Is Self Defense Illegal in the U.K.?

[KariW]

not in every state, in fact some states are considered "Stand Your Ground" states while in reality all they have is a "reasonable force" provision (i.e. Iowa and Washington)

You are quite right! Which is why I said it varies from state to state.

[Crabby Kitten]

Rapists and attackers are scum who deserve to be executed or left out for the vultures.

[spud the mackem]

The Laws of this Country ,are to put it mildly, a load of Crap.If you injure an attacker He/She becomes the victim in a lot of cases and the original victim can be charged with GBH (Grevious Bodily Harm) or ABH (Actual Bodily Harm)

A few years ago,a farmer shot and killed a burglar and was put in jail as he used violent force.

An illegal immigrant stole a car,ran over and killed a small girl,he did 6 weeks jail and was realeased and can't be deported as he may be tortured if he returns to his own country.

There are quite a number of Football Players who are enticed to have sex, by teenage prostitutes then are accused of Rape, which ruins the guys careers if they are found guilty.

The Courts sometimes go overboard in favour of the Attacker if he claims he was injured by the victim who ends up paying compensation.

If you commit Murder you are given a Life sentence, which can be as little as 20 years, but you can be released after 15 years for good behaviour if they consider that you have been reformed while in jail.

That my friends is a sample of British Law

[Leonardo]

The Laws of this Country ,are to put it mildly, a load of Crap.If you injure an attacker He/She becomes the victim in a lot of cases and the original victim can be charged with GBH (Grevious Bodily Harm) or ABH (Actual Bodily Harm)

A few years ago,a farmer shot and killed a burglar and was put in jail as he used violent force.

You are referring to the Martin case?

Afaik, he was unable to prove in court that his use of a shotgun amounted to 'reasonable force' - he could not prove his life was at risk therefore his use of lethal force was not warranted. He was not convicted for exercising his right to self-defence, but that he was ott in doing so.

As to whether using the shotgun, and killing an intruder, was 'unreasonable force' is subjective, of course, and you might not agree with the decision of the court. However, that we have a legal standard is better for all of us.

[Grey Area]

I wonder if our dear friends the Mercans will ever stop and look at their figures on firearm deaths and realise that the 'Right to bear arms' is a really really bad idea, especially when many of them are either really dumb, in a gang, want to be in a gang or religious fundamentalist. And anyone who thinks of disputing this fact just needs to remind themselves of all the mass shootings, where dear little Jimmy had access to Daddy's arsenal.

The gist I am getting from a few of the posters is that they cannot quite believe that the UK still functions as a country without being able to carry a firearm. Sillyness. Like everywhere there is crime, we deal with it, and do it safe in the knowledge that if your average home invader happens to walk into your baseball bat, well the judge probably wont take it personally.

Fear not you are safe in the UK, just leave your guns at home eh!

[KariW]

I thank God I live in a state where I have the right to protect myself with lethal force!

Personally, with respect to crimes of violence, living way out in the boonies, I feel much safer here, than I do anywhere else, and it is one of the main reasons we moved to Texas!

Edited June 1, 2015 by KariW

[Grey Area]

You are referring to the Martin case?

Afaik, he was unable to prove in court that his use of a shotgun amounted to 'reasonable force' - he could not prove his life was at risk therefore his use of lethal force was not warranted. He was not convicted for exercising his right to self-defence, but that he was ott in doing so.

As to whether using the shotgun, and killing an intruder, was 'unreasonable force' is subjective, of course, and you might not agree with the decision of the court. However, that we have a legal standard is better for all of us.

Martin was a bit of a nut case by all accounts. The prosecution argued successfully that he had lay in wait for the two lads who attempted to burgle him. Martin had alleged that he had been woken and had fired one or two shots from the stairs, however forensics proved he had been downstairs when he had fired in the door way of an adjacent room. Further to this, Martin had previously been accused of firing at a man who was scrumping apples. Are we still going to argue reasonable force?

