@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
Prevented one, and possibly hundreds more from the original offender. IMO
So, is it justifiable to shoot someone to death on the basis that he might have committed an unspecified crime "and possibly hundreds more"? Even if he turned out to have been sober, clean and unarmed?
In my view, if you kill someone, you've committed a crime.
Should he or she be in a vulnerable (in the sense of being physically unable to defend oneself and one's family) person's house uninvited in the first place?
Should the vulnerable person, probably in a state of fear and panic thanks to the intruder have to wait and see whether it's 'him or me' and possibly never know or take any opportunity to strike while he or she can?
Is there not an argument that uninvited intruders put themselves at risk?
You will never solve America's gun problem by banning or controlling guns - the words horse and bolted come to mind. It's the ammunition that would be far easier to control. There's no reason why any person or family needs to have more than a handful of bullets at any given time, if the self-defence angle is to be invoked. Doesn't take many to stop an intruder or a threat. Then make ammo sellers regulate themselves - you are legally responsible for any ammo you sell. If someone you sell ammo to goes on a murder spree, then you need to defend your justification for profiting off murder - what checks did you do? Were you 100% sure the person was responsible enough to own ammo? In fact if was up to me I'd make gun clubs responsible for selling ammo, if you wanted to buy ammo you needed to join a gun club and prove to the membership and quartermaster that you are a responsible gun owner, including regular range practice and attendance.
You will never solve America's gun problem by banning or controlling guns - the words horse and bolted come to mind. It's the ammunition that would be far easier to control. There's no reason why any person or family needs to have more than a handful of bullets at any given time, if the self-defence angle is to be invoked. Doesn't take many to stop an intruder or a threat. Then make ammo sellers regulate themselves - you are legally responsible for any ammo you sell. If someone you sell ammo to goes on a murder spree, then you need to defend your justification for profiting off murder - what checks did you do? Were you 100% sure the person was responsible enough to own ammo? In fact if was up to me I'd make gun clubs responsible for selling ammo, if you wanted to buy ammo you needed to join a gun club and prove to the membership and quartermaster that you are a responsible gun owner, including regular range practice and attendance.
I'll repeat what I posted earlier. If there were a ban on ANY or ALL weapons in The U.S., what would be left after all of the legally owned weapons were turned in by law-abiding citizens? This is why the "Second Amendment" is being so protected.
Now I have to go to work!
Is anyone here clear on how many guns you can own in the UK?
It becomes surprising we don't get many incidents here when you look at this:
Especially when a .22 calibre round can kill with a single head shot under 200 meters.
It's weird how much we prime ourselves to kill ourselves.
The AK47 would need to be heavily adapted to enable it to fire a .22 (5.6mm) round instead of the 7.62mm rounds it uses as standard.
In fact if was up to me I'd make gun clubs responsible for selling ammo, if you wanted to buy ammo you needed to join a gun club and prove to the membership and quartermaster that you are a responsible gun owner, including regular range practice and attendance.
I'll give you one guess what type of person runs a US gun club, and which organisation they're probably card-carrying members of. The only requirements they will have for you buying ammo will be a) cash and b) a pulse.
I'll repeat what I posted earlier. If there were a ban on ANY or ALL weapons in The U.S., what would be left after all of the legally owned weapons were turned in by law-abiding citizens? This is why the "Second Amendment" is being so protected.
Now I have to go to work!
Is anyone here clear on how many guns you can own in the UK?
It becomes surprising we don't get many incidents here when you look at this:
Especially when a .22 calibre round can kill with a single head shot under 200 meters.
It's weird how much we prime ourselves to kill ourselves.
The AK47 would need to be heavily adapted to enable it to fire a .22 (5.6mm) round instead of the 7.62mm rounds it uses as standard.
Never mind that, you can legally own a .50 bolt action rifle. That will literally blow a man's head off.
You will never solve America's gun problem by banning or controlling guns - the words horse and bolted come to mind. It's the ammunition that would be far easier to control. There's no reason why any person or family needs to have more than a handful of bullets at any given time, if the self-defence angle is to be invoked. Doesn't take many to stop an intruder or a threat. Then make ammo sellers regulate themselves - you are legally responsible for any ammo you sell. If someone you sell ammo to goes on a murder spree, then you need to defend your justification for profiting off murder - what checks did you do? Were you 100% sure the person was responsible enough to own ammo? In fact if was up to me I'd make gun clubs responsible for selling ammo, if you wanted to buy ammo you needed to join a gun club and prove to the membership and quartermaster that you are a responsible gun owner, including regular range practice and attendance.
It's not difficult to make your own ammunition.
