OrcFace_McStompYou Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 But the use of an example in the UK that is so obviously wrong to support your argument warrants a response, if only to set the records straight. I'll retract my comment based on the fact that it may not be relevant due to cultural differences, but to say that it is factually wrong is incorrect. I'm not sure it's ever been legal to use a firearm for self defense in the UK, if you use a knife from the kitchen you are even expected to justify that. We traditionally have had a very different outlook on what you can do to protect yourself in your own home. My understanding is that the UK allows for a 'reasonable' amount of force to be used in the prevention of a violent crime. The difficulty is that the it is the court who decides what is reasonable after the fact. That, coupled with the aforementioned cultural beliefs, means that you stand a very real chance of ending up in jail if you use force to defend yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeno~SPARTA~ Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Rape may be on the increase in the UK. Rape may be committed by the age groups you suggested. These may be facts and I am willing to take your word on it. The vast majority of people in the UK have never walked around armed in modern history so to imply that the first two facts are a result of gun control is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Durka-Durka~SPARTA~ Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 I'm not so sure. I'm willing to be there are standards in their court system and lines that one does not cross, but the fact that it is dealt with on a case-by-case basis seems pretty fair to me. I don't like that everything, no matter the condition, is put against a standard with no rational judgement put behind it, such as no-tolerance policies in our schools. Does this backfire on some well-meaning citizens, I'm sure it does, but there's always the appeals process, and I'd rather have it than the alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrcFace_McStompYou Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) The vast majority of people in the UK have never walked around armed in modern history so to imply that the first two facts are a result of gun control is false. It depends on how you define modern history. Prior to WWI it was common for people to own guns and carry them on a regular basis. Rifle marksmanship was taught in school. In the early 1900s it was expected that the unarmed police officers could rely on a nearby civilian to furnish them with a gun should they need it. Things have changed significantly in the last 100 years, in the US and the UK, but both countries have a strong tradition of civilian firearm ownership. Regardless, it wasn't an apples-to-apples comparison, so I took it back. I don't like that everything, no matter the condition, is put against a standard with no rational judgement put behind it, such as no-tolerance policies in our schools. Durka, Castle Doctrine is a far cry away from a zero-tolerance policy. Self-defense law in the US comes down to the idea that you can use deadly force if you believe you are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm. Castle doctrines generally all state that in your house, faced with an intruder who entered illegally, you can assume danger exists without additional threat. Basically, you don't have to wait for the intruder to threaten you or your family, the fact that they willingly broke in is good enough. If you don't feel morally comfortable with that, then you have the option to not use force. If you don't want to get shot, don't break into peoples homes. Keep in mind, trials are costly, not just to the state but also to the defendant. They are incredibly emotionally and financially taxing, serious criminal trials even more so. There will always be a police investigation following a shooting, but taking every single self-defense shooter to trial is not in the public interest. Edited January 21, 2011 by OrcFace_McStompYou Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Anouther wise man once said. God created man, and Samual Colt made them equal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlon64~SPARTA~ Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 (edited) Well i gess its hard to understand that its written into our consutuion to own and bear arms. Back in the colonal days of the 13 coloneys in the 1770s, once seperated from great britten, each state had to fourm up a Militia. Sort of a mini army to protect each state. It is also written in the constution that the only force that can control goverment is the militias. But in the early days every one had guns so they could provide food for their familys. This has been twisted thru out history, and has become a big conversel subject every time some wacko shoots someone the anti groups cry and scream and get a law passed to pose a ban, The outher groups fight hard to reverse it. The importance of being able to own and bear arms is to ensure that our country stay free. so that if all firearms are baned or removed would leave the population defenceless aganst tearney and operession from a goverment gone crazy like unfairly imposing taxes or electing Hitler into office. The winers and cryers and carpet baggers dident like the population carrying guns around in the citys and towns and passed local laws prohibiting brandashing of firearms in public so they could call themselfs a more civialized town or city. There for it was up to the police to handle crime in these towns and citys restricting the carrying of firearms. Citizens of those towns and citys followed the laws, and to be a citizen was to follow the honor system set forth. Thus becomming the unarmed citizen depending on the sherriff or marshel to handle the problem. Immedatley crime had a place to grow as soon as the unarmed citizen hitt the street in the late 1800s and early 1900s, but most folks were still used to the everyone carrying guns like in the early 1800s so they dident cause much trouble in fear of getting shott like in the early days in Dodge city and in Tumbstone arizona. The fashionable thing to do if a dissagrement came about was to simply settle the matter buy stepping out into the street and haveing a show down or Gentelmans duel as it was called. This became banned as there were woman and childeren in the citys and towns shopping and it became unfashionable to have little childeren seeing people shot down in the street right in front of them. Later the Duel became banned as well due to most of these gentelman were not proficient in the handleing of firearms and suposedly were good people and it was not consitered fair. So the newly formed citys and towns relayed on the local police and the court system to handle it. It has been that way sence the late 1890s. Edited January 22, 2011 by Athlon64~SPARTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts