Guns For Self-Defence

[me283]

Originally Posted by Damien

Not all have guns, only some of the worst ones. Remember, when a crimnical is arrested they would also be changed with carry a firearm and not many do yet. Think of the high amount of petty thives and drug users. Car thives and so on and so on.

And if you read my earlier posts, you will see that several times I have advocated the keeping of firearms IN THE HOME.

Anyway, you are talking about the criminals who are caught with guns; people who commit crimes with guns, and are caught at a later stage, may well not be carrying the gun at that time. For example: villain goes out to rob a bank, so he takes his gun. Two weeks later the police apprehend him whilst he's buying a pint of milk at Tesco's... hardly likely to be "packing heat" for the purpose of buying a carton of semi-skimmed, is he?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by me283

And if you read my earlier posts, you will see that several times I have advocated the keeping of firearms IN THE HOME.

Anyway, you are talking about the criminals who are caught with guns; people who commit crimes with guns, and are caught at a later stage, may well not be carrying the gun at that time. For example: villain goes out to rob a bank, so he takes his gun. Two weeks later the police apprehend him whilst he's buying a pint of milk at Tesco's... hardly likely to be "packing heat" for the purpose of buying a carton of semi-skimmed, is he?

They would still be charged with commiting firearms offences during the bank robbery.
Heck, even if you hold up a bank with a twiglet and tell the person who's back you're sticking it in that it is actually a gun, you're charged with firearms offences! (this may sound daft, but I think it's a good thing)

Originally Posted by me283

But if you had a gun, you might be more inclined to. And Mr. Intruder would know that, and hence would be less inclined to be Mr. Intruder.

Personally, I would go downstairs anyway, and one of us at least would end up in hospital. If it were me, then make that two of us. Without wishing to open up a can of worms, the Tony Martin case demonstrates the reasons why we should be allowed to have guns in the home, for protection.

I have a gun, it's not a firearm, it can't inflict lethal damage, but it looks real and bloody hurts if shot with it. What's more, as firearms ownership isn't open to all and sundry, anyone breaking in won't be expecting me to be armed, and therefore are not likely to be carrying a firearm themselves.
However, if homeowners were allowed to own firearms for protection in the home, then it would have the following effects:
1) A lot of the criminals would stop breaking into homes for fear of being shot
2) A lot of the criminals would arm themselves and be able to shoot back, or shoot first.
4) Where's 3?
5) Accidental deaths, either from gun misuse, or mistaken identity would increase.
6) Thefts of guns would increase giving criminals more access to weapons which can't be traced back to the criminal.
3) Ah, here it is.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don't know how you think the BCS is a better indication of overall crime as it is based on peoples perception of crime.

I don't know.

a) How many people were surveyed,
b) From where they were surveyed,
c) the age of the people surveyed

and so on and so on.

Reported violent crime has gone up. This too is not clear as violent crime covers a large spectrum.

Neither method is satisfactory, however if we are dealing with FACTs - Violent crime has risen

44,000 people surveyed; representative sample of the population. I trust no numbnut is going to suggest 44,000 isn't a big enough sample.

In fact I'm not going to bother pursuing the argument over statistics because it's futile; people are going to believe what they want to believe without being able to seriously question the methodology.

I agree though on the point about violent crime - very large spectrum. One reason put forward for the rise is that a lot more "less serious" incidents are being reported due to police action on alcohol related incidents (this would explain why the BCS is showing violent crime as static; always been there just not being reported).

Anyway, we digress.......
__________________

Originally Posted by Bill C

One reason car thefts are down is that new cars are harder to steal. Facts and figures can be quoted all day. I could find some survey and post it on here and say its a better survey than the other. Violent crime is on the up and you dont need a survey to see that

See reply to Pierre!

I do not want guns in the hands of the general public. If the public are armed then the criminal is armed, they are the public as well so if you have a gun they have a gun. Where does it stop.

Look at Tony Martin, He put up with years of crime on his farm. Confronted 2 **** bags and pointed the gun at them. They turned tail and ran so what did he do. Shoot them in the back as they ran away. Now think what a frightened householder would do in the same situation.

If someone is in my house at night the least they will meet are my cats, the worst is me and my 2 sons and Mr baseball bat. The last thing i want is a shootout in my house. I have had full training on guns and therefor know how bad they are if they are incorrectly used or in the wrong hands.

Sorry but arming the public will not work.

Rant over

Blimey, looks like our views are converging. Is that scary?

