BS: Self-Defense In The UK

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 11:52 PM

This one of my favorite UK weapons pages. You will need to use google's cache to access since it has been suspended. But most of the links still work...amazing imaginations.

http://www.roguesci.org/theforum/showthread.php?t=3350

Play hard, have fun, and in this instance be VERY safe.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 07:06 PM

population of Hull is about 300,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 06:41 PM

Yes, spot on. It would be interesting to know the population of Hull and compare the number of firearms deaths there to a similar sized city in the US over the same time period.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 12:17 PM

I'm with you Sir jOhn. Another voice of reason and sanity - well said.
S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 09:44 AM

Gun crime is still very rare in England, since it's creation in 1974 the Humberside police force has never fired a shot apart from in training exercises.

During that time, in Hull [not sure about the rest of the force area], there have only been 2 fatal shootings, and 1 of those was with an air rifle.Yes, it's 2 too many, but that is 2 in the last 30 years.

As McGrath states most property crime here is committed to fund a drugs habbit, get these people off drugs, and the crime will stop.

I would not like to see normal householders or the police routinely armed.
There was a case in the news recently, where the police shot dead an unarmed man, he was carrying a table leg to be repaired, they wrongly assumed it was a gun, so shot him dead.

It is amazing that considering we have an unarmed police force, they have shot dead so many unarmed people.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 09:28 PM

If, in the US, you shoot someone it's only good manners to call the ambulance and/or the undertaker. At the very least you should remove the body from the street or your living room or wherever so that it won't obstruct traffic or leave unsightly stains.

Actually, if you do shoot someone it's required to call the ambulance. And the cops, who will almost certainly arrest you. There will be an investigation, and if you're cleared you'll be without worry. If there is a doubt, you'll be tried.

There is also a saying that it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:18 PM

Americans are quite entitled to use their own spellings. I wouldn't dream of using American spellings, just because I was posting about something happening in America.

Those kind of variations are one of the pleasures of the Mudcat.

So Richard Bridge thinks that failing to do anything about calling an ambulance after you have shot someone in the back is "an excellent thing"? Strewth. Well, if ever I'm on trial for a murder I have actually committed, I'd want Richard on the jury. But otherwise, probably not.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:03 PM

Real pros are difficult to catch, very difficult to catch. And real pros don't resort to violence either in the US or the UK. It's the amateurs and the wannabees.... As the cops say here, "If the crooks weren't stupid our job would be much harder."

Richard -- my wife's an attorney. She spells it "defense." Here in the US, writing "defence in the the UK" would prompt the quetion, "Which fence in the UK do you mean?"

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 07:37 PM

The "determined professional" isn't too likely to waste his (I thing it generally would be "his") efforts on ordinary houses, I'm sure. Very little profit on that. How much could you get in a pub for a VCR or a DVD player, or a second-hand guitar for that matter? What else do we have worth nicking that isn't too big to lug around? I'm sure they leave that kind of stuff to the amateurs with a drug habit.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 07:33 PM

Richard, thanks for the legal clarification but, The word is "DEFENCE" not "defense"., Huh???

Remember, this is a BS site, not a spulling shite...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: GUEST,milk monitor
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 07:33 PM

Ok then....I'm tweaking my alarm system. All the alarms are on a big network linked to the local cop shop. Their response time has to be within ten mins....disasters aside.
They are all manufactured and fitted by the same company....therefore cheaper. They incorporate cctv footage at entry points, so intruders could be caught even when they are only attempting burglary and don't actually get in...uummm failing that it's back to crocs in the moat.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 07:30 PM

I have not read all of this thread. Sorry. Three things before I go to bed.

If you are going to comment on the law, please find out what it is first. "reasonable force" is a defence. Its absence is not part of the actus reus or mens rea of the relevant crimes.

Second, if you are going to write about England, please do so in English. The word is "DEFENCE" not "defense".

Now personally I think that what Tony Martin did was an excellent thing. Regrettably it was unlawful - probably. It might have come out differently had it been argued at trial that (1) he had the right to use reasonable force to defend his property or self, and (2) had he used lesser force he would have been dead himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 07:22 PM

The problem is that the laws that will allow you to own a gun will neccessarily allow others to own guns

I was waiting for someone to come up with that! Thanks Ooh-Aah2:-)

Not under my regime it won't mate! The only people that will be allowed to own guns will be white middle class christian married males with families and a love of folk music. They will also need to prove that they have no criminal record, they can use a gun properly and they will fire at will at anyone playing rap music.