The lad he killed by all accounts was a bit of a monster, had many arrests under his belt, and he was only 16. He was only 16!

There are other accounts as well

A dog breeder killed his partner and her daughter, in what he claims was a misfire due to his arthritis, but if you read his testimony, it is utter rubbish.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11164758/Shooting-was-accident-due-to-my-arthritis-says-dog-breeder-accused-of-killing-mother-and-daughter.html

The list could go on and on. All these people who brag about having the right to use deadly force need their heads examining. Killing someone does not only end one life, invariably the killer is quite seriously psychologically affected too. The people who advocate lethal force are generally the ones who have never used it, those that have are generally rather more silent on the matter.

[KariW]

We have signs posted all over our property, that we are "Loaded for Bear", and the broken neon orange clay pigeons sitting on the fence posts near our front gate and along our property line advertises that fact to anyone thinking about trespassing that there are guns on the property, and we are well protected. If I were a criminal, I would probably go elsewhere, such as a "gun-free' zone in some big city to commit a crime, where I would have a better chance of survival, and people couldn't fire back at me. Being able to protect oneself with lethal force can be a powerful deterrent to those who wish to commit a crime. Also living way out in the country, several miles from the nearest town, and police station, we don't have the protection of the police. By the time they even found our house, the criminals would be long gone.

Without getting into personal details, The one time I really needed a gun, I didn't have one, and it has haunted me for a very, very long time, and I still have nightmares about it. If I had had a gun, I may have been able to save myself, and several other young girls from being raped by a monster. Thank goodness he was finally caught and did serve time for his crimes, but he is now free. He has relocated to another state, and is working with young girls again as a horse trainer and riding coach, and I wonder if his clients know about his past.

I have always regretted that at the time I didn't have a way of defending myself, and I will NEVER allow myself to be placed in that position again! God help anyone who attempts to force their way into our home to commit a crime of violence, because years of pent up RAGE over what that man did to several young girls will be unleashed in a hail of bullets, as scores are finally settled against an unfathomable evil. I would feel so much better, knowing that this time I put an animal down (not unlike a rabid dog), and saved others from harm. It would also give me closure & peace of mind for what happened in the past, knowing that my days of being a "victim" is over, and that I fought the "Good Fight" against pure evil! This is just one victim's point of view.

[aztek]

I wonder if our dear friends the Mercans will ever stop and look at their figures on firearm deaths and realise that the 'Right to bear arms' is a really really bad idea,

i wonder if our european posters will ever look at another side of the coin, and see millions of times a year when guns actually prevented or stopped crimes on the spot, and realise, 'Right to bear arms' is a really really great idea, but i would not hold my breath, since all they know, (and convinced that is all there is) is what media feeds them.

Edited June 2, 2015 by aztek

[Grey Area]

i wonder if our european posters will ever look at another side of the coin, and see millions of times a year when guns actually prevented or stopped crimes on the spot, and realise, 'Right to bear arms' is a really really great idea, but i would not hold my breath, since all they know, (and convinced that is all there is) is what media feeds them.

Sure stopping a crime is one thing and I am sure there are many instances where guns have saved the day, but at the expense of those innocent lives? High school massacres, trigger happy cops, and sure I only have the media to go on, can you deny these events happen, and that they are a US phenomenon? But I guess if it means you can sleep at night then it must be worth it eh?

I live in the UK. Our police do not carry sidearms as standard, and the vast majority of households do not have guns, and our gun related homicide statistics are incredibly low, I think for 2012 if I recall the UK had 0.25 deaths for every 100,000 population, compared with the US which was well above 10. That's a shocking statistic. But I concede this is not just about the right to bear arms, there are many factors involved, but summed up simply, guns just look and feel so cool! I have to say it, Hollywood plays a huge role in the portrayal of firearms, and again this is another US phenomenon, however this one is a little more insidious in that Hollywood movies as an export are shown across the world and people lap it up. Similarly Things like Gangster Rap which are specifically targeted at young people not only promote firearms but also condone horrendous criminal activity, again a US export.