[me283]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

They would still be charged with commiting firearms offences during the bank robbery.
Heck, even if you hold up a bank with a twiglet and tell the person who's back you're sticking it in that it is actually a gun, you're charged with firearms offences! (this may sound daft, but I think it's a good thing)



I have a gun, it's not a firearm, it can't inflict lethal damage, but it looks real and bloody hurts if shot with it. What's more, as firearms ownership isn't open to all and sundry, anyone breaking in won't be expecting me to be armed, and therefore are not likely to be carrying a firearm themselves.
However, if homeowners were allowed to own firearms for protection in the home, then it would have the following effects:
1) A lot of the criminals would stop breaking into homes for fear of being shot
2) A lot of the criminals would arm themselves and be able to shoot back, or shoot first.
4) Where's 3?
5) Accidental deaths, either from gun misuse, or mistaken identity would increase.
6) Thefts of guns would increase giving criminals more access to weapons which can't be traced back to the criminal.
3) Ah, here it is.

Nuber 1 I agree with. Number 2 I am not sure about; remember, gun offences will carry a jail term - how many people will want to risk prison, or a bullet wound, for the sake of a VCR and a second hand watch?

Number 5 is a moot point. Number 6 is misleading, as they already have access.
__________________

Originally Posted by Bill C

Look at Tony Martin, He put up with years of crime on his farm. Confronted 2 **** bags and pointed the gun at them. They turned tail and ran so what did he do. Shoot them in the back as they ran away. Now think what a frightened householder would do in the same situation.

There are several different slants on the Tony Martin case. At the end of the day, the burglars shouldn't have been there. If they had obeyed the law, they wouldn't have been shot. That's what will happen to burglars who get into houses where the homeowner has a gun. IMO it's a good thing. As for the guy who was killed? No great loss methinks. It's a pity the other one survived.

If my views offend, I don't care. The only unjust outcome from that case is that Tony Martin was jailed for doing society a favour. Probably red reps to come from this, but hey, what a surprise that will be.

[Pierre]

In fact I'm not going to bother pursuing the argument over statistics because it's futile; people are going to believe what they want to believe without being able to seriously question the methodology.

You said it!

Well I'd like a gun to deal with whoever's in charge of NTL's email servers. Another reason why they should be made more widely available

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by me283

Nuber 1 I agree with. Number 2 I am not sure about; remember, gun offences will carry a jail term - how many people will want to risk prison, or a bullet wound, for the sake of a VCR and a second hand watch?

Number 5 is a moot point. Number 6 is misleading, as they already have access.

Breaking into someone's house while armed with a knife will also get you a prison term.
If you shoot someone while they're still asleep, they're less likely to be able to shoot you, and you already think you're going to get away with breaking into their house, so more likely to believe you'll get away with murder too, otherwise why commit a crime if you think you are going to get caught?
I knew a guy at NTL who was threatened with a knife by someone in the street because they wanted a fag, nicotine addiction can do that, imagine what heroine addiction can drive someone to do?
Most criminals do not have access to firearms. Most gun crimes are not committed with firearms.
If gun ownership was legalised, then there would be some kind of registration leading back to the owner, so a criminal using a gun they bought legitimately would be pretty stupid.
However, if someone breaks into your home while your out, and steals your gun, they can use it knowing it will never be traced to them, and unlike illegal guns which cost a couple of hundred quid, a stolen gun is free.

Originally Posted by me283

There are several different slants on the Tony Martin case. At the end of the day, the burglars shouldn't have been there. If they had obeyed the law, they wouldn't have been shot. That's what will happen to burglars who get into houses where the homeowner has a gun. IMO it's a good thing. As for the guy who was killed? No great loss methinks. It's a pity the other one survived.

If my views offend, I don't care. The only unjust outcome from that case is that Tony Martin was jailed for doing society a favour. Probably red reps to come from this, but hey, what a surprise that will be.

If Tony Martin had obeyed the law, they wouldn't have been shot and he wouldn't be in prison.
I've been in a situation where my house has been under seige, my car has been torched, my sisters car was torched, my windows smashed, my door kicked in, my fence ripped down and much much worse, so I have been in a similar situation to Tony, I resorted to walking round the house with a dumbell bar incase they managed to get in while I was in the house, but I'd only ever fight back in self defence, no matter how much I wanted to go out and hunt them down and teach them a lesson.
Tony shoot them in the back, he planned to do it, he was not acting in self defence and paid the price for it.
His is not a good example to give for gun ownership, it's a better example of why guns shouldn't be allowed and why the police should be doing a better job.

Is it just me or is someone around here running amok with a flamethrower?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by andyl

Is it just me or is someone around here running amok with a flamethrower?