There, narrows down the scope for error doesn't it.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 06:55 PM

Guest Ooh-Aah2:

Locks and alarms do NOT prevent people from breaking into anyplace; they only slow them down. Once, long ago, I was doing physical security inspections for the US Army. We inspected such things as arms rooms security, classified documents security, etc. We knew, and any good cop will confirm this, that you cannot keep out someone who really wants in. You can only slow them down or make it too much trouble for the return.

Now, a military arms room would certainly be worth the trouble! A hundred or so assault rifles, machine guns, grenade launchers, pistols -- a terrorist bonanza, and we knew it. So we made it as difficult as possible, but recognized that if the baddies really wanted to get in they could.

Our locked front door in South Bend was kicked in and my wife's purse stolen, while we were home. The perps got about $200; the door repair cost over $3,000. Sure, the insurance paid, but that means that ultimately homeowners insurance all over the country went up slightly. Would a gun have prevented this? No, we were upstairs, wondering what the noise was and by the time we went down the dude was in and gone. Did I thereafter put a gun in the bedroom? No, but I did keep a nightstick next to the bed (I know how to use that, too). The biggest change we made was to keep my wife's purse somewhere else.

My friend Mary (who lettered in pistol in college) awakened to find someone in her apartment. He had come in through the patio door, jimmying it. She screamed, he grabbed her and threw her into the bathroom. She locked the door and shook while he ran out of the place. Would a gun have prevented anything (and yes, she still has her target pistol)? No.

A weapon is NOT a preventive in itself. A weapon should be, as I've said before, be a last resort. Good locks and alarms won't stop them, but they will make it more difficult.

(The police department at a meeting I attended today said that the recent rash of car burglaries could be significantly reduced if people would lock their cars. Well, duh.)

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Justa Picker
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 06:45 PM

Learn this system of defense and muggers (or anyone else that tries to mess with you) will no longer be a problem.
(And you don't even have to be in good shape, because it's all over in 5 seconds. Works for me anyway!)

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 06:23 PM

Dave the Gnome, you need to relax, mate. No-one is out to get you and you don't need a gun.

I see this as the flaw in your logic:

Someone might try and intrude in your house. Alarms, locks, police etc will make this very unlikely, but OK, they just might.

IF they get in there is the possibility (no more than that)they might be prepared to injure you or kill you. You have the right to prevent this, and the best thing for this is a gun.

Thus the laws need to allow you to own a gun. (reasonable summary so far?)

The problem is that the laws that will allow you to own a gun will neccessarily allow others to own guns. Some of these will kill themselves or others by accident with these guns. Others will have their children kill themselves or others by accident with guns. Others will kill burglars who don't really need killing with their guns. Others will find guns make it too easy to comitt siucide in a moment of despair. Some will pop off their wives with their guns. A very small number will find a gun allows them to kill a very large number of others with their guns.

In other words to allow you a (possibly illusional) feeling of safety a state of affairs needs to occur which will lead to a lot more people being in danger than before.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 02:24 PM

if a bloke threatens to punch you on the nose it is not reasonable to respond by machine-gunning him

Why not? If he's a big bloke and it's an unprovoked attack how do I know that a punch on the nose may not kill or permenantly disable me? Surely if I happened to have a machime-gun to hand and knew that my using it would prevent my potential imminent demise would I not be justified in using it? ;-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: GUEST,Barrie Roberts
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 02:14 PM

Tony Martin rather weakened his claim of self-defence by shooting his victim in the back as he was leaving.

That said, English law says that if you feel threatened you are being assaulted and can defend yourself. That right is to use 'necessary force' to prevent the assault, i.e. if a bloke threatens to punch you on the nose it is not reasonable to respond by machine-gunning him. As regards the '1953 change', that was a prohibition on carrying articles 'made or adapted' to cause harm without 'lawful authority or reasonable excuse'.

In the light of high-profile cases like Martin's, politicians keep promising to change the self-defence law. They haven't beacuse the existing law works reasonably well.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 01:56 PM

In fact, I am just thinking this through. Is it so ridiculous? How many people in the UK? 60M? Roundabouts. Average family of what, 3? So - 20M households. Lets say 1 cop can look after 100 houses. so 20M / 100 = 200000. Multiply that by the number needed to allow for shifts, holidays, sickness etc., say 5. We get 1000000. OK. Now lets double that to allow for crimes not against households - 2M. Now letrs get one support service person for each 2 policemen = 3M. What average salary should we say? Top whack average? 40K? Sounds a lot but live with it for now. On this model policing now costs 120Bn quid. Sounds a lot doesn't it? But how many people work and pay tax? 50%? If so it is an average of 4K per worker per annum. And think of the savings on other things! Crime would be a thing of the past! Health costs plummet! No prison costs! Little children come round every night singing carols!