I don't want to turn this into a hate thread against the states, and I know the US is not the only country in the world where firearms are common place, understand this is just my opinion, I am happy to be proved wrong, but simply saying guns have stopped millions of crimes wont cut it.

Edited: Grammar

Edited June 3, 2015 by Grey Area

[Grey Area]

We have signs posted all over our property, that we are "Loaded for Bear", and the broken neon orange clay pigeons sitting on the fence posts near our front gate and along our property line advertises that fact to anyone thinking about trespassing that there are guns on the property, and we are well protected. If I were a criminal, I would probably go elsewhere, such as a "gun-free' zone in some big city to commit a crime, where I would have a better chance of survival, and people couldn't fire back at me. Being able to protect oneself with lethal force can be a powerful deterrent to those who wish to commit a crime. Also living way out in the country, several miles from the nearest town, and police station, we don't have the protection of the police. By the time they even found our house, the criminals would be long gone.

Without getting into personal details, The one time I really needed a gun, I didn't have one, and it has haunted me for a very, very long time, and I still have nightmares about it. If I had had a gun, I may have been able to save myself, and several other young girls from being raped by a monster. Thank goodness he was finally caught and did serve time for his crimes, but he is now free. He has relocated to another state, and is working with young girls again as a horse trainer and riding coach, and I wonder if his clients know about his past.

I have always regretted that at the time I didn't have a way of defending myself, and I will NEVER allow myself to be placed in that position again! God help anyone who attempts to force their way into our home to commit a crime of violence, because years of pent up RAGE over what that man did to several young girls will be unleashed in a hail of bullets, as scores are finally settled against an unfathomable evil. I would feel so much better, knowing that this time I put an animal down (not unlike a rabid dog), and saved others from harm. It would also give me closure & peace of mind for what happened in the past, knowing that my days of being a "victim" is over, and that I fought the "Good Fight" against pure evil! This is just one victim's point of view.

KariW

Forgive me if I have stirred unpleasant memories. I completely respect your views and understand (although I couldn't possibly appreciate the depth) your anger. As a children's social worker I have been faced many times with the depravity of our fellow humans.

I hope you are able to find peace. In whatever form that may take.

[aztek]

Sure stopping a crime is one thing and I am sure there are many instances where guns have saved the day, but at the expense of those innocent lives? High school massacres, trigger happy cops, and sure I only have the media to go on, can you deny these events happen, and that they are a US phenomenon? But I guess if it means you can sleep at night then it must be worth it eh?

it is worth it.

out 32k of gun deaths in usa a year half a suicides,(can't do much about it, no innocent hurt) another 1-1,5 are killed by police,(not much you can do about it either, ) 90% of the rest are gangs shooting each other,(they do not obey laws, and do not get permit for their guns, and they will always have them, and frankly I do not care if they kill each other) whatever is left, is about as much as in your country. may those that left would be alive if they shot a person that killed them.

so in reality you got few thusands gun deaths, a result of crimes, (aka innocent) vs millions saved, and crimes prevented by the means of the gun, so yea, I will defiantly pick a gun under my pillow over no gun.

you just proved my point quite well, , your opinion is formed by antigun media. actually the way I see it removing guns from law abiding citizens is basically satisfying your beliefs, at the expense of innocent lives. how many police station shootings do you know about?? I can't think of one, and how many school\work place shootings? many, why no one goes on shooting spree at police station? because they will be killed there, but not in school and workplace.

why don't you ban strong pain killers? thousands a year abuse them and die from od, screw those millions that really need them, and get saved by them.

Edited June 3, 2015 by aztek

[Grey Area]

so yea, I will defiantly pick a gun under my pillow over no gun.

I think really you have entirely missed my point, but then I hadn't really spelled it out, but it is clear how much value you apply to life. So by your own admission tens of thousands of innocents are okay to die by the gun so you can keep hold of your stuff.