Its quite a popular pass time for some.
Step father makes all his. Been a clay and dry powder enthusiast for years. His guns are in a Fort Knox style arrangement and he has lost hundeds of pounds in the various hand gun amnesties over the years. He is currently waiting his regular Police clearance again. He is 79 yrs old. It is a lifelong passion which he gets great enjoyment from. Making it harder for him and other respectable people will effect the criminal classes not a jot. Society is such that anything is "gettable" by foul means.
You will never solve America's gun problem by banning or controlling guns - the words horse and bolted come to mind. It's the ammunition that would be far easier to control. There's no reason why any person or family needs to have more than a handful of bullets at any given time, if the self-defence angle is to be invoked. Doesn't take many to stop an intruder or a threat. Then make ammo sellers regulate themselves - you are legally responsible for any ammo you sell. If someone you sell ammo to goes on a murder spree, then you need to defend your justification for profiting off murder - what checks did you do? Were you 100% sure the person was responsible enough to own ammo? In fact if was up to me I'd make gun clubs responsible for selling ammo, if you wanted to buy ammo you needed to join a gun club and prove to the membership and quartermaster that you are a responsible gun owner, including regular range practice and attendance.
It's not difficult to make your own ammunition.
Its quite a popular pass time for some.
Step father makes all his. Been a clay and dry powder enthusiast for years. His guns are in a Fort Knox style arrangement and he has lost hundeds of pounds in the various hand gun amnesties over the years. He is currently waiting his regular Police clearance again. He is 79 yrs old. It is a lifelong passion which he gets great enjoyment from. Making it harder for him and other respectable people will effect the criminal classes not a jot. Society is such that anything is "gettable" by foul means.
A fact that's been underlined via the NCA bust in Swanley and Medway, where they retrieved weapons from the same source as used in the Parisian terror attacks. Ex-Yugoslavian weapons that had been transported from the Balkans IIRC.
Criminals in the UK don't get a SGC/FAC and proceed to go to their nearest gun dealer, nor do they acquire legal weapons (i.e straight-fire weapons) and convert them. They get them, with seemingly ease, from dodgy people in dodgy areas who do dodgy things. The UK has responded to it's own issues - i.e handgun ownership after Dunblane - and as such legal gun ownership can work, albeit heavily restricted and quite troublesome to get in to.
It's a completely different situation with regards to the US, where I believe in certain states you can still acquire firearms at gun shows without any paperwork. I stand to be corrected on that, but my understanding is that gun shows (which are quite popular) do not have the requirement of checking a purchasers details. Similarly, you have sites like GunTrader - imagine Craigslist/Gumtree for guns.
You will never solve America's gun problem by banning or controlling guns - the words horse and bolted come to mind. It's the ammunition that would be far easier to control. There's no reason why any person or family needs to have more than a handful of bullets at any given time, if the self-defence angle is to be invoked. Doesn't take many to stop an intruder or a threat. Then make ammo sellers regulate themselves - you are legally responsible for any ammo you sell. If someone you sell ammo to goes on a murder spree, then you need to defend your justification for profiting off murder - what checks did you do? Were you 100% sure the person was responsible enough to own ammo? In fact if was up to me I'd make gun clubs responsible for selling ammo, if you wanted to buy ammo you needed to join a gun club and prove to the membership and quartermaster that you are a responsible gun owner, including regular range practice and attendance.
I'll repeat what I posted earlier. If there were a ban on ANY or ALL weapons in The U.S., what would be left after all of the legally owned weapons were turned in by law-abiding citizens? This is why the "Second Amendment" is being so protected.
Now I have to go to work!
Is anyone here clear on how many guns you can own in the UK?
It becomes surprising we don't get many incidents here when you look at this:
Especially when a .22 calibre round can kill with a single head shot under 200 meters.
It's weird how much we prime ourselves to kill ourselves.
They may be "legal" but I'm pretty sure that in most of the UK most of those can only be kept in a gun club under strict control and not in your own home. They tend to be used by Olympic shooters and the like. The NI thing is odd. My b-i-l has a certificate for his personal protection weapon. I believe that all NI prison officers are also currently "loaned" a handgun by the Govt. But there's peace, right? I sort of get the attraction to firearms. They are designed to be tactile, macho, sexy even. Boys and their toys... My sister's Glock 17 is a funny thing though. You'd swear it was a plastic toy until you found out how heavy it is. (17 rounds in the magazine plus one ready to go I recall). The US could probably solve their gun problem. Leave the law as it is but insist that all guns have to be pink. It would be interesting to see how many they sold then. But, hey, they are just for protection so no one would mind what colour they were would they?
