bush has not been good for American freedom, but even with him and his failure as a president at upholding American values, we are still more-free then most of the world. People like Bush have no problem banning guns, he represents more goverment control and he simply USED gun owners to help him get elected.

The whole terrorist threat is way over-blown, a bunch of primitives using 40 year old AK-47s who are located on the other side of the world aren't much of a threat to the US. Sure 9/11 happened and it was bad but it still wasn't statistically significant in my view. People die from allot of things, 3000 out of 300 million isn't that large, not large enough to justify Bush's actions.

 

[Tommygunn]

Sure 9/11 happened and it was bad but it still wasn't statistically significant in my view. People die from allot of things, 3000 out of 300 million isn't that large, not large enough to justify Bush's actions.

Geeesh, HO; 9/11 cost more lives than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor did! And THAT'S not LARGE ENOUGH to justify Bush's actions???
I still remember watching the TV coverage of that day. I remember watching those people jump from those towers because they believed it was an easier death than what was awaiting them inside. That's not "statistically significant"????? What the #######CENSORED####### kind of injury is this country supposed to sustain before it's ..."statistically significant" enough to "justify" action???

The whole terrorist threat is way over-blown, a bunch of primitives using 40 year old AK-47s who are located on the other side of the world aren't much of a threat to the US.

Those AK-47s kill just as efficiently as our military's guns do ... which are @48 years old, basically (in design).
Maybe we should do NOTHING ... and wait until those "bunch of primitives" become large enough and powerful enough to do this country "real" damage. Damage that IS statistically significant.
Like takeover the govt. of Pakistan (which has nukes). Maybe then....
Maybe ... eventually ...these "bunch(es) of primitives" would sneak a nuke into a major U.S. city, and then we'd loose everyone in that city.
Is THAT large enough for you???????:banghead:

 

[H088]

You respond appropriately and in moderation, Bush did neither

 

[Tommygunn]

Yes he did.

 

[Art Eatman]

Enuf.