Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

USMC Retired · Feb 5, 2005, 03:44 pm

[CENTER]The Truth About Gun Control[/CENTER]

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

--Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.

Mr.Vicchio · Feb 5, 2005, 04:04 pm

And the very scary thing is, so many in America think the Brits were right...

tinybear · Feb 5, 2005, 04:18 pm

Nah, on the other hand, it could be just two teenaged girl scouts giving you some cookies:

DURANGO, Colo. (Reuters) - A Colorado judge ordered two teen-age girls to pay about $900 for the distress a neighbor said they caused by giving her home-made cookies adorned with paper hearts.

The pair were ordered to pay $871.70 plus $39 in court costs after neighbor Wanita Renea Young, 49, filed a lawsuit complaining that the unsolicited cookies, left at her house after the girls knocked on her door, had triggered an anxiety attack that sent her to the hospital the next day.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...3.htm&sc=reodd

tinybear · Feb 5, 2005, 04:34 pm

Gee, I wonder what Wanita Young would have done had she kept a shotgun in her home? Could it have been that the girls would have baked their last cookie?

**Chris** · Feb 5, 2005, 04:38 pm

Its called a freaking peephole and you can get one at Home Depot for about $1.

Dumb broad !

tinybear · Feb 5, 2005, 04:45 pm

Imagine a dumb broad with a gun. Scary thought, ain't it?

USMC Retired · Feb 5, 2005, 04:46 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

Gee, I wonder what Wanita Young would have done had she kept a shotgun in her home? Could it have been that the girls would have baked their last cookie?

Poor choice on the girls part (and that of their parents for allowing it), running around the neighborhood at night, ringing peoples doorbells and then running away. Fair warning: You come creeping around MY house in the middle of the night, you get what ever HAPPENS to you, as the safety of my family comes FIRST. Oh, you were just delivering COOKIES in the middle of the night..... too bad, so sad..... I'll put flowers on your grave!

PatrickHenry · Feb 5, 2005, 05:07 pm

Quote:

Quote by: USMC Retired

Poor choice on the girls part (and that of their parents for allowing it), running around the neighborhood at night, ringing peoples doorbells and then running away. Fair warning: You come creeping around MY house in the middle of the night, you get what ever HAPPENS to you, as the safety of my family comes FIRST. Oh, you were just delivering COOKIES in the middle of the night..... too bad, so sad..... I'll put flowers on your grave!

tinybear is off topic with this one. But you, Jarhead, gotta be a little more careful with your rhetoric. Responsible gun handlers shoot ONLY if they have determined that lives are in danger. As to your original post, the British public doesn't have a Bill of Rights (or even a written constitution). If they think their government is doing 'em right, ok by me. But my guns will remain unregistered and loaded. Amendment number two says that this is something the gov may not take away. Though I wouldn't put it past DC to try it very soon...Terror, ya' know.

Mr.Vicchio · Feb 5, 2005, 05:10 pm

PH DC won' touch your guns. On this I am 100% certain. If you were correct the AWB wouldn't have been allowed to fall.

PatrickHenry · Feb 5, 2005, 06:23 pm

Wait til the worm turns, Mr.V. When the pendulum swings back, Watch Out!! I know you think the Republicans are gonna be a forever majority, but the even more socialist Democrats will someday return to power, and a gun-grabbing spirit rides with them.

But the US does have a BoR, and many in this nation understand that citizen disarmament is the most important step to government tyranny... It WILL be fiercely resisted... Guys like USMC there and other patriots who know both their rights and how to resist tyranny by force.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 5, 2005, 06:38 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio

And the very scary thing is, so many in America think the Brits were right...

Tony Martin shoot a burglar in the back whilst he trying to escape. Now, I don't know about you, but if someone was running away from me, I wouldn't try to kill them, perhaps disable them by shooting in the leg if I could.

What is really scary is how high the gun crime per capita is in the US...

Scribbler1 · Feb 5, 2005, 06:41 pm

When I see a trained soldier is prepared to blow away a couple of teenagers for nothing more than a nighttime knock on the door it makes me wonder.

Can I get a hearty round of posts saying how friggin great this country has become? I need a little reassurance.