I'll repeat what I posted earlier. If there were a ban on ANY or ALL weapons in The U.S., what would be left after all of the legally owned weapons were turned in by law-abiding citizens? This is why the "Second Amendment" is being so protected.
Now I have to go to work!
Is anyone here clear on how many guns you can own in the UK?
It becomes surprising we don't get many incidents here when you look at this:
Especially when a .22 calibre round can kill with a single head shot under 200 meters.
It's weird how much we prime ourselves to kill ourselves.
They may be "legal" but I'm pretty sure that in most of the UK most of those can only be kept in a gun club under strict control and not in your own home. They tend to be used by Olympic shooters and the like. The NI thing is odd. My b-i-l has a certificate for his personal protection weapon. I believe that all NI prison officers are also currently "loaned" a handgun by the Govt. But there's peace, right? I sort of get the attraction to firearms. They are designed to be tactile, macho, sexy even. Boys and their toys... My sister's Glock 17 is a funny thing though. You'd swear it was a plastic toy until you found out how heavy it is. (17 rounds in the magazine plus one ready to go I recall). The US could probably solve their gun problem. Leave the law as it is but insist that all guns have to be pink. It would be interesting to see how many they sold then. But, hey, they are just for protection so no one would mind what colour they were would they?
Nope
I do hope that is the case regarding kept at gun club etc...
years ago I was discussing the 'home invasion' point with a mate from Alabama. I mentioned the Tony Martin case as an example, the old farmer who shot and killed a teenage thief/burglar and wounded another one.
Martin was jailed for manslaughter as he had 'laid in wait' for the thieves and although they were in his house, he did not warn them (so it was claimed by the surviving trespasser) that he was armed.
My friend shook his head in wonder at the jailing. 'That happen in 'Bama we'd a gi 'im a medal' was his response to the Martin situation.
To compare attitudes in the USA which still has a frontier mentality with the UK where the state has a supposed 'monopoly on violence' is just futile
That's what made it so funny! They were so frightened they kept trying to smash it down for some reason. I didn't know whether to help them or try to keep them trapped.
In the end they worked it out and just pressed the bar!
Good job they weren't frightened because there was a fire.
Anyway, I woulda busted a cap in their ass' as a little momento for when they drank tea at @i_b_b_o_r_g 's desk
Granted, but purely out of interest, how easy would it be to make enough ammo for an "AR-15-type assault rifle" to kill or maim the best part of a hundred people? I am no expert on the matter but wouldn't homemade ammo have a higher risk of jamming or damaging the weapon?
I'll give you one guess what type of person runs a US gun club, and which organisation they're probably card-carrying members of. The only requirements they will have for you buying ammo will be a) cash and b) a pulse.
I think it is unfair to tar such people with the same brush. If the penalty for supplying ammo to a murderer without personally verifying that the person was a responsible member of your club was a massive fine and a lengthy jail sentence, I imagine they would either accept the responsibility or find someone else to do the job. I'm not saying my idea is perfect but surely better than ammo being sold in next to the Pepsi and sweeties in the supermarket, as appears to be the case in some areas of the USA?
Still can't quite bring myself to have the whole firearms regulation in America debate, because this feels like it's about so much more than that, it's an attack on a marginalized community.
I might be wrong, but don't the Canadians have just about as many guns per head as the US, yet their gun death figures are way less. Suggests it's a cultural thing. Though I could do some research instead of just guessing, I suppose.
I might be wrong, but don't the Canadians have just about as many guns per head as the US, yet their gun death figures are way less. Suggests it's a cultural thing. Though I could do some research instead of just guessing, I suppose.
My Swiss mate had a couple of assault rifles in his house when I lasted visited. My understanding is that every citizen has enough weaponry in their homes to repel an invasion but gun crime is relatively rare.
I might be wrong, but don't the Canadians have just about as many guns per head as the US, yet their gun death figures are way less. Suggests it's a cultural thing. Though I could do some research instead of just guessing, I suppose.
My Swiss mate had a couple of assault rifles in his house when I lasted visited. My understanding is that every citizen has enough weaponry in their homes to repel an invasion but gun crime is relatively rare.
In Switzerland don't they still have national service and everyone may have a gun but has been trained not only how but also when it is appropriate to use it?
In Switzerland don't they still have national service and everyone may have a gun but has been trained not only how but also when it is appropriate to use it?
Too right. No one's messing with my hoard of Nazi loot!
@limeygent I have a question for you. It's not intended to create or cause an argument. It's just a means of balancing opinion. It's (thankfully) a hypothetical question.