No, you are right. It is just me

Originally Posted by me283

There are several different slants on the Tony Martin case. At the end of the day, the burglars shouldn't have been there. If they had obeyed the law, they wouldn't have been shot. That's what will happen to burglars who get into houses where the homeowner has a gun. IMO it's a good thing. As for the guy who was killed? No great loss methinks. It's a pity the other one survived.

If my views offend, I don't care. The only unjust outcome from that case is that Tony Martin was jailed for doing society a favour. Probably red reps to come from this, but hey, what a surprise that will be.

You are entitled to your opinion.

As for Tony Martin, the problem as i saw it was that he shot a man in the back that was running away and was no longer a threat. Now yes they should not have been there but at the end of the day did he have to shot the man in the back.

Originally Posted by Bill C

You are entitled to your opinion.

As for Tony Martin, the problem as i saw it was that he shot a man in the back that was running away and was no longer a threat. Now yes they should not have been there but at the end of the day did he have to shot the man in the back.

Exactly. Last time I looked the death penalty didn't exist for burglary, despicable crime that it is.

And the suggestion that the other kid should have died is not just deeply inhumane but deeply, deeply offensive. Given that Martin was guilty of a criminal offence, isn't endorsing such behaviour against the T&Cs?

I can't report the original post.

Originally Posted by andyl

Well I'd like a gun to deal with whoever's in charge of NTL's email servers. Another reason why they should be made more widely available

now now Andy don't you go getting violent on us

Originally Posted by Bill C

now now Andy don't you go getting violent on us

Well,at least I had the decency to quote my own desperate anger as a reason not to give me a gun

[me283]

Originally Posted by Bill C

You are entitled to your opinion.

As for Tony Martin, the problem as i saw it was that he shot a man in the back that was running away and was no longer a threat. Now yes they should not have been there but at the end of the day did he have to shot the man in the back.

As I said, there are different slants to the Tony Martin case.
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Breaking into someone's house while armed with a knife will also get you a prison term.
If you shoot someone while they're still asleep, they're less likely to be able to shoot you, and you already think you're going to get away with breaking into their house, so more likely to believe you'll get away with murder too, otherwise why commit a crime if you think you are going to get caught?
I knew a guy at NTL who was threatened with a knife by someone in the street because they wanted a fag, nicotine addiction can do that, imagine what heroine addiction can drive someone to do?
Most criminals do not have access to firearms. Most gun crimes are not committed with firearms.
If gun ownership was legalised, then there would be some kind of registration leading back to the owner, so a criminal using a gun they bought legitimately would be pretty stupid.
However, if someone breaks into your home while your out, and steals your gun, they can use it knowing it will never be traced to them, and unlike illegal guns which cost a couple of hundred quid, a stolen gun is free.





If Tony Martin had obeyed the law, they wouldn't have been shot and he wouldn't be in prison.
I've been in a situation where my house has been under seige, my car has been torched, my sisters car was torched, my windows smashed, my door kicked in, my fence ripped down and much much worse, so I have been in a similar situation to Tony, I resorted to walking round the house with a dumbell bar incase they managed to get in while I was in the house, but I'd only ever fight back in self defence, no matter how much I wanted to go out and hunt them down and teach them a lesson.
Tony shoot them in the back, he planned to do it, he was not acting in self defence and paid the price for it.
His is not a good example to give for gun ownership, it's a better example of why guns shouldn't be allowed and why the police should be doing a better job.

I was threatened in the street by someone with an axe. The guy got a caution and a little bit of community service, for what was actually far from being his first offence.

Re: Tony Martin - think back... the burglars broke the law first. Had they not done so, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to shoot.

[Sarge]

Friends,

I'm pretty new to CP but I need to tell you, I live in the USA, Pennsylvania. I have many guns, and a permit to carry them. We do not go out trying to kill people, I have it for self defense. There are murders in our town about 1 per week, usually by gun shot. They are 99% of the time do to gang activity, ie. drugs. If we gave up our weopons then it is true that only the criminals would have them and thus we would have no protection from getting robbed etc.. if someone broke into our house during the night, my first defense is two dogs I have for early alert. the next is a 45 cal. pistol. It is my first priority to protect my family. If I go to town for the evening, ie. large town around 1 million, I carry my pistol for protection, against robbery. I have had years of training with firearms and know how and when to use it. If I abuse that right then the government will take my permit away to carry firearms. A big problem we have here is those who buy pistols for self defense but do not know how and when to use it. the criminal elements usually take it away from them and use on them. If the government would ever think of requiring us to turn in our weapons they wouldn't get mine, even if I had to bury them somewhere. Hope this gives you some prospective from the US.
Sarge