lol @ British law enforcement

[Wumbologist]

There was a UK case recently where a young game keeper fucked up really badly and a Negligent Discharge killed his GF He phone the police told them what had happened went outside and killed himself .

A terrible tragedy to be sure, and if I fucked up that badly my reaction might be about the same. Before someone jumps on it though, let's not lose sight of the fact that there are many ways to accidentally or negligently kill someone, and this is jost one of them.

I like guns (long ones ,not little sneaky people killers )

Long guns are nice too! But I can't fit my Mini-14 in my pocket. Trust me, I've tried.

I think the UK has gone way too far in their restriction of them .

Yep.

I think the US has too few restrictions

Yep. There are some reasonable steps I'd love to see implemented, unfortunately the gun control lobby that pushes for them just wants them as stepping stones towards total bans. It's that distrust that keeps a lot of pro-gun folks who might otherwise have no problem with reasonable legislation from supporting it.

I never want to live in a place that normal citizens feel that carrying a hand gun is required for everyday safety .

What if a normal citizen (haha, don't think I qualify) views it as being along the lines of owning a fire extinguisher, or wearing a seatbelt, or having various insurance policies? Not necessary for everyday safety, but better to have it on the off chance that just that one time, you really, really need it?

I think to say that a gun is just a tool and that criminals would still kill themselves or innocents if they didn't have guns is not entirely true ... I know lots of people that might have the guts to pull a trigger but only a couple of crims with the guts to use a knife .

There's a good bit of evidence from the UK to the contrary. Wasn't there an incident recently where a gang of kids stabbed another kid to death in broad daylight, in front of a train station?

One thing in favour of UK laws is that minor criminals don't get killed for stealing a car or for burglary ... It may seem that the householder has a right to protect property BUT honestly is your TV , stereo or car worth as much as a teenagers life ?

We have lower property crime to show for it. "Hot" burglaries (where the resident is home at the time) are far lower in the US, which is due to the fact that criminals fear being shot at by their victims. I don't think my TV or car is worth someone's life, but as far as a home invasion goes, you never know what the criminal's intentions are until they demonstrate them for you. I'm certainly not going to wait around to find out whether or not an armed (gun or any other weapon) home invader is just there for my TV.

[Coito ergo sum]

You said it, CES:-

The worst intent on their part ought to be presumed

Basically, the Amerian view of the entire rest of the world, explains a lot....

That statement is so much fatuous casuistry. It's not worth the dignity of a response. It's unbecoming of you, CH. But, if your thought process is to debate with burglars, while your family is in the home, to ensure that you don't take action against the good, kind and needy burglars, then, I suppose that explains quite a lot as well.

Nah, it's US foreign policy in a nutshell.

The paranoia of the US Hive Mind.

It has nothing to do with US foreign policy, first of all. Second of all, US foreign policy and British foreign policy has been in lock step since World War 2, so fuck off. Blighty's foreign policy is no fucking different, and in fact historically has been much worse. So, keep your finger pointing and self-righteous indignation, if you don't mind. I won't have a Brit lecture me on my country's "foreign policy." You have no place in doing so. Apologize for your own issues and "paranoia," thank you very much.

Moreover, this was was a very specific example. A burglar invades your home while your wife and children are asleep. What do you do? Set up a camera and microphone and interview him? Read him his rights? What? Enough with the silliness of extending this to "US foreign policy" - this is about the middle of night, you have someone breaking into your home - you don't know what they want - they might want to kill you, they might want to rape your wife, they might want to rape you (don't want to be accused of sexism....), they might want to kidnap your child. You don't know. You really think there is something wrong with my comment, based on that situation?

It's very telling that you just avoided the real fact-scenario that was presented, and made it about the usual, "we are British and so much better than you paranoid Americans with the hive mentality" - You folks must have such a collective inferiority complex. It's always about one-upping the U.S., isn't it? So unbecoming...

[Feck]

We have lower property crime to show for it. "Hot" burglaries (where the resident is home at the time) are far lower in the US, which is due to the fact that criminals fear being shot at by their victims. I don't think my TV or car is worth someone's life, but as far as a home invasion goes, you never know what the criminal's intentions are until they demonstrate them for you. I'm certainly not going to wait around to find out whether or not an armed (gun or any other weapon) home invader is just there for my TV.
That seems to be the problem

[Wumbologist]

No matter what is said there is a comparison between the murder (and death )rate and the availability of guns .