On a side note: USMC Retired, why do I get the feeling you're a lot of fun around Halloween?

Mr.Vicchio · Feb 5, 2005, 06:55 pm

Gun crime by CRIMINALS WITH ILLEGALLY OBTAINED GUNS.

Wow... amazing thing that. What good would making guns illegal be against people that are all ready breaking the law... not much.

What's more amazing is how many Brits are so weak that they don't protest thier right to defend themselves... thats why "occupied" home break ins and the resultant rapes, murder torture and terror that goes with such, are so high over there. Because the bad guys, know you cannot defend yourself.

MerlinsByte · Feb 5, 2005, 07:08 pm

gun control

merlin says......As the bumper sticker on the back of many pick ups round' here relates, "Gun control means hitting what yer shooting' at". I agree.

We are need more armed citizens, and less armed violent criminals. History of a defenseless citizenry is a repetitive story of tyranny.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 5, 2005, 07:57 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio

Gun crime by CRIMINALS WITH ILLEGALLY OBTAINED GUNS.

Wow... amazing thing that. What good would making guns illegal be against people that are all ready breaking the law... not much.

What's more amazing is how many Brits are so weak that they don't protest thier right to defend themselves... thats why "occupied" home break ins and the resultant rapes, murder torture and terror that goes with such, are so high over there. Because the bad guys, know you cannot defend yourself.

Excuse me, but every since public gun ownership has been banned since the 1920's, just how has bad British crime been compared to our civilised western nations? So that's 80 years where criminals can obtain loads of guns and do us over...hmm, I don't see that has happened yet, nor can I see it any time soon considering how long they've had.

I think you'll find that most British people would rather we not legalise gun ownership, if there was a referendum I'm almost certain the ban would stay very firmly. Do I feel oppressed about not being able to own a weapon that can kill at ease in med and long range? No, I don't and the majority of the British public doesn't feel so either.

**Pooeypants** · Feb 5, 2005, 07:59 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

Nah, on the other hand, it could be just two teenaged girl scouts giving you some cookies:

DURANGO, Colo. (Reuters) - A Colorado judge ordered two teen-age girls to pay about $900 for the distress a neighbor said they caused by giving her home-made cookies adorned with paper hearts.

The pair were ordered to pay $871.70 plus $39 in court costs after neighbor Wanita Renea Young, 49, filed a lawsuit complaining that the unsolicited cookies, left at her house after the girls knocked on her door, had triggered an anxiety attack that sent her to the hospital the next day.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...3.htm&sc=reodd

I know I shouldn't, but this seems like a case of "Only in America..."

Scribbler1 · Feb 5, 2005, 08:22 pm

It's a shame but you really can't blame this woman for overreacting. I can only guess what was in her mind when she opened the door (that in itself was probably scary to her). A strange package. A bomb? Poison or bioweapon? Someone checking to see if somebody's home, and now I've opened the DOOR!

I'm not saying we are, or should be, all paranoid to this degree. However, if you watch TV news since 9/11 or ever hear almost ANYTHING from Tom "Chicken Little" Ridge you have to see where people can read a bit too much into an innocent, yet unknown event such as this.
I don't recall, did this woman live alone?

G. Adams · Feb 5, 2005, 08:23 pm

I would be in full support of gun ownership and I'm British, but I'd still have done Tony Martin, and think he got off lightly.

Tony Martin had an illegally owned shotgun. You can get shotguns in Britain if you apply for a shotgun license from the police, and as he was a farmer he probably would have got one if they considered him stable. However, he didn't. So his sentance was based heavily upon having an unlicensed shotgun.

Secondly, the two men were leaving the house as Tony Martin had scared them off. Martin however shot the 17 year old lad in the back, TWICE. Tell me, with your experience of firearms, how many shots would it take to incapacitate someone with a shotgun at point blank range?

So Tony Martin used excessive force, vastly excessive. This is why he was done for killing the lad. In British law everyone is allowed to use reasonable force to protect themselves and their property. That means having the wisdom to judge what is reasonable. I accept that is difficult under duress, but then someone who can't take sensible decisions under duress should be allowed a weapon.