Cor, when's that job of chancellor coming up...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 01:55 PM

"What if you bang one off at the burglar and miss - then he'll shoot you for sure if he has a gun, or he may grab your gun and turn it on you , whereas if you were unarmed and non-agressive there's a reasonable chance you won't get shot (more police advice there)."

I always hate to hear those arguments.

a. I wouldn't bang one off at the burglar unless my life was already endangered, in which case you haven't anything to lose. It's illegal to do otherwise as well as immoral & dumb.

b. Why do you think he could grab my gun? Do you think you could safely grab someone's gun when he's got it pointed at you?

c. Staying non-agressive. See a. If he's endangering my life he very likely does not intend me any good, whatever I do. Most assailants, muggers, rapists and so on do not want a fight; they want a victim. Especially in the case of the armed villain who wants to take you somewhere else. Trust me, it's not for your safety, it's for his. If for example you are carjacked and the bad guy is driving away with you, the police advice is to wreck the car of you can. You'll have a better chance of surviving.

All this assumes a violent, extreme and unusual scenario, of course. If it wasn't, you wouldn't need a weapon.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 01:38 PM

OK - I'm listening. Cut down the number of perpetrators then help make sure they can't get in. But who is left then? The determined professional? Isn't this the one most likely to be tooled up? We are heading in the right direction but I'm still not convinced that I shouldn't be able to protect myself with any available means. What about if the police REALY did prevent crime? Ie - Policeman on every corner 24x7. Costs are horrendous but that would probably convince me. Would it work? Forget the cost, forget who pays. Would it eliminate crime? At least the type of crime we are talking about. Would it mean that instead of protecting myself I realy would be protected by the police?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 01:29 PM

My understanding is that most house burglar is opportunistic - for some reason it looks easy. Reasonable security stuff is priobabalyb going to be enough to stop it. Going overboard runs the risk of making it look as if there so something there really worth nicking, and if an intruder is really determined to get in it can always be done with a few DIY tools.

Of course security can just push the problem on somewhere else, so it's only a partial solution.

The biggest thing that would help cut down all this stuff would sensible changes to the drug laws, because so much crime is drug related. I don't mean because it happens because people are drugged up but people who are drug dependent stealing to feed their habit; and there's kind of drug-dealing petty gangsterism that's resulted in the handful of horrible drive-by shootings which have made the headines. If there wasn't any money to be made out of selling drugs, and if addicts could just get it on prescription, it would help a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 12:41 PM

DtG - CS Spray's a bad idea, there's a high risk of it disabling the person using it as well as (or worse, instead of) the person receiving it. And some people are immune to it. Trust me on this one, Mrs. Johnny's an ex-cop and has sampled it first-hand.

The problem with any sort of armament is that, unless you're highly-trained in its use and also in self-defence (and maybe even if you are), it can be seized by your assailant and used against you. What if you bang one off at the burglar and miss - then he'll shoot you for sure if he has a gun, or he may grab your gun and turn it on you , whereas if you were unarmed and non-agressive there's a reasonable chance you won't get shot (more police advice there).

Guns are extremely dangerous. To all parties involved in their use. Full Stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 10:28 AM

Thanks for the clarification, Rapaire.

You are probably right about my perception, SJ, just not in the way you describe. I am fully aware that most burglars do not carry firearms. I said before that whether the peretrators are armed or not is irrelevant. Look at Rapaires clarification above. The points about imbalance and the threat being immediate is part of it. If there is someone in my house in a situation that I believe threatens the life of me or mine I should have the right to defend myself by any means available. That is my perception - Not that I am about to get murdered in my bed but that I have the right to defend myself should that ever happen. The police and government are not doing it for me.

The more I think about other defenses the more I get excited about it! (Easily pleased...) To have a firearm you MUST have all other defenses in place first for instance. CS spay or 'tazers' (sp?) could be looked at? Anything to help us help ourselves. Any more ideas?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 10:21 AM

Here's another one:

A guy in Indiana was shot dead half in, half out of the window through which he was entering the house. He was intending to rape his ex-girlfriend, the shooter's daughter, and carried a sheath knife.