Correlation does not imply causation. Switzerland has relatively liberal gun laws and low crime. Mexico has very restrictive gun laws and extremely high crime.

Should any citizen want or need a weapon solely designed to kill people ?

You're implying that killing, while never a desirable outcome, is not sometimes the better outcome. I don't want to kill anyone, and hope I'm never presented with the choice. But if it comes down to my life (or the life of a family member or friend) or the life of a scumbag threatening it, I won't hesitate.

Is there a legitimate use for a full auto to be kept at home or in the car ?

Full autos are HIGHLY restricted in the US. They do exist, but in order to own one you have to submit to a full-on background INVESTIGATION as opposed to a background check, and then you've got to pay the many thousands of dollars that the few registered examples fetch on the market.

i've said in many threads that UK gun laws are insane ,mostly made by politicians in response to incidents where a perp was breaking the laws we did have anyway . BUT British people don't actually ever consider that a crim is likely to be carrying a gun .

I'm not substantially more scared of a gun than I am of any other killing implement. I'd rather avoid being attacked with a deadly weapon of any type.

Can none of the Americans see that this is a better way to live ?

For most Americans, our life isn't that much different than what you describe. The inflated homicide rates in the US are largely confined to a small subset of the population (criminal gangs) and if you're not in that population, we're not that far off from you guys. Just that we can have guns.

[Wumbologist]

That seems to be the problem

That's the problem anywhere you go. Home invasions can and do turn sour. No amount of risk to my life is justifiable in the context of a home invasion. If I can stop a home invader without violence and without risking my own life, that's great and definitely a desirable outcome. But I'm not going to stick my neck out in some misguided attempt to be Mr. Nice Home Invasion Victim. If they present a threat, they'll be treated accordingly.

[Coito ergo sum]

But, I do know it is worth the peace of mind, mental well-being, and privacy of my wife, and my child, and god damn right I'll fucking kill the sonofabitch that threatens them, and I don't think I ought to be burdened with the responsibility of determining what their "intention" is (whether to take a tv or rape my wife or kidnap my child). The worst intent on their part ought to be presumed, and the burden should be on them to prove otherwise, and if they don't and I take my "rounders" bat and shove it in their ear, then I ought to get a medal.

If you did that in the UK, you'd end up in prison without question.

That's a shame. I would think that someone breaking into your home at night while a man's wife and child were in the home (where they should be entitled to sleep through the night peacefully) ought to allow a man to defend himself and his loved ones. If that's a criminal offense in Britain, then I feel very sorry for the citizens of your country. It seems you are at the mercy of those who would invade your homes.

You're allowed to defend yourself using "reasonable force" (which may involve the death of the attacker). Killing someone on the assumption that they might intend to harm you is not regarded as reasonable at all.

That's the same rule that applies in the US, although what is "reasonable" can vary from state to state. However, the question wasn't what the law is, but what a person would do to protect his or her family. In my case, I would not wait around to interview the burglar breaking in the house in the middle of the night. That's a chance I won't take. I'll go to jail for my wife, gladly. IN MY OPINION, it is reasonable to shoot a burglar IN YOUR OWN HOME because the alternative is to wait and find out what he really wants - it is reasonable to expect that you won't have that kind of time, or that the burglar won't be interested in chatting and making it clear that all he wants is to deprive you of your personal belongings.


Like Jack Straw said in 2007 - "You haven't got time in that situation to wonder where does the balance lie - what constitutes reasonable force."