90% of the rest are gangs shooting each other,(they do not obey laws, and do not get permit for their guns, and they will always have them, and frankly I do not care if they kill each other)

And where do those guns come from? Correct me if I am wrong but those guns would have been legitimately owned at one point, and many in a bitter twist of irony will have been stolen from the very homes they were there to protect. Surely it is logical that if guns weren't so readily available there wouldn't be such a need for them? Completely different topic over your casual statement about gang members killing each other, but your apathy toward that subject is part of the problem.

out 32k of gun deaths in usa a year half a suicides,(can't do much about it, no innocent hurt) another 1-1,5 are killed by police,(not much you can do about it either, )

Well yes there is something that can be done about it, remove access to guns.

millions saved

That statement cannot really be qualified though can it? And you have absolutely no way of knowing if any crimes could have been foiled without the use of a firearm.

you just proved my point quite well, , your opinion is formed by antigun media. actually the way I see it removing guns from law abiding citizens is basically satisfying your beliefs, at the expense of innocent lives. how many police station shootings do you know about?? I can't think of one, and how many school\work place shootings? many, why no one goes on shooting spree at police station? because they will be killed there, but not in school and workplace.

My opinion is not formed by anti gun media, I have not knowingly read any anti gun media, I've never even watched any of Moore's material, though I am aware of it's content. My opinion is formed from the odd report on the BBC of massacres, statistics and my own personal opinion of firearms and indeed from personal experience with a brief stint in the forces.

how many police station shootings do you know about?? I can't think of one, and how many school\work place shootings? many, why no one goes on shooting spree at police station? because they will be killed there, but not in school and workplace.

Look this is my point. I don't know if there have been any police station shootings, but that is not pertinent, certainly police have shot and killed in the line of duty, but the point is that children were able to get hold of firearms and then go and kill others, doesn't matter where it happened.

Now how many times has someone managed to get hold of a gun in the US and then go on a rampage? Now ask how many times it has happened in the UK where it is very difficult (not impossible) to get hold of a firearm. This speaks for itself.

why don't you ban strong pain killers?

Because we are talking about guns not pharmaceuticals.

out 32k of gun deaths in USA a year

You don't think that figure is staggering? Those figures read like war statistics.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Grey Area

[aztek]

You don't think that figure is staggering? Those figures read like war statistics.

no i do not, numbers alone do not tell entire picture, 500000 a year die of medical mistakes. that must sound horrable.

my numbers are from stats that were posted many times on gun threads, if you talk about guns, in usa, familiarise yourself with them before. yes numbers are backed up by fbi stats, and other sources.

and yes you prove it again, your opinion is formed by antigun media, actually that is only media you have in uk, so no surprices there,

bottom line is i am not giving up my gun, just because you think it will make someone safer. and millions of americans agree with me. your crime rate went up after cofiscation, that is a fact.

in your country a robber can brake into your house and you can not resist, you can be jailed if you do ,and a rober can sue you and win, my country i can shot him dead, and he wont be robbing no more, and i'm not gonna be jailed, your country is a great example of what not to do, and what not to turn america into.

i'll post this once.

A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

also your country is nothing like usa, you do not have over 100 different street gangs, that accouint for few millions of active members, and gangs are responcible for 80% of ALL crimes, as per fbi. and you compare us to uk?? lmao.

you say if access to guns removed gun deaths will dissapear, i say lmao, drugs are banned, yet we have them in abundance, why guns would be any different? you absolutely fail to recognise sucha huge concept as black market, that supplies anything that has a demand.

next time you reply to my post, try to reply to individual letters, instead of sentances, lol why bother with context when you can find something to counter an out of context sentance. lol.

Edited June 3, 2015 by aztek

[Bavarian Raven]

FYI on the suicide point above. In places that have removed said guns, suicide rates don't change, just the method of suicide changes. Sadly. Suicide is a much bigger issue than access to firearms.