The shooter was acquited, but not without a vigorous prosecution. It was only the dead guys diary that saved him.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 10:15 AM

You are probably right, Stu. I think the bench goes a long way to leading the jury though as pointed out earlier. Higher courts can also turn juries verdicts around and even if a jury finds a person guilty it is still up to the judge to pass sentence. I think I'll stick with judiciary but thanks for pointing it out:-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 10:14 AM

No, DtG, not necessarily.

1. You can't shoot anyone who is fleeing (e.g., you can't plug 'em in the back) or who is unaware of your presence. You MUST be, or feel to be, physically threatened AND in danger of losing your life (or the life of another).

2. The force you use MUST be reasonable. You can't kill someone if rendering them unconscious with a blow will suffice.

3. The force used must be proportional to the threat. If the intruder is drunk and has wandered into your house you can't blow him away. A vandal spraypainting your fence can't be hacked up with an axe.

4. There is also discrepancy of force. A wheelchair bound, 88 year old lady in Texas was confronted by two 20 year old street thugs on PCP in her home. She whipped out the .45 she carried growing up on the ranch and shot both of them dead. She wasn't even charged, given the differences between her and the intruders.

5. The threat must be immediate, in both time and distance. You have to do it NOW, not wait until you see the guy three days later and then plug him. And you can't shoot someone who's fifty feet away -- as some guy did in Indiana when he had a flat tire in a "bad" part of town.

6. You must be ready and willing to accept the consequences of your decision. Pulling the trigger is final. You have escalated the situation to its ultimate. If you're wrong (for instance, shooting someone who is merely shortcutting across your lawn), well, as they say, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 10:10 AM

Sorry, DtG, I'm still convinced that guns aren't the real problem with you, it's your perception of a threat that just ain't there, or at least not on the scale you're suggesting. Think of the people you personally know - how many of them have been faced in their own homes by a burglar with a gun? I bet the answer is a number less than one. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it happens on a scale considerably less than, for instance, the number of children killed in road accidents - so much less that it's not worth getting pissy-pants over! (Not suggesting you're a pissy-pants, just a turn of phrase! LOL!)

Proliferating gun-ownership on the basis of a groundlessly perceived 'threat' makes no sense and simply increases the chances of killings of innocent people hugely.

Considerably more sensible would be the suggestion someone made about free-issue burglar alarms. Likewise the taking of obvious precautions to keep yourself out of harm's way - don't walk through badly-lit subways alone late at night etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: s&r
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 09:53 AM

Doesn't it rely on the jury to interpret what is reasonable?

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 09:31 AM

Alarms are good - Keep 'em coming. The more good alternatives to having home based guns the more people will be convinced a blanket ban is good. Lets try positive alternatives rather than just disagreements:-)

Stopping an intruder from entering is better than removing one. Where do we stop there though? Alarms? Razor wire? Electrified defenses? Crocodiles in the moat? ;-)

Incidentaly it is illegal to shoot anyone, armed or not, in the UK but in certain defences are permitted - The resonable force one being favourite. The problem is that this relies entirely on the judiciary to interpret what is reasonable.

Our US collegues will correct me if I'm wrng but I think in the US shooting anyone who is illegaly in your home is considered to be OK.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 09:27 AM

Let me throw a few thoughts into this discussion, which I am following with interest.

1. I own firearms, long guns and handguns. They are kept in a locked (Chubb lock) steel cabinet along with certain things we wouldn't want easily taken (mostly family jewelry my wife inherited). Moreover, any ammunition is kept in a seperate, locked box. To get out and use my .38 revolver, for example, I would have to go from the first floor to my office in the basement, get the keys, open a closet, open the gun cabinet, take out the pistol, take off the trigger lock (I forgot to mention that), go to the ammo box, unlock that, dig out a box of shells (if I happen to have any), open the box, open the cylinder on the revolver, load the gun, and close the cylinder. This is not a quick procedure, and I doubt that any intruder would wait around. I could keep a semiautomatic pistol in the bedroom, the ammo in a magazine ready to insert, but I wouldn't because of the safety issues. By the way, there are only my wife and I living here -- no kids.

2. Fencing is a wonderful sport and quite popular in the UK from what I can tell. Take the tip off a foil, epee or saber and even without grinding on a point you have a nasty weapon.