In Britain -

As the law stands, if you hurt someone while defending yourself, or while stopping a crime, you won’t be prosecuted even if you kill, so long as what you did was reasonable in the circumstances. You’ll only be prosecuted if you have acted unreasonably. And reasonableness isn’t judged by the standards of behaviour at a vicar’s tea party, it’s judged by what someone in desperate circumstances would do.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 581201.ece

That sounds pretty much like what I described. Think of yourself lying next to your wife, with your young child in the next room sleeping peacefully. You are awakened with a start, and hear someone in the house. It's dark. You have a gun or a bat - take your choice. You can hear the burglar, but you don't know exactly where he is. You wonder if you should turn on the lights - that would signal exactly where you are - you have no idea what the burglar wants - you have no idea if the burglar is armed - you hear the burglar stepping onto stairs toward the upstairs where you and your family are located...your child is awakening, and senses something is different tonight.... you may have a few seconds to decide what to do...

What's reasonable?

[And, as CH so incisively pointed out, note that whatever your answer is, it will be a reflection of British foreign policy and everything that is either right or wrong with your country....]

[Coito ergo sum]

That seems to be the problem

That's the problem anywhere you go. Home invasions can and do turn sour. No amount of risk to my life is justifiable in the context of a home invasion. If I can stop a home invader without violence and without risking my own life, that's great and definitely a desirable outcome. But I'm not going to stick my neck out in some misguided attempt to be Mr. Nice Home Invasion Victim. If they present a threat, they'll be treated accordingly.

A home invader, in my view, is always presenting a threat. They're already invading your personal space. They're already invading your privacy. The police aren't even allowed to enter one's home without cause - and here we have a home invader off the street, doing what those hired by us to serve and protect are not privileged to do. There is no reliable way to ascertain their intention for burgling the home. Are they a rapist or a murderer? What are they after? Would it even be helpful if you asked them and they told you? What proof is necessary to show their reasonable benignity, other than their exit posthaste?

[MrJonno]

We have lower property crime to show for it. "Hot" burglaries (where the resident is home at the time) are far lower in the US, which is due to the fact that criminals fear being shot at by their victims. I don't think my TV or car is worth someone's life, but as far as a home invasion goes, you never know what the criminal's intentions are until they demonstrate them for you. I'm certainly not going to wait around to find out whether or not an armed (gun or any other weapon) home invader is just there for my TV.
That seems to be the problem

I would love to know where those statistics come from, as there is no such crime as a hot burglary and hence no record of them in the UK. Its incredibly rare it happens in the UK for the simple reason why would a burgular bother when with 30-40 days holiday a year its not exactly hard to find an empty house.

As for comparing murder rates try comparing London to New York, or a million person city to another one. Or the Scottish highlands to American desert regions

As for comparing gun laws between states it can be summarise in some states guns are easy to obtain, others they are extremely easy to obtain. In other words the differences between gun laws between American states is trivial compared to those in the UK. Not to mention with open borders makes this even more so

[Pappa]

That's the same rule that applies in the US, although what is "reasonable" can vary from state to state. However, the question wasn't what the law is, but what a person would do to protect his or her family. In my case, I would not wait around to interview the burglar breaking in the house in the middle of the night. That's a chance I won't take. I'll go to jail for my wife, gladly. IN MY OPINION, it is reasonable to shoot a burglar IN YOUR OWN HOME because the alternative is to wait and find out what he really wants - it is reasonable to expect that you won't have that kind of time, or that the burglar won't be interested in chatting and making it clear that all he wants is to deprive you of your personal belongings.


Like Jack Straw said in 2007 - "You haven't got time in that situation to wonder where does the balance lie - what constitutes reasonable force."

In Britain -

As the law stands, if you hurt someone while defending yourself, or while stopping a crime, you won’t be prosecuted even if you kill, so long as what you did was reasonable in the circumstances. You’ll only be prosecuted if you have acted unreasonably. And reasonableness isn’t judged by the standards of behaviour at a vicar’s tea party, it’s judged by what someone in desperate circumstances would do.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 581201.ece

That sounds pretty much like what I described. Think of yourself lying next to your wife, with your young child in the next room sleeping peacefully. You are awakened with a start, and hear someone in the house. It's dark. You have a gun or a bat - take your choice. You can hear the burglar, but you don't know exactly where he is. You wonder if you should turn on the lights - that would signal exactly where you are - you have no idea what the burglar wants - you have no idea if the burglar is armed - you hear the burglar stepping onto stairs toward the upstairs where you and your family are located...your child is awakening, and senses something is different tonight.... you may have a few seconds to decide what to do...