But again I want guns legalised again here. I own air weapons (a Webley Scott Falcon .22 rifle and a Webley Premier .22 pistol for rabbit and rat hunting, and an Umarex CO2 .177 for target shooting) and they're threatening to ban these. Well I'm stocking up on ammo and co2 cartidges, because there is no way in hell I'm handing them in.

Scribbler1 · Feb 5, 2005, 08:42 pm

G.,
Do they have NRA-style gun safety and use classes in the U.K.? I know a LOT of gun owners over here who don't know anything about how to use them properly and many have never even fired their gun until somebody threatens them. That, BTW is probably my biggest gripe with gun ownership over here. Anyone who wants a gun should have no trouble getting one, with one hitch. You should have to take a NRA gun course appropriate to the kind of weapon you are getting and a certain number of hours at an approved firing range. It's a win-win situation. You deflect some of the anti-gun argument and you get more responsible gun owners.

The Dunedan · Feb 6, 2005, 12:23 am

I long ago gave up on trying to win reasoned arguements with Hoplophobes. All of their arguements are based upon feelings and emotion, and no amount of evidence can sway them.

One important distinction, however, I will point out to Pooey:
The reason for the disparity between the UK crim rate and US is this; In the UK, only crimes for which someone is convicted are counted, whereas in the US it is crimes reported. This is one of several mechanisms used by the Home Office to disguse Britains' soaring violent-crime rate, and was reported on by the Times of London in November of last year, if I'm not mistaken. I'll source this tomorrow, as I am both tired and ill, and am going to bed.

Feb 5, 2005, 03:44 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
USMC Retired Molten Ash Location: Dallas, Tx Posts: 69	The Truth About Gun Control [CENTER]The Truth About Gun Control[/CENTER] You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven." The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars. A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison. This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.) Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens. During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released. Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands." All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars. When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars. Sound familiar? WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION. "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know. Richard Reid USMC Retired I think of a hero as someone who understands the degree of responsibility that comes with his/her freedom.

Feb 5, 2005, 04:04 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	And the very scary thing is, so many in America think the Brits were right... Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Feb 5, 2005, 04:38 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Chris Gamma-ray burst Location: Nashville Posts: 6,293	Its called a freaking peephole and you can get one at Home Depot for about $1. Dumb broad ! Delusion- A persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. (i.e. religion) Shared

Feb 5, 2005, 05:10 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	PH DC won' touch your guns. On this I am 100% certain. If you were correct the AWB wouldn't have been allowed to fall. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Feb 5, 2005, 06:23 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,438	Wait til the worm turns, Mr.V. When the pendulum swings back, Watch Out!! I know you think the Republicans are gonna be a forever majority, but the even more socialist Democrats will someday return to power, and a gun-grabbing spirit rides with them. But the US does have a BoR, and many in this nation understand that citizen disarmament is the most important step to government tyranny... It WILL be fiercely resisted... Guys like USMC there and other patriots who know both their rights and how to resist tyranny by force. "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

Feb 5, 2005, 04:18 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,016	Nah, on the other hand, it could be just two teenaged girl scouts giving you some cookies: DURANGO, Colo. (Reuters) - A Colorado judge ordered two teen-age girls to pay about $900 for the distress a neighbor said they caused by giving her home-made cookies adorned with paper hearts. The pair were ordered to pay $871.70 plus $39 in court costs after neighbor Wanita Renea Young, 49, filed a lawsuit complaining that the unsolicited cookies, left at her house after the girls knocked on her door, had triggered an anxiety attack that sent her to the hospital the next day. http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...3.htm&sc=reodd

Feb 5, 2005, 04:34 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,016	Gee, I wonder what Wanita Young would have done had she kept a shotgun in her home? Could it have been that the girls would have baked their last cookie?

Feb 5, 2005, 04:45 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Hong Kong (for now) Posts: 7,016	Imagine a dumb broad with a gun. Scary thought, ain't it?