If someone breaks into your house and you shoot him dead, have you prevented a crime or committed one?
As per the law in his home country he has prevented.
He has the right to possess the weapons and a right to protect his home and family
So, even in the scenario I described, has he prevented a crime or committed one? Note, I didn't say whether the intruder was armed, neither did I say whether there was anyone else at home.
The point being, obviously, it's a ridiculous position to have a situation where an unarmed intruder, can be killed, but, apparently, this is not a crime.
What is ridiculous about it? What part of "Intruder" do you not get?
I think the key thing is that any response by a householder has to be proportionate to the threat they face. You can, and people have, killed intruders without criminal charge if the situation is such that a reasonable person could genuinely believe that their own, or their loved-one's, safety depended on such drastic measures. However, just the fact that you have an intruder is unlikely to be sufficient for that; like it or not, killing someone is not an appropriate level of reaction to someone just being in your house. Chizz specifically said 'unarmed'. Being unarmed obviously reduces the level of personal threat, but it doesn't mean that unarmed people can't be a threat. There are lots of other factors that would be taken into consideration as well. It's difficult to talk in the abstract like this though, as every situation is different.
Totally agree with this. The person being 'invaded' - or scared out of their wits is supposed to be able to work out whether they are armed with anything and what their intent is. They may be unarmed when they break in but who's to say they won't grab a kitchen knife or whatever and who realistically has the wherewithal to work through all that when they are woken up by somebody crashing into their home?
Comments
Should the vulnerable person, probably in a state of fear and panic thanks to the intruder have to wait and see whether it's 'him or me' and possibly never know or take any opportunity to strike while he or she can?
Is there not an argument that uninvited intruders put themselves at risk?
Criminals in the UK don't get a SGC/FAC and proceed to go to their nearest gun dealer, nor do they acquire legal weapons (i.e straight-fire weapons) and convert them. They get them, with seemingly ease, from dodgy people in dodgy areas who do dodgy things. The UK has responded to it's own issues - i.e handgun ownership after Dunblane - and as such legal gun ownership can work, albeit heavily restricted and quite troublesome to get in to.
It's a completely different situation with regards to the US, where I believe in certain states you can still acquire firearms at gun shows without any paperwork. I stand to be corrected on that, but my understanding is that gun shows (which are quite popular) do not have the requirement of checking a purchasers details. Similarly, you have sites like GunTrader - imagine Craigslist/Gumtree for guns.
They tend to be used by Olympic shooters and the like.
The NI thing is odd. My b-i-l has a certificate for his personal protection weapon. I believe that all NI prison officers are also currently "loaned" a handgun by the Govt. But there's peace, right?
I sort of get the attraction to firearms. They are designed to be tactile, macho, sexy even. Boys and their toys...
My sister's Glock 17 is a funny thing though. You'd swear it was a plastic toy until you found out how heavy it is. (17 rounds in the magazine plus one ready to go I recall).
The US could probably solve their gun problem. Leave the law as it is but insist that all guns have to be pink. It would be interesting to see how many they sold then. But, hey, they are just for protection so no one would mind what colour they were would they?
I do hope that is the case regarding kept at gun club etc...
Martin was jailed for manslaughter as he had 'laid in wait' for the thieves and although they were in his house, he did not warn them (so it was claimed by the surviving trespasser) that he was armed.
My friend shook his head in wonder at the jailing. 'That happen in 'Bama we'd a gi 'im a medal' was his response to the Martin situation.
To compare attitudes in the USA which still has a frontier mentality with the UK where the state has a supposed 'monopoly on violence' is just futile
Anyway, I woulda busted a cap in their ass' as a little momento for when they drank tea at @i_b_b_o_r_g 's desk
- When then?
- When there's not just been a shooting.
- When's that?
- Never.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518193/Guidance_on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_April_2016_v20.pdf
In skimming through posts, there are some things I want to bring to light:
1) We had bans on assault rifles and other weapons until around a decade ago
2) Same for background checks, and many states still do have these things
3) In light of one and two above, you're working to undo around a decade of precedence, not hundreds of years. I do think this is a genie that can still be put back in the bottle.
4) Interesting article from WashPo on public perception of guns in America
Sorry this is not more nuanced or articulate, there will be plenty of time for that.
Though I could do some research instead of just guessing, I suppose.
Was NOT intentional.
The person being 'invaded' - or scared out of their wits is supposed to be able to work out whether they are armed with anything and what their intent is. They may be unarmed when they break in but who's to say they won't grab a kitchen knife or whatever and who realistically has the wherewithal to work through all that when they are woken up by somebody crashing into their home?