3. A club -- the stair bannister, a cricket bat, a broomstick, a closet rod -- is a fearsome weapon, God wot. In trained hands it's deadly; in untrained hands it's lethal. Likewise shovels, pokers, and pretty close to anything.

4. It is not the possession of a weapon, but the will to use it that is dangerous. A hand grenade will just lie there until someone pulls the pin out.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 09:23 AM

I would envisage that guns in private hands will be legalised in the UK on about the same time scale as the USA brings in a ban on them. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: GUEST,milk monitor
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 09:14 AM

Yeah but Dave, is it legally ok to shoot an unarmed burglar? Or would that be deemed beyond reasonable force? I don't know.
I just think it will increase gun carrying by criminals who at the moment don't need to, because they aren't expecting the victim to have one. And someone deranged enough to intrude in your home would not be of the nature to enquire if you are armed or not. I can't see how legalizing guns wouldn't increase murders by shooting.

If it were shown that gun carrying burglars are on the increase, then we should have 'good' alarm systems installed in our homes. OK not foolproof, but a deterrent? And these should be free to those who can not afford them. Think of the court costs involved in all the burglary cases...use that budget, because they should decrease?

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 09:04 AM

BTW - I am as against carrying knives in public as I am of having guns in public. But I have plenty of them at home. I also have a tai-chi sword (blunt) and 3 eskrima batons which I have safely in a case when carrying them to and from classes. Should we ban all knives and martial arts equipment as well?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:59 AM

Mmmmm - Still not convinced (As if you hadn't guessed:-) ). Phrases like 'gun lovers' and 'packing a pistol' are incorrect when talking about the reasonable person like (hopefuly!) myself. I am not a gun lover. I would love to see all guns banned but you still have not answered the question about removing the threat of violence to people in their own homes. How would you go about it? More police? Education? Just what or who exactly is going to protect me and mine if I don't do it myself?

I am not talking 'packing a pistol' either. I am talking about having a weapon to hand in my own house where no-one of honest intent would be caused any harm by it.

As to the question 'Why make guns part of our culture?' Well, sorry, they are already well on the way. Nothing you or I can do is going to stop the criminal fraternity doing what the hell they like unless we do get a major shake up of our law enforcement policies. Again, I am happy to listen to reason. Please explain how you are going to stop the flow?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:43 AM

How do people feel about carrying knives? More especially people who its a good idea for people to have guns for self defence. Would you be happier knowing your son had a knife in his pocket than if he didn't?

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: GUEST,milk monitor
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:31 AM

But, if at the moment the majority of burglaries are by unarmed gits, we would be shooting unarmed gits?

I suspose I don't trust myself, and that would stop me from getting a gun, but it may not stop the burglars....because they would think we are all going to be armed, when actually there would be loads of people like me with a low calibre bannister spindle under the bed.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:30 AM

DtG - I wasn't having a personal go at you, but at everyone who thinks owning a gun and threatening to shoot people makes them a big guy. The responses of Ooh=Aah2 and Milk Monitor say everything. A gun has one use only - to take life. You may think you can live with that, I couldn't. For that matter, how many of the gun-lovers on here have actually shot someone? And, in the event that they have, how did they feel about it?

The perception you and others seem to have of modern life in the UK - i.e. where you feel so threatened that you're uncomfortable unless you have the means of taking someone's life close by - just isn't borne out by fact. You're infinitely more likely to be killed on the road than shot by a burglar, but what additional precautions do you take (apart from presumably fastening your seat belt and driving carefully) to ensure that you win physically in the case of an accident - do you drive a Sherman Tank so you can make sure you waste the driver of a car that might conceivably bump into you?? Of course not. So where's the reason for packing a pistol? Words like 'paranoia' spring to mind.

Guns aren't a part of our culture thank God (apart from legitimate users as mentioned earlier). Why make them so?

S:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:21 AM

I can certainly see part of your point, milk monitor, but whether the intruder is armed or not is irrelevent, surely. Someone is in your house, uninvited, and you are frightened that they are going to do you harm. They do not need a gun to harm you, you do not realy need a gun to harm them!

The point is that you, as the householder and protector of your property, should be able to stop them from harming you in whatever way you see fit. They have not been asked into your home. Their purpose is unknown to you but it is not very likely to be benevolent. They have no right whatsoever to be there and for you to be frightened is a reasonable reaction - I would be! But why deprive those who are capable of using a weapon of the right to do so?