Feb 5, 2005, 06:41 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	When I see a trained soldier is prepared to blow away a couple of teenagers for nothing more than a nighttime knock on the door it makes me wonder. Can I get a hearty round of posts saying how friggin great this country has become? I need a little reassurance. On a side note: USMC Retired, why do I get the feeling you're a lot of fun around Halloween?

Feb 5, 2005, 06:55 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	Gun crime by CRIMINALS WITH ILLEGALLY OBTAINED GUNS. Wow... amazing thing that. What good would making guns illegal be against people that are all ready breaking the law... not much. What's more amazing is how many Brits are so weak that they don't protest thier right to defend themselves... thats why "occupied" home break ins and the resultant rapes, murder torture and terror that goes with such, are so high over there. Because the bad guys, know you cannot defend yourself. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?

Feb 5, 2005, 07:08 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
MerlinsByte BANNED Posts: 1,267	"Gun control means hitting what yer shooting' at". gun control merlin says......As the bumper sticker on the back of many pick ups round' here relates, "Gun control means hitting what yer shooting' at". I agree. We are need more armed citizens, and less armed violent criminals. History of a defenseless citizenry is a repetitive story of tyranny.

Feb 5, 2005, 08:22 pm	#17 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	It's a shame but you really can't blame this woman for overreacting. I can only guess what was in her mind when she opened the door (that in itself was probably scary to her). A strange package. A bomb? Poison or bioweapon? Someone checking to see if somebody's home, and now I've opened the DOOR! I'm not saying we are, or should be, all paranoid to this degree. However, if you watch TV news since 9/11 or ever hear almost ANYTHING from Tom "Chicken Little" Ridge you have to see where people can read a bit too much into an innocent, yet unknown event such as this. I don't recall, did this woman live alone?

Feb 5, 2005, 08:23 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	I would be in full support of gun ownership and I'm British, but I'd still have done Tony Martin, and think he got off lightly. Tony Martin had an illegally owned shotgun. You can get shotguns in Britain if you apply for a shotgun license from the police, and as he was a farmer he probably would have got one if they considered him stable. However, he didn't. So his sentance was based heavily upon having an unlicensed shotgun. Secondly, the two men were leaving the house as Tony Martin had scared them off. Martin however shot the 17 year old lad in the back, TWICE. Tell me, with your experience of firearms, how many shots would it take to incapacitate someone with a shotgun at point blank range? So Tony Martin used excessive force, vastly excessive. This is why he was done for killing the lad. In British law everyone is allowed to use reasonable force to protect themselves and their property. That means having the wisdom to judge what is reasonable. I accept that is difficult under duress, but then someone who can't take sensible decisions under duress should be allowed a weapon. But again I want guns legalised again here. I own air weapons (a Webley Scott Falcon .22 rifle and a Webley Premier .22 pistol for rabbit and rat hunting, and an Umarex CO2 .177 for target shooting) and they're threatening to ban these. Well I'm stocking up on ammo and co2 cartidges, because there is no way in hell I'm handing them in. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Feb 5, 2005, 08:42 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	G., Do they have NRA-style gun safety and use classes in the U.K.? I know a LOT of gun owners over here who don't know anything about how to use them properly and many have never even fired their gun until somebody threatens them. That, BTW is probably my biggest gripe with gun ownership over here. Anyone who wants a gun should have no trouble getting one, with one hitch. You should have to take a NRA gun course appropriate to the kind of weapon you are getting and a certain number of hours at an approved firing range. It's a win-win situation. You deflect some of the anti-gun argument and you get more responsible gun owners.

Feb 6, 2005, 12:23 am	#20 (permalink) (top)
The Dunedan Hot Lava Posts: 925	I long ago gave up on trying to win reasoned arguements with Hoplophobes. All of their arguements are based upon feelings and emotion, and no amount of evidence can sway them. One important distinction, however, I will point out to Pooey: The reason for the disparity between the UK crim rate and US is this; In the UK, only crimes for which someone is convicted are counted, whereas in the US it is crimes reported. This is one of several mechanisms used by the Home Office to disguse Britains' soaring violent-crime rate, and was reported on by the Times of London in November of last year, if I'm not mistaken. I'll source this tomorrow, as I am both tired and ill, and am going to bed.