[questionmark]

Well, lets put it into perspective: The war in Iraq only cost 4282 American lives and Afghanistan 2358....

Edit: forgot the adjective

Edited June 3, 2015 by questionmark

[Grey Area]

no i do not, numbers alone do not tell entire picture, 500000 a year die of medical mistakes.

Sure I get that there are other causes of death, but we are not talking about those, and medical mistakes are a completely different context. We are talking specifically about deaths caused by guns.

and yes you prove it again, your opinion is formed by antigun media, actually that is only media you have in uk, so no surprices there

I am not sure what part of my explanation behind the reasons for my opinions you misunderstood here, and while some may argue differently last time I checked the BBC prided itself on it's impartiality.

Your crime rate went up after cofiscation, that is a fact.

What? After confiscation? I am not sure I know what you are talking about. Firearms have been illegal in the UK for hundreds of years.

in your country a robber can brake into your house and you can not resist, you can be jailed if you do ,and a rober can sue you and win, my country i can shot him dead, and he wont be robbing no more, and i'm not gonna be jailed, your country is a great example of what not to do, and what not to turn america into.

No and this has been raised a few times in this very thread, in the UK we operate on the lines of reasonable force. Which means if you are confronted with an unarmed burgler you cant pull out your minimi and pump his guts full of lead. But you can of course defend yourself. What, you think we just sit there and offer them a cup of earl grey while saying 'Jolly spiffing weather old chap'?

And I cannot believe you even bothered with the point about sueing, coming from the litigation capital of the world.

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

Will you listen to yourself? What is 8% of 2.5million? I tell you, that is around 200,000 people killed by firearms. And you have no way of saying categorically that someone would not have been scared off by that person brandishing a club, or some other weapon, a tazer, pepper spray.

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

I am a little perplexed. You accuse me of pandering to anti gun media, which I haven't, yet you support your own views with a link to 'the Gun Owners of America', who are: Quote: 'The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington.'

also your country is nothing like usa, you do not have over 100 different street gangs, that accouint for few millions of active members, and gangs are responcible for 80% of ALL crimes, as per fbi. and you compare us to uk?? lmao.

We are two different countries, but the parallels are there. And you are totally wrong, the gang culture is alive and kicking, again I know this from personal experience working with Young People in some of the most deprived areas in the UK

you say if access to guns removed gun deaths will dissapear, i say lmao, drugs are banned, yet we have them in abundance, why guns would be any different? you absolutely fail to recognise sucha huge concept as black market, that supplies anything that has a demand.

Where have I said gun deaths will disappear? A reduction would be the intended consequence.

next time you reply to my post, try to reply to individual letters, instead of sentances, lol why bother with context when you can find something to counter an out of context sentance. lol.

What?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Grey Area

[aztek]

What? After confiscation? I am not sure I know what you are talking about. Firearms have been illegal in the UK for hundreds of years.

Will you listen to yourself? What is 8% of 2.5million? I tell you, that is around 200,000 people killed by firearms. And you have no way of saying categorically that someone would not have been scared off by that person brandishing a club, or some other weapon, a tazer, pepper spray.

In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall".^[12] Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitation guns, which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences (see under "Firearms crime" below).

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

so even if only 1\3 of them real guns, that is about 4000, where did they come from? i thought you said "Firearms have been illegal in the UK for hundreds of years." they are not, actually banned outright, shows how little you know even about your own country. yet you talk about mine.

first off, it is not my words but statistics, second in 8% cases guns were USED, it does not mean every time someone was killed, or even injured, you did not even bother to read, why do you even argue against the facts? and the numbers are even confirmed by antigun movments,

if you think my numbers a are faulty show me where it says otherwise.

i do not see any reason to think, guns need to be banned and confiscated, or it will make anyone safer if it does happen.

200000 females protect themselves from sexual assaults a year, with guns, but i guess you'd be ok if they were raped and possibly killed, instead of killing\injuring perp, or otherwise stop the assault. I have no doubt if you were in that situation you'd wish you had a gun.