What's reasonable?

[And, as CH so incisively pointed out, note that whatever your answer is, it will be a reflection of British foreign policy and everything that is either right or wrong with your country....]

Over here, to use enough force to kill or seriously injure someone you must have grounds to believe (at the time) that you were in significant danger. It doesn't matter if you were or not, you just need to show a jury that at the time you genuinely believed you were. This usually means, you believed the intruder was armed, acting in a threatening manner, etc. Also, you must be able to show that you stopped assaulting the intruder as soon as the force was no longer required. So if you stabbed then 11 times, you'd likely be fucked.

[MrJonno]

But, I do know it is worth the peace of mind, mental well-being, and privacy of my wife, and my child, and god damn right I'll fucking kill the sonofabitch that threatens them, and I don't think I ought to be burdened with the responsibility of determining what their "intention" is (whether to take a tv or rape my wife or kidnap my child). The worst intent on their part ought to be presumed, and the burden should be on them to prove otherwise, and if they don't and I take my "rounders" bat and shove it in their ear, then I ought to get a medal.

If you did that in the UK, you'd end up in prison without question.

Actually its more complex than that, a homeowner can use force if 'a reasonable person would think they were in danger' not that they are actually in any. So you come down stairs and its dark, someone is creeping around and hey it looks like he has a knife in his hand you can certainly smack the person over the head with a bat if you want. If you then switch the light on, find he doesnt have a knife and carry on battering the unconscious person to death you will face murder (or possibly manslaughter charges).

About the only time any one has ever been charged with killing a burgular in the UK was the case of a farmer who

a) was boasting down the pub he was going to kill burgulars
b) shot one outside his house running away
c) reloaded went up to the kid and finished him off
d) not directly relevant but he had a tendency to shoot out the windows of neighbours he didnt like

He was found guilty of murder (rightly) which was latter reduced to manslaughter due to his mental state at the time (not convinced by that).

[Coito ergo sum]

Example of what's reasonable in Britain -

The public – manifested in juries — can and has refused to convict people who have used violence to prevent crimes. In 1988, Ted Newberry, a 76-year-old from Ilkeston, Derbyshire, lay in wait on his allotment shed for an expected intruder, then shot a 12-bore gun at a Mark Revill when he tried to enter. Revill was badly injured and Mr Newberry was prosecuted on charges of wounding, but was acquitted by a jury.

In another case in 2000, David Summers was caught by the men into whose Peterborough flat he had broken. In their fearful defence they inflicted multiple injuries on him with a metal baseball bat. Sentencing Summers to a year in jail for burglary, Judge Hugh Mayor, QC, said he wouldn’t reduce the sentence on account of the injuries. He said: “They used reasonable force . . . You brought that on yourself and I have no sympathy for those who receive hurt while committing a crime.”

For those excoriating me for saying that I would protect my wife and child without hesitation.... in Britain, homeowners who lie in wait for EXPECTED home invaders, get acquitted for shooting them. And, you blokes think this "explains" what about British foreign policy? What does this say about YOUR "hive mentality?"

That sort of decision has a long history. For example, between 1300 and 1348 homicide was the third most common offence prosecuted in England but there were frequent acquittals where householders had killed housebreakers. In 1604, in a dispute between Peter Semayne and Richard Gresham about what force could be used to defend a home, a judge said: “The house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress.” The principle that an Englishman’s home is his castle has since echoed through the ages.

Guidance issued in 2005 by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers says that anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others or to prevent crime. It couldn’t be plainer. It is based on the common law and section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967. A citizen isn’t expected to make fine judgments over the level of force used in the heat of the moment. The official advice says:

“So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon”

If you’re at home and under threat, you don’t have to wait to be attacked. You can strike first.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 581201.ece

I guess that says a lot about British "Hive Mentality" and it's inglorious "foreign policy." Right, fellas?

[Coito ergo sum]

That's the same rule that applies in the US, although what is "reasonable" can vary from state to state. However, the question wasn't what the law is, but what a person would do to protect his or her family. In my case, I would not wait around to interview the burglar breaking in the house in the middle of the night. That's a chance I won't take. I'll go to jail for my wife, gladly. IN MY OPINION, it is reasonable to shoot a burglar IN YOUR OWN HOME because the alternative is to wait and find out what he really wants - it is reasonable to expect that you won't have that kind of time, or that the burglar won't be interested in chatting and making it clear that all he wants is to deprive you of your personal belongings.


