Other countries' gun laws and legal systems

[zeko]

We've all heard from the gun-control people how wonderful and gentle the U. S. would be if we would just adopt the "sensible" and "enlightened" gun laws of certain other countries (Britain, Japan and Singapore come to mind -- I've even heard China mentioned). It occurs to me that gun laws aren't the only difference between our legal system and those of these other countries; how about things like habeas corpus? Unreasonable searches and seizures? Innocent until proved guilty? How much would we have to change in addition to gun laws to become like these countries, and would the gun-control advocates like the other changes?

Anyone with knowledge of these other legal systems? It probably wouldn't make any difference to the real gun-control freaks, but it might give some people in the middle food for thought . . .

 

[Birddog1911]

The first thought that comes to mind for me is the dramatic increase in violent crimes in GB and Australia after their bans went into place. For Pete's sake, you don't even have the right to defend yourself in those countries! Kill a robber, go to jail.

 

[Sunray]

"...Innocent until proven guilty?..." Most countries that have English Common Law as the basis of their laws also consider you innocent until proven guilty. Few of 'em have property ownership rights in their constitutions though.
Up here, the very leftist Liberal Party has been trying to change the basis of our legal system to French Common Law(guilty until you prove yourself innocent) since the early 70's. Our current batch of stupid gun laws is written that way. Several blatant violations of our Charter of Rights(no right to own property of any kind) too. The problem is that nobody has been charged under our Firearms Act to have it declared unconsitutional by our courts. The socialist rat offspring of unmarried parents put most of the provisions into our Criminal Code so that's what has been used for any charges.

 

[barman]

basis of our legal system to French Common Law(guilty until you prove yourself innocent)

Did you just pull that out of your rear?
The Concept of the citizen being innocent until proven guilty is one of the pilars of the "Declaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen" (declaration of the rights of man and the citizen), dated August 26, 1789. It's in the article number 9 of the declaration.

This concept is in the French Civil code (article 9-1).

In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, of constitutional value, says "Everyone is supposed innocent until having been declared guilty." and the preliminary article of the code of criminal procedure says "any suspected or prosecuted person is presumed to be innocent until their guilt has been established". The jurors' oath reiterates this assertion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

We also have property ownership rights in our constitution:

"La propriété étant un droit inviolable et sacré, nul ne peut en être privé, si ce n'est lorsque la nécessité publique, légalement constatée, l'exige évidemment, et sous la condition d'une juste et préalable indemnité

Article 17 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen

"Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of it, except when public necessity, legally verified, commands it, and under the condition of a fair compensation being given beforehand."

 

[Mr.Draco]

First my apologie for my English, as i am from one of those wonderful country's,
were you can get convicted for breaking a burglars ribs.

The problem is not what the law says, the problem is what the judge makes of that.(And the LEO.)

Even in GB there is (or ought to be) a law that you may defend yourself "with appropriate force"(not the exact words),
but the judge decides what would have been appropriate.(In Germany there is for sure.)

The Judge was never there.
He has never been threatened.
He had never any experience with violence.
He had never to fight. He knows nothing about fighting and martial arts.(Or knifes or guns.)
He doesn't understand why you couldn't just ward the criminal off
(especially if its the 70lbs female against a 200lbs rapist,
or a "trained" martial artist aka brutal killing machine,
against four friendly young men(skinheaded and with jackboots))

On the other hand there is Texas, were you can shoot even retreating burglars in the back.

As for such wonderful country's as China, Japan, why not f***ing Jemen or Pakistan,
just take a tyranny, add more leaders and call it a "new democraty" or "neodemo".
(Chavez.Do i have to say more?)

Without: Innocent-till-proven there is no law system.Its just a system.
Makes me sick every time somebody reverses that. (Its possible. And some kind of legal.)

Who can take such BS?Who can think of it?Who can believe he would be happier in any of those countrys???
If he or she thinks so, why aren't they already there?
For some people it would be good to life in a country were you can't state your opinion.
That would teach them.

I am crying every time i realize again that you don't have to know jack for being a politician or an "expert" for politicians.

P.S.:Gun control is absolutely not about guns.
Most people know nothing about guns, never fired one, never served.
Never saw a real wound or accident.(=>GB were its trendy and a "fashion" to carry.)
That people may think a silencer is for crimes, (or a taser),
that there are assault weapons,
that a by-one-hand-open-able-knife would be more dangerous than a knife that needs no opening
and finally:that you need to ban some things twice.

P.P.S.:How is it possible that a youngster of 18 IS FORCED to "protect" an army base
(with a real assault rifle and 30 live rounds),
without any psychological test or training, and afterward the best he is granted is a muzzle loader.
(Only singleshot.No powder. Carry?Dream on.)