I think it is one of those things people will never agree on. We have the luxury here of not shooting each other because of disagreements:-) I don't want that - Just to be able to use the same tools available to the criminal.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: GUEST,milk monitor
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 07:45 AM

But, I doubt if most of the burglaries are carried out by armed burglars? There must be figures on that somewhere figurey. So maybe then we would end up shooting unarmed burglars. Messy.

Imagine being woken up, disorientated and hearing footsteps on the stairs. Personally I think I would die of fright before being able to reach for the gun. But in the eventuality that I didn't, I can see me shooting wildly like something out of a bad b movie, only to discover a bullet ridden 16yr old skag head writhing in an unarmed manner. Would we really check they had a gun before we shoot? No, we'd think of our kids and act instinctively.

As said above, the gun possesion that we hear is on the up, is most likely within the drug dealers world. Not in the 'I'm gonna nick your telly cos I need a fix world.'

Saying we had a 'gun ban', does make it sound to those not living in the Uk that we all had one under the mattress before. It wasn't like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 07:37 AM

I don't think that those who come from a gun carrying culture realise how insane, how frightning and how unneccessary guns are to those of us who don't - speaking as an Australian resident. About the only worthwhile thing our present PM has done was a tough set of anti-gun laws in the wake of the frightful Port Arthur massacre here in Tasmania - 35 dead - try doing that with a bow and arrow. Though he spends most of his existence kissing American backsides this was one occasion when John Howard put his foot down and said, in effect: NO. We are NOT going to end up like America - we are NOT going down that road. The support from the Australian public was inspiring and overwhelming.

Guns are for farmers, soldiers, and the police, and , I suppose, the sad people who find killing things for fun enjoyable. As Ben Elton said, there should only be one question asked by the police for those wanting powerful weapons:

    Q: Do you want a gun?
    A: Yes.
    Well you bloody well can't have one!

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 07:20 AM

So, those in the pro-gun lobby are guilty ofthis chest-beating, hairy-arsed, testosterone-driven diatribe we hear from those who wish to have the means of taking life?

Sounds a reasonable well thought argument not involving personal attacks;-)

I don't think I have ever been considered testosterone driven, my arse is not particularly hairy if you must know and I have never beaten my chest in my life. But if simply wanting no more or less than the criminal entering my house may have makes me into such a creature then, yes, guilty as charged.

I am not particulary macho. I don't like fast cars, football or organised sports in general, although I do have a motorcycle. I have been involved in violent confrontation when I was younger though not often. I won more than I lost! I am not insecure. I do know how to use a gun. I have fired shotguns, handguns, both air powered and bullet and even used a Le Enfield 303 rifle.

I do not want the means to take life. I just want the means to prevent my life from being taken should the need arise. I would also like the legal system to accept that if I disarm, disable or even kill someone who is on my property without the right to be there then I should not be vilified for it.

Again, if that is a chest-beating, hairy arsed, testosterone driven point of view, then I must be all of these things. I don't know what the other options are.

If you can let us know what the viable alternative is, SJ, then I would seriously vote for you in any election in he future. A place where the criminal will not harm people or where the police will effectively protect us would be far preferable to toting guns. But how do we make it happen?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Grab
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 06:44 AM

Frankly, that professor is talking bullshit.

Last year I did jury service on a case involving a fight in a pub carpark. One guy had sworn at a female friend of the other, who'd gone over and swung a punch at him. The second guy was bigger, and after a bit of a scuffle he fell over, and the first guy kicked him once to ensure he stayed down. The irony is that the second guy broke his leg (spiral fracture) falling over, so he couldn't have got up anyway. So we were in there to decide whether kicking the guy when he was down amounted to assault or self-defence. You're not allowed to talk about how you came to your decision as a jury, but it's no secret that we couldn't come to a decision because we were too evenly split - enough of us thought that stopping a bigger guy getting up and having another go at you was reasonable self-defence that we had a hung jury. I don't know if the CPS went for a retrial after that or if they gave up. I personally couldn't see them getting a conviction, bcos this is so personal.

Thing is, the judge did a really good job - bcos the jury are amateurs, the judge has to instruct you in how to make a decision. And his line throughout was that if you thought the defendant could reasonably believe himself to be in danger unless he took that action, then it's self-defence.