Edited June 3, 2015 by aztek

[Mantis914]

I think really you have entirely missed my point, but then I hadn't really spelled it out, but it is clear how much value you apply to life. So by your own admission tens of thousands of innocents are okay to die by the gun so you can keep hold of your stuff.

Wait, hold on there. "Value you apply to life"? Shouldn't you be saying that to the burglar or robber because they shouldn't be breaking into houses/cars/businesses or holding people up, I mean, that is still considered illegal, right? They are the ones taking a chance in getting hurt or killed by various means and it doesn't always have to be by a gun. Also, they are the ones that wouldn't hesitate to kill as there have been people who have been killed for a few dollars so why blame someone who is minding their own business or defending what it theirs. I don't see why this has turned into yet another gun control debate again but then again, there have been plenty of people stabbed and assaulted/murdered in various ways aside from being shot so why not address those methods as the title says "Self Defense", it doesn't specify guns...

And where do those guns come from? Correct me if I am wrong but those guns would have been legitimately owned at one point, and many in a bitter twist of irony will have been stolen from the very homes they were there to protect. Surely it is logical that if guns weren't so readily available there wouldn't be such a need for them? Completely different topic over your casual statement about gang members killing each other, but your apathy toward that subject is part of the problem.

Those are broad assumptions. It would be hard to prove that a big majority of guns are stolen from law abiding households over being purchased illegally on the streets with serial numbers sheared off...

Well yes there is something that can be done about it, remove access to guns.

I'd be all for that if you were talking about criminal access...

That statement cannot really be qualified though can it? And you have absolutely no way of knowing if any crimes could have been foiled without the use of a firearm.

Not any more than you can immediately tell what a burglar's intentions are upon entering a home uninvited. If a person has a family (or not) in their own home, there is no reason on Earth why they shouldn't be able to protect them(selves) to their last breath whether its by a gun, sword, pipe or whatever is handy. To defend someone that is doing or has intent to do something illegal and possibly perverse to a family within their own domicile borders insanity.

Look this is my point. I don't know if there have been any police station shootings, but that is not pertinent, certainly police have shot and killed in the line of duty, but the point is that children were able to get hold of firearms and then go and kill others, doesn't matter where it happened.

Huh? We go from police to children? Yeah, that does happen with children but when it does, you best believe the law comes down on the parent for being negligent.

Now how many times has someone managed to get hold of a gun in the US and then go on a rampage? Now ask how many times it has happened in the UK where it is very difficult (not impossible) to get hold of a firearm. This speaks for itself.

Our population is nearly 319 mil vs. UK 64 mil, I would think that speaks for itself in that there are that many more people with untold problems roaming the streets. It doesn't matter whether a gun is present or not, if they are intent to hurt the population, they are going to do it regardless. I'm more worried about the ones that are looking to take out as many people as possible and that's not by assault weapons, I'm talking about explosives...

[aztek]

Well, lets put it into perspective: The war in Iraq only cost 4282 American lives and Afghanistan 2358....

Edit: forgot the adjective

yea, lets put in into perspective.

Suicides by active duty U.S. troops last year exceeded the number of servicemen and women killed in combat in Afghanistan. Ray Suarez talks to psychiatrist and retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Stephen Xenakis, who says more than half of the soldiers who killed themselves had already sought help from a mental health professional.

http://www.pbs.org/n...suicides_01-15/

so what was your point again? how does half a million a year from medial mistakes (not from illness but from wrong actions) sound? 33 times more that all killed by a gun, by cops, gangsters killed by gangsters...... (not including suicides).

oh, i see what your point is, numbers alone do not mean much

Edited June 3, 2015 by aztek

[Grey Area]

so even if only 1\3 of them real guns, that is about 4000, where did they come from? i thought you said "Firearms have been illegal in the UK for hundreds of years." they are not, actually banned outright, shows how little you know even about your own country. yet you talk about mine.

