GUN DEBATE

Originally Posted by LZ

I don't even know how you reached the conclusion that pulling a gun out will make an intruder more likely to shoot at you. The common idea is that pulling a gun out will make someone shit themselves and leave because they don't want to die. Have they run psychological tests or something?

I have to disagree if they think you will shoot they will obviously try to shoot you first in self defence.

I'm with Shin on this one probably because I'm British of course we have a black market problem with guns whereby the Eastern European gangs are smuggling them in; however, I feel alot safe here than I would in any state in the USA. I don't need a gun to protect my person, why should anybody else because the ban creates a blanket of equality; of course you still have the black markets but that creates a lot less problems than legal supply.

I think its fool hardy to compare guns to knives or other objects. Guns are way more distructive, especially those automatics. Its much easier to shoot a guy heck you can do it from 20 yards but melee with a knife is a lot harder from 1 yard.

Personally I've seen it on a dozen documentaries more recently one with Ritch Hall last year where in that programme many Americans admitingly owned a gun for the VANITY or because an old line in the consitituion said they could, there was no other rationale behind their myopia.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Talk about Myopia. Basing your personal experience on hearsay isn't very personal. If I was to do that, I'd say I'd feel much less safe in Britain where violent crime, if not necessarily homicide is much higher per capita and people are victimized at a much higher rate for crimes in general.

Actually that isn't true I saw it in Hansard on a Parlimentry debate where an MP read out the stats that our violent crime AND gun crime were both less superior to that of the Americans but much higher than that of our European neighbours (in regards to violent crime especially). This was 2 years ago when I was studying Criminal law the first year of my degree so I can't vouch for the figure staying the same. It was during some sort of gun amnesty awhile back where we had a little froing between parties over an action plan.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

To be armed used to be your right as a British citizen as well, but then you curtailed those freedoms for honestly no good reason.

I think if you ask most Brits whether that curtailment was a good or bad idea I think they'd go for the former. If nobody gets to own a gun I think that either equal fairness or equal discimination depending on how you want to see it for the protection of the public. Personal opinion itself here says we don't give carriers hard enough sentences.

What scares me most about the American Judicial system is the shear comical penalty for carrying an unlicensed gun, I've seen people getting frigging fines, suspended sentences, or community service. In the UK its a minimum 5 years in jail.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I wouldn't feel safe in Great Britain is because you've tied your hands behind your back in regards to the self-defense issue. It's come to the point where it's a greater legal liability to defend yourself or defend others in the case of an assault or robbery, so no fucking wonder crime has been on the increase.

The case of Tony Martin changed the law (more clarified than bring new meaning) even though he was convicted in the UK you can use Self defence as an 'absolute' defence to a charge of murder if you acted in self defence from an honestly held belief no matter unreasonable it was that you were under threat of physical harm. Long story short he shot an UNARMED tresspasser on his farm land in the back might I add after he tried to run away. He was convicted for murder unanimously and sentenced to life but had his conviction overtuned and reduced serverly to only 3 years on appeal.

The problem I find is most people don't make the distintinction between protecting yourself and protecting an inanimate object. This problem is due partial to the fact that as a trainee lawyer I'm quite legalistic in the law of Duress of circumstance any defence is only viable when its against a threat of 'life, limb, or liberty' Singh v Singh (heh used that case in my exam). In that respect you might slightly convince me of the self defence aspect of owning a gun.

However people like Night Phoenix as he put it wants to use his gun to protect his 'shit' This in my view is disproportionate use you might make a case in the above of gun ownership in self defence (not that I buy it), but I've seen that argument dismantled in the courts. Once again you could say my view is rather legalistic but our law states its ok to kill in self defence even if you do use a gun via a genuine held belief of a threat providing its honestly held (R v Conway) but NOT ok to kill in self defence of your LCD TV from being stolen and thats how the law should be. Guns create more problems than they solve and thats my stance.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Well that's the problem when you attempt to legally determine reasonable cause in a potentially life-threatening situation. When you feel like your life is in danger, regardless of the criminal intent reason goes out the window.

Like I said before the law in the UK actually understands this fact, no matter how unreasonable if you have an honest and genuine belief to a threat of Life, limb or liberty you will not be convicted. If you have a glance at the case note on google for R v Conway (1989) you will see what I mean its a pretty funny case if you read the whole thing in regards to mens rea.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

because if the fight is one-sided in my favor then it looks like I was being "unreasonable" regardless of any potential reality regarding the threat.

Your reasonable in defending 'yourself' but like in the Tony Martin case if you shoot a person even though a tresspasser who is UNARMED and RUNNING AWAY in the back to defend mere objects which hes insured for where is the reasonableness there? Personally I thought that was murder and the guy should be rotting in prison for life the jury was quite clear in its verdict too. Sure the law needed clarification but it doesn't mean shoot any guy on site.

As for property if you can pay a few hundred for a gun and permit surely instead you can pay a few hundred for your house insurance.

How ya doing, buddy?