Like Jack Straw said in 2007 - "You haven't got time in that situation to wonder where does the balance lie - what constitutes reasonable force."

In Britain -

As the law stands, if you hurt someone while defending yourself, or while stopping a crime, you won’t be prosecuted even if you kill, so long as what you did was reasonable in the circumstances. You’ll only be prosecuted if you have acted unreasonably. And reasonableness isn’t judged by the standards of behaviour at a vicar’s tea party, it’s judged by what someone in desperate circumstances would do.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 581201.ece

That sounds pretty much like what I described. Think of yourself lying next to your wife, with your young child in the next room sleeping peacefully. You are awakened with a start, and hear someone in the house. It's dark. You have a gun or a bat - take your choice. You can hear the burglar, but you don't know exactly where he is. You wonder if you should turn on the lights - that would signal exactly where you are - you have no idea what the burglar wants - you have no idea if the burglar is armed - you hear the burglar stepping onto stairs toward the upstairs where you and your family are located...your child is awakening, and senses something is different tonight.... you may have a few seconds to decide what to do...

What's reasonable?

[And, as CH so incisively pointed out, note that whatever your answer is, it will be a reflection of British foreign policy and everything that is either right or wrong with your country....]

Over here, to use enough force to kill or seriously injure someone you must have grounds to believe (at the time) that you were in significant danger. It doesn't matter if you were or not, you just need to show a jury that at the time you genuinely believed you were. This usually means, you believed the intruder was armed, acting in a threatening manner, etc. Also, you must be able to show that you stopped assaulting the intruder as soon as the force was no longer required. So if you stabbed then 11 times, you'd likely be fucked.

It seems, based on the article I posted above, that if someone invades your home and you have a cricket bat, you can strike first without hesitation, and kill them with it and you likely won't even be prosecuted. If, however, they are running away and you shoot them in the back, or you have already plainly subdued them and you continue to act out in an unneeded fashion, then you will be prosecuted.

[Warren Dew]

US states range from a low of 0.8 per hundred thousand (New Hampshire) and 1.1 (Hawaii and Vermont) to 8.7 (New Mexico). For obvious reasons, New Mexico, bordering on Mexico....has its murder rate jacked way the fuck up for reasons not related to American culture.

The drug trade is "not related to American culture"? Granted it's not related to gun regulation.

[Wumbologist]

As for comparing murder rates try comparing London to New York, or a million person city to another one.

The problem is that New York and London aren't comparable cities, beside population. There are hundreds of other factors that can influence crime rates, but there's only one that anyone seems to think is relevant.

[Feck]

That seems to be the problem

That's the problem anywhere you go. Home invasions can and do turn sour. No amount of risk to my life is justifiable in the context of a home invasion. If I can stop a home invader without violence and without risking my own life, that's great and definitely a desirable outcome. But I'm not going to stick my neck out in some misguided attempt to be Mr. Nice Home Invasion Victim. If they present a threat, they'll be treated accordingly.

A home invader, in my view, is always presenting a threat. They're already invading your personal space. They're already invading your privacy. The police aren't even allowed to enter one's home without cause - and here we have a home invader off the street, doing what those hired by us to serve and protect are not privileged to do. There is no reliable way to ascertain their intention for burgling the home. Are they a rapist or a murderer? What are they after? Would it even be helpful if you asked them and they told you? What proof is necessary to show their reasonable benignity, other than their exit posthaste?

I took measures needed to protect my 'Family ' (Told the GF to hold the dog and make sure he didn't make a noise ) while I cut off their escape route .In the UK the possibility of facing a gun does not occur ,in the US it would be likely , I would have had a gun in my hand if I had seen a gun in theirs I would have killed them both in a heart beat , Now please explain how that would have been a better outcome ? Please explain how I or my GF (or more importantly my Dog ) would have more safe in the US than in the UK ? Everything involving firearms is life and Death , should I have killed them just in case ?