It is illegal to posses a firearm in the UK without a license, an intensive process in which general self defence is not a valid reason to own a gun.

first off, it is not my words but statistics, second in 8% cases guns were USED, it does not mean every time someone was killed, or even injured, you did not even bother to read, why do you even argue against the facts? and the numbers are even confirmed by antigun movments,

And I take your point. However my point was that even though the percentage you quoted is low, the figure is still very high, by using your example above and plucking out a fraction even if only 1/3 of that 200,000 involved deaths that's still a hell of a lot of people.

i do not see any reason to think, guns need to be banned and confiscated, or it will make anyone safer if it does happen.

See the links:

Investigating the link between Gun Posession and Gun assault

from the above study

Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).

A study from the New England Journal of Medicine

Quote from above study

Prevention is the core of pediatric work. We aim to protect children from all things that can harm them. Injuries are the biggest threat to U.S. children over 1 year of age. In 2010, gun-related injuries accounted for 6570 deaths of children and young people (1 to 24 years of age). That includes 7 deaths per day among people 1 to 19 years of age. Gun injuries cause twice as many deaths as cancer, 5 times as many as heart disease, and 15 times as many as infections

A study from the American Psychological Study

Quote from above link

participants determined whether another person was holding a gun or a neutral object. Critically, the participant did this while holding and responding with either a gun or a neutral object. Responding with a gun biased observers to report “gun present” more than did responding with a ball. Thus, by virtue of affording a perceiver the opportunity to use a gun, he or she was more likely to classify objects in a scene as a gun and, as a result, to engage in threat-induced behavior (raising a firearm to shoot)

I could go on with the links, the studies are endless and quite damning in their findings, and can I point out that these are all from medical institutions, not overtly anti gun, although you could argue that because their mandate is to save lives and improve health, they may be slightly slanted in one direction.

200000 females protect themselves from sexual assaults a year, with guns, but i guess you'd be ok if they were raped and possibly killed, instead of killing\injuring perp, or otherwise stop the assault. I have no doubt if you were in that situation you'd wish you had a gun.

Nice try. I would of course not want anyone to become a victim of sexual assault, and shame on you for suggesting otherwise. Nor am I suggesting that there aren't instances when guns have been successful in preventing a serious crime.

What I am trying to do is get people to think critically about this subject. How many innocents is it okay to kill for every crime prevented? Are you willing to put a figure on that? I am not expecting you to change your mind, nor am I expecting anything to change soon, and from what I can see the US is too deeply embedded in a culture of violence be-gets violence for that. But it does concern me that the US is a nation with a large cross section of people with borderline sociopathic tenancies. Have a bit of empathy and imagine that you are the parent of a child who makes a few mistakes on the rocky road of growing up, falls into the wrong crowd, robs a house and dies because the owner has a gun and can legally distribute lethal force. I am not condoning robbery or any other crime, just think for a minute.

Just for good measure I will throw this in as well. Tell me what part of this whole sad affair is right?

Girl 9 Kills Gun instructor

In 2012 the Home Office reported that, "in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall".^[12] Firearms statistics in England and Wales include airguns and imitation guns, which make up a high proportion of these recorded offences (see under "Firearms crime" below).

http://en.wikipedia...._United_Kingdom

A direct quote from the wiki page you linked:

The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world.^[2] There were 0.05 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants

I rest my case

[aztek]

Nice try. I would of course not want anyone to become a victim of sexual assault, and shame on you for suggesting otherwise. Nor am I suggesting that there aren't instances when guns have been successful in preventing a serious crime.

that is not a try, that is a fact. your "removing guns makes population safer" idea, certanly suggesting taking their guns would make them safer, yes, even acording to antigunners, guns used 1,5 million times a year for self defence, that is all i need to know. 1,5 million potential victims saved, vs 3000- 4000 died as a result of crimes\accidents, (there is no indication crime would not happen if gun was not present, more people killed with clubs than guns in usa, also, number of suicides did not drop in australia after gun confiscation) sure makes the guns worth keeping (i did not include suicides, nor gang on gang shootings), now if we take out number of people who was shot, because they deserved it, during commision of a crime, that makes number of shooting victims very small.

not sure if you can rest a case that you never had, but if it makes you feel better, lol rest it.