The key point with Tony Martin is that not only didn't he call an ambulance per McGrath's line, he shot the burglar in the back as he was running away. Since the burglar was running away, Tony Martin was in no danger. There was a similar ruling in the case of a soldier in NI (Private Evans, was it?) who shot a pair of kids who'd stolen a car and tried to bust through an Army checkpoint - they ruled that the first few shots were legit bcos the kids had aimed the car at the checkpoint and the soldiers were in danger (or thought they were, bcos the car's occupants could have had guns, grenades, pipe bombs or whatever). But once the car was past, the soldier carried on firing, and the court decided that this wasn't justified bcos the soldiers were no longer in danger.

There *are* more reported acts of violence in the UK than in the US - that's a fact. Whether there's any difference in the reporting level or in actual acts of violence, I don't know. But there's certainly an order of magnitude less *deaths* through violence, bcos there are hardly any guns around. Although criminals can get guns in the UK if they really want to, it's *hard* - they need some kind of organisation behind them, like drug dealers or the Yardies, or some similar organised gang. In contrast, any criminal in the US can get any gun they want. So although in the US a regular law-abiding person *may* have a gun, the criminal will *almost certainly* have one. That's not the case in Britain.

As for units of the police being routinely armed, that's sort-of true. The UK's equivalent of SWAT will routinely be armed, for instance, and so are the police at airports. But that's the lot. Your constable on the street will *never* be armed, anywhere in Britain.

Personally I think the ban on owning handguns was an over-the-top knee-jerk reaction. If you look at the Dunblane case, that guy was recognised as being an unfit person to own guns - the failure was with the system which prevented his doctor from telling the police that. I see no problem with people owning guns for sport shooting. I *do* see a problem though with people keeping guns insecurely (which IMO means keeping that at home in anything less than a bank safe, or carrying them on the street with you).

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: jonm
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 05:50 AM

A couple of thoughts to add to the pot, since my views on the subjects have been more eloquently expressed by those above:

Since regulation of licensing in England passed to local authorities, it has been the case that organisations with a vested interest in increasing alcohol sales have made inroads into influential areas, promoting councillors and sponsoring initiatives to gain LA support. Nottingham has a particular problem in that a significant proportion of those appointed to award licences have a vested interest in the alcohol and entertainments industry.

It has only been possible, certainly in the last 20 years, to obtain a handgun licence for target shooting in the UK. This legislation was amended to prevent private legal ownership of handguns, so that all handguns found were automatically illegal.

For those people actually involved in target pistol shooting, the gun clubs and shooting venues still hold the weapons - in other words, you can still participate in target shooting, you just can't take your gun home with you (and what were you planning to do with it, then, anyway?).

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Davetnova
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 05:29 AM

I don't think the rise in crime is fueled by either a handgun ban or can be blamed soley on alcohol. In Britain the problem starts in schools. Discipline is neither taught nor enforced in any way with the result that we have a large number of young people who have never been made to face the consequences of their actions and therefore feel that whatever they want to do is right even if that means shooting someone who has slighted them.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 04:54 AM

I'm back (probably should stay away but what the hell!). McG, as usual you are the voice of reason and sanity in this chest-beating, hairy-arsed, testosterone-driven diatribe we hear from those who wish to have the means of taking life, presumably without risk of having theirs taken first.

For the sake of those across the water, the reported rise in crime involving the use of hand-guns is very much attributable (but admittedly not wholly) to drug gang culture, especially in large urban areas like Manchester and Birmingham. They are generally using them against their criminal competitors, not necessarily to terrorise Joe Public (although there have been instances of, for instance, young girls being shot by mistake in drive-by shootings - in those cases being armed themselves wouldn't have helped the unfortunate girls one bit, as they were hit completely 'out of the blue').

However, there are so few guns in use here compared with the US that, whereas a city-centre shooting in a US city may not raise many eyebrows, here it makes huge national news, so there may well be a perception of a rapidly-increasing gun-culture that isn't necessarily borne out in reality. People aren't going around here taking a pop at one another willy-nilly, as some reports might lead you to believe. Like the majority of the British population I live in a small rural community (15k population), and I've never seen a gun other than in the hands of police ARU officers, members of the armed forces, farmers and members of shooting clubs. And I'd wager my pension that neither have 99.9% of my countrymen. The point is that these guns are in the hands of criminals - people who act outside the law and will always do so. Allowing all private individuals to arm themselves is unlikely to reduce gun-crime because those who use guns for criminal purposes will continue to do so and, in all probability, will be even more encouraged to use guns because they perceive a greater chance of retaliation by newly-armed victims.

UK police forces are unanimously against arming themselves (except specialist ARUs) and against the relaxation of gun-ownership legislation. They're the guys at the sharp end and their view speaks volumes.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 09:52 PM

What we are discussing is whether there is a link between disarming law abiding citizens and increased crime.

