Originally posted by RedmikeYep, ok I didn't get the facts totally right, but my point that I was making was that the so called victim i.e a 100% idiot, was allowed to be in posession of a firearm, instead of a bear.
Not quite what happened in the Martin case. There were 2 teenagers breaking into his house (not a gang of thugs). He shot one several times when he was trying to get out of his window. He then left the injured teenager there, bleeding, and ...[text shortened]... subsequently been arrested for other offences. Hardly the victim.
I wasn't stating that Mr Martin was a victim and shouldn't have been convicted
-Robbo
Originally posted by chaswrayGun crime may be rising in the UK, but it's still incredibly rare compared with the US. I don't have the figures to hand, but it's something like a hundred times less common (after correcting for population).
I agree about the "idiot owner" 100%. Even education won't help there. I was shown at a very early age what damage a gun can do and it left an impression! Interesting, what you say about guns in England Paulie. Here in the states the anti-gun crowd is always holding up England as their role model! Tell me more!
Regards,
Charlie
Now it's not as though crime in general is particularly low here. We're no model, harmonious society like those bloody Scandinavians. So I reckon the UK is a pretty good advert for the benefits of gun control.
Of course, someone who really wants to shoot people can still get a gun, but it cuts out those who just happened to own a gun, and then just happened to end up using it.
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoeyWatch Bowling For Columbine sometime. The level of gun related crime in the U.S. dwarfs that of other countries.
Gun crime may be rising in the UK, but it's still incredibly rare compared with the US. I don't have the figures to hand, but it's something like a hundred times less common (after correcting for population).
Now it's not as though crime in general is particularly low here. We're no model, harmonious society like those bloody Scandinavians. So I re ...[text shortened]... out those who just happened to own a gun, and then just happened to end up using it.
Rich.
Originally posted by RedmikeThat's not quite what happened either.
Not quite what happened in the Martin case. There were 2 teenagers breaking into his house (not a gang of thugs). He shot one several times when he was trying to get out of his window. He then left the injured teenager there, bleeding, and went back to his bed. At no point did he phone the police.
He's served his sentence and subsequently been arrested for other offences. Hardly the victim.
Tony Martin had been repeatedly burgled and his pleas ignored by the police. He lived in a remote farmhouse. He had a shotgun which he had previously had a licence for but the licence had lapsed.
He fired on the intruders in the dark and hit on in the legs and one in the body i.e. he was firing low. (Why did he hit one in the body? Was he perhaps bending over for his swag bag?) He had no way of knowing they were fleeing because of the dark.
concider these two situations:
1) A guy gets a gun, legally or illegally, 'just for protection'. The next time someone pushes him too far he pulls out the gun to scare the other person into submission. The other person is scared for his life & draws his own gun/knife/baton to defend it. What started as a show of 'power' with no intention of using it is very suddenly transformed into a situation where the gun will be used.
2) A man gets gun to protect his family in their house. I know it's a cliche but it's true that this gun is 6 times more likely to shoot a member of his own family by accident instead of an intruder, be it the kids messing around or him shooting his eldest son who's sneeking back home late after a party.
As a rule people don't go out to kill other people; when they do it's often that a situation got out of control very quickly. If any weapon is involved the chance of lethal injury is multiplied massively, and guns are impossible to use in a guaranteed non-lethal way. Yes, people can get guns anywhere if they want to, but the easier you make it the more likely they are to have them 'just for protection' and end up using them in ways they never intended.
(nb. the Martins case lends weight to the argument for tighter gun control whether you beleive him the victim or not IMHO. Shotguns are given out like candy to anyone who owns any 'land' in the UK, as long as you don't have a criminal record. I have one! If controls on shotguns were anywhere near as tight as for other guns then he wouldn't have the means to shoot the intruders.)
Originally posted by OmnislashGood point...are we going to take away alcohol because drunk drivers kill 25,000+ people in the US every year...what about Pitbull Terriers, although a great dog until under ownership of an idiot who mistreats it and turns it into a killing machine...
I am a firm believer that gun control is a fine example of treating the symptom and not the disease.
What we need to do is put people in prison for many, many years if they commit a robbery with a fire arm or any weapon for that matter...Kill someone with a weapon intent on murder?..then you go to jail for life...and I mean LIFE...
Proper documemtation and a week-long waiting period and a gun safety training certificate will go a long way towards eliminating needless homicides by guns....kill someone in the heat of passion?...go to jail for many years (40+)...I agree with eliminating personal ownership of AK-47s, AR-15s, Uzis, etc....but if someone wants to own a pistol or shotgun for protecting his family and possesions...more power to him/her...make ownership commiserate upon a psychological profile...if you ain't crazy...you're good to go...if you are subject to sudden bouts of anger and loss of self-control, you shouldn't own a gun...period!. It's all COMMON SENSE..
"Guns don't kill people; people kill people" Just as cars don't kill people; drunk and careless drivers of those cars do, however...😲🙄
Hmmm. Drunk driving IS illegal though. And no-one will form a lobbying movement to protect the rights of drunk-drivers. If no-one had guns, no-one would get shot. I don't think you can get around that fact. However, countries that don't operate a strict gun control policy, like America I think a sudden banning of guns would be problematic. I think that the change must come through greater knowledge and social awareness. Countries that do have a strict gun-control policy should always have that policy, especially countries that have perhaps a slighly lower level of general social maturity, like Britain, where the youth seem to be trying to emulate American gangs.
I do believe that guns should not be allowed outside the military, but I accept that in some countries, it would be a case of shutting the stable doors after the horse has bolted, because there are just too many guns about, both in the hands of the lawless and the lawful, and a solution which works to bring down deaths must be found.
ps, hey rwingett, shouldn't we arm bears? 😉
pps, I don't understand why there is complaints about the 3 day waiting period, and howls of protest whenever people try to increase it. Shouldn't the fact that someone needs a gun RIGHT NOW be a bit of a worrying sign?
Originally posted by garyminfordHmm, following that line of thinking...if no one had alcohol....if no one had automobiles...if no one had..hell a leg of lamb has been used as a deadly weapon let's ban them too.
Hmmm. Drunk driving IS illegal though. And no-one will form a lobbying movement to protect the rights of drunk-drivers. If no-one had guns, no-one would get shot. I don't think you can get around that fact. However, countries that don't operate a strict gun control policy, like America I think a sudden banning of guns would be problematic. I think that ...[text shortened]... increase it. Shouldn't the fact that someone needs a gun RIGHT NOW be a bit of a worrying sign?
No the solution lies in, tougher purchase controls and mandatory sentences for the use of a gun in a felony. It's worked to lower drunk driving fatalities, although there are still way too many!
Regards,
Charlie
Wasn't there a guy in recent months charged and convicted for intentionally giving someone aids. Does this mean we should ban willies (how we would do that I wouldn't like to say).
The way I see it the "tools of destruction" is not the problem, its most definitely the idiots that are allowed to use these tools. Whether the tool is a gun, knife, car or even a willy.
-Robbo
Part of the problem with that line of approach is that guns are supremely different to evrything else. They are made to fire small pieces of metal at incredibly high speeds at people. (in case you didn't know 😉)
As such they are in a class of their own, and rightly so.
'Guns don't kill people, people kill people.'
True, but they also make it incredibly easy to kill someone. They are the great equalizer. They allow youths like those in Columbine to terrorize an entire school, murdering many innocent people. With legally bought guns I might add. If they had tried their murderous rampage with knives or baseball bats, how far would they have got? I would certainly stand up to someone with a knife or bat if they were going to kill someone. With a gun I would not not.