Edited June 3, 2015 by aztek

[Kaikou]

Well to put it simply the UK operates on the principle of reasonable force. Problem is, most people here don't even know what that means.

Okay, so picture this: You and several other people are waiting at a bus stop, when all of a sudden a guy comes over and starts causing trouble.

He's punching people and harassing them.

After awhile you get sick of this, you feel like the safety of you and those around you is in jeopardy. So you decide to punch him, he gives up and leaves.

The above example could be considered "reasonable force" as long as you could justify the feeling of being threatened.

On the other hand, If you were to take that same scenario:

You and several other people are waiting at a bus stop, when all of a sudden a guy comes over and starts causing trouble.

He's punching people and harassing them.

After awhile you get sick of this, you feel like the safety of you and those around you is in jeopardy. So you decide to punch him. He falls to the ground, hits his head and later dies from the injuries he sustained.

This wouldn't go down so well in court and you would probably be charged with Manslaughter.

Reasonable force is used for street fights, burglaries and everything in between.

Sometimes the police can be lenient with it, but you have to be extremely careful here. You're walking on eggshells all the time.

[aztek]

Have a bit of empathy and imagine that you are the parent of a child who makes a few mistakes on the rocky road of growing up, falls into the wrong crowd, robs a house and dies because the owner has a gun and can legally distribute lethal force. I am not condoning robbery or any other crime, just think for a minute.

why should i feel anything for him?? he broke into my house, i'm not taking a chance, i have no way of knowing whether he just wants to steal my tv, or rape my daughter while he is in there, and kill her so she can't id him, it has happened, it is pretty simple, you brake into my house on purpose, you ain't walking out. it was your choice to brake in, you will suffer the consiqenses, and if it is your son, "made few mistakes" it is his and your problem, and you are partially at fault for this too, your attitude is the problem. no, braking into someones house is not a mistake, that is intentions action, it is a crime, and puts people in the house in danger, if he hangs with wrong crowd he is one of them.

may be you should rase your son, so barking into someone house is not a mistake but a crime, and if he hangs with wrong crowd, he is one of them, may be than he wont meet me in my house and get shot. this is how i rase mine.

Edited June 3, 2015 by aztek

[aztek]

Well to put it simply the UK operates on the principle of reasonable force. Problem is, most people here don't even know what that means.

Okay, so picture this: You and several other people are waiting at a bus stop, when all of a sudden a guy comes over and starts causing trouble.

He's punching people and harassing them.

After awhile you get sick of this, you feel like the safety of you and those around you is in jeopardy. So you decide to punch him, he gives up and leaves.

The above example could be considered "reasonable force" as long as you could justify the feeling of being threatened.

On the other hand, If you were to take that same scenario:

You and several other people are waiting at a bus stop, when all of a sudden a guy comes over and starts causing trouble.

He's punching people and harassing them.

After awhile you get sick of this, you feel like the safety of you and those around you is in jeopardy. So you decide to punch him. He falls to the ground, hits his head and later dies from the injuries he sustained.

This wouldn't go down so well in court and you would probably be charged with Manslaughter.

Reasonable force is used for street fights, burglaries and everything in between.

Sometimes the police can be lenient with it, but you have to be extremely careful here. You're walking on eggshells all the time.

so basically whether you go to jail or not, for doing the same thing, it is only a matter where he falls. something you have no control over. and than he'll sue you for punching him, if he survives, or his family will sue you, if he dies, yet the fact that he punched others , and initiated attack, has no relavance.

Edited June 3, 2015 by aztek