And the point I'm making is that we weren't disarmed, because we didn't have the guns in the first place. Gun owners here are a tiny minority, and always have been, especially owners of hand-guns, and only accepted reason for being allowed to own them,before the ban, was for target shooting, never foir self-defence, apart from a few very limited exceptions.

I'm not saying tiny minorities don't have rights, but then, so do large majorities. Collectively we have decided that we do not want private citizens to have these weapons. It's not something which has been imposed on us from on high, it was forced on the givernment from below.

"The right to bear arms" is not something that has ever been part of our notion of what being a free citizen involves. And in general people do not believe in any right to armed self-defence at an individual level, even where there might be sympathy for an individual such as Tony Martin, already mentioned in this thread. When for example some yoing person gets in trouble for carrying a knife and claims they have it to protect themselves, I don't think that is viewed as an acceptable reason by many people.

(And I wasn't in any way offended by "the term", Mick. In fact I was quite puzzled by what you meant, until I worked out it was "superiority complex". It'd take a lot more than that to offend me.)

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: 8_Pints
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 09:41 PM

HuwG, I don't think we are disagree on the result.

When I said lost control, this was in relation to the objections that the Police might raise but were over-ruled by the local authorities, as you described.

The nett effect is too much alcohol, leading to decreased inhibitions, and increased aggression in some drinkers. This in turn leads to lack of self-control & judgement, and typically then degenerates into tribalism and urban warfare in extreme cases.

Not sure if active participation in more contact sports would mitigate matters, as opposed to merely spectating.

Bob vG

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: HuwG
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 08:47 PM

To return to something further up this thread which 8_pints said :

"... the problem of violence is probably linked to excess alcohol and that many city centres have lost control of the licencing of drinking establishments"

Unfortunately, the situation is that city centres (in the form of the local authorities) have actually gained control of the licensing. Previously the licensing was carried out by magistrates, who awarded, rejected or qualified licenses to serve alcohol on grounds such as social need, existing local amenities, possibilities of nuisance etc. Recently, that responsibility for licensing has been given to the local authorities, who have other priorities such as generation of revenue, stimulation of local economy etc. The result has been the acquiescence in, if not the encouragement, of high streets which are packed end to end with drinking establishments. Where the magistrates would object to a new boozer on the grounds that there was already one a few doors away, local authorities seem to regard that as extra reason to approve the license.

Furthermore, the booze palaces which are springing up are not the traditional neighbourbood pub, with a landlord who knows who the underage drinkers, habitual drunkards and other undesirable customers are. They are rather anonymous "theme" bars, which drum up extra business with "happy hours" when drinks are half price, or special deals on drinks (usually sweet, high-strength spirits such as "Blue WKD" or "Red Square", which are based on vodka). They employ doormen whose primary responsibility is to push the troublemakers outside into the street.

Subject: RE: BS: Self-Defense In The UK
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 08:17 PM

It's me, Rabid Harry, the heavily-armed liberal.

1. It seems curious, to put it mildly, to admit a right to self-defense and to deny the means of self-defense.

2. There are not enough police to stand between you and an assailant.

I can't find my source, but I'm sure the police in this country cannot be held responsible for any injuries to you by an assailant -- even if you have complained and have a restraining order or the like.

3. If you are given the choice of a solid body-hit with a 9 mm pistol and a solid body-hit with a small car, choose the firearm. People don't realize how dangerous cars are, because they're familiar, and so we trust fools with them. There are next to no injuries in target-shooting, but in car-racing? And automobiles I believe are a major cause of death to children & adolescents.

4. McGrath says "I'm glad to live in a country where virtually no one sees hand-guns as a means of self defence. (I say hand-guns, because there are I believe some people living in the countryside who might see shotguns in that way.)"

Now, a shotgun at close range is a terrible weapon; makes what they call a "rat-hole wound" much more hideous than any handgun I know of. But (in respect to firearms) I would think the countryside is safer than the city. Most country people likely know what they're doing with a weapon.

This is where we get into the cultural thing, of course. People should have the means of self-defense
- guns or samaurai swords - but they also need to know how & when to use them. I think most pro-gun people (like me) assume it goes without saying that a gun owner knows how to use it and when to use it, and the anti-gun people assume guns will be in the hands of inexperienced and panicky people. So: I'm pro-gun but that includes being pro-gun education.

clint