New U.K. Gun Law.

[-Samurai-]

Here in Ohio(and in many, many other states) we have what's called the Castle Doctrine. It states that if someone breaks into my home(and has now been extended to vehicles as well) and they give me a legitimate reason to fear for my life, or that of my family, I have the right to put them down for good, and can suffer no legal consequences from it(aside from the intruders family trying to wrongfully sue).

So, if someone breaks into my house brandishing an ice cream scoop, and I have a legitimate fear of being killed by it, I have the right to blow him away.

That is what I was getting at. You seem to have read my comment and instantly assumed the worst on every level. Do you go around looking for things to be offended by? I have noticed a tendency for people to suddenly get ultra defensive and see insults or attacks where there are none when it comes to gun control. It makes you look paranoid.


You find it that restrictive that you have to come out with the old 'holy crap, glad I don't live in your country' routine? You don't like those restrictions, fine but again the manner in which you say it basically makes me feel like responding with the old...'holy crap glad I don't live in your country with its 2-3x as many murders'

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

You quoted me correcting someone else concerning the laws in the States and somehow applied it to yourself, when I had actually said nothing at all to you or about what you said in that section of my post.

I think you need to go back and look at who, and more importantly, what, I quoted, and realize that you've made some sort of very large mistake, and now look like a fool because of it.

There's a reason I put "OT:" in front of the part concerning the topic.

 

[jasoncyrus]

But anyway, I don't really see the problem with having to get a higher rated certificate (aside from the cost, thats ridiculous for a piece of fricken paper).

For sure, there obviously needs to be some level of control. You have to register your car but nobody complains. I'm not too sure on law in the UK, but having to register, sure. Background check, sure. Psych eval? Maybe pushing it a bit there. Having to give a need? Ridiculous. Lots of money? Pure and utter bullshit.

It happens in the US as well though. Folks pushing an agenda at any cost. Can't get something banned all together? Legislate gobs and gobs of minor restrictions to just increase the difficulty and expense.

Somewhere there is a line between control for the sake of sensible control, and control as an attempt to eliminate an activity.

If you have to give a valid reason as to *why* you want a gun, imo you have drifted beyond reasonable control, unless your willing to hear "cuz I want one" as a reason.

To be honest, the "Why do you need such and such" should be the first question on any liscence. Just to throw people off balance. Especially with extremely dangerous things such as guns whos sole purpose is to destroy things.

No. No. No. You don't need a reason to exercise a privilege. If someone is going to go through the hassle of the background check, and whatever hoops you set in front of them, that is enough. Short of the guy saying "I want this gun so I can go on a rampage and kill people" it's not anybodies business. And as mental soundness is already a consideration in gun ownership, that is covered.

Nobody "needs" a gun, just like nobody "needs" any other recreational item. You don't "need" that video game, that icecream cone, or that margarita. You don't "need" 95% of your possessions to be sure. Doesn't mean they should be withheld.

Ummm i think you mean you dont need a reason to exercise a RIGHT. A privilege is something you have to earn, and thus are rightly so to be asked what you want it for.

 

[manaman]

Automatic firearms are not illegal in the states. They require $300 tax stamp and an FBI check and you to can have the same fire power that the government allows it's people to have.

There are exemptions, buy you would be hard pressed to find a county aside form some of the extremely rural places that will allow you to keep an automatic weapon. The difference is federal rights and states rights. The federal goverment cannot come into a state and tell them that things cannot be illegal unless they violate the constitution. In fact federal money given to states is more often then the key to getting the states to fall in line with the federal goverment on things, as if they don't like something a state does they make it a part of whatever program it fits into, and stop giving money to the state until they remedy the situation. Besides the Gun Control Act of 1968 banned the sale of newly manufactured automatic firearms to private civilians. You can still get a hold of a pre 1968 firearm, but all there is is all there and are nearly all held in private collections.

the family car?

Aha! There is so much death on the roads in America, the same basic logic should apply to cars as much as guns right? How many crimes have cars been involved with as runaway vehicles? Shouldn't then, using the same logic, cars be banned?

People are trying to blame the tools for the fault, rather than the craftsmen.

The traffic accident death rate in the US is 12.6. The total firearm related death rate is 11.66, unless you want to discount suicides, then it's 7.07.

Though I did mention the death toll on US roads, I didn't explicitly mean accident related deaths in crime, which may have lent itself to you misunderstanding my point. I meant ALL forms of crime, from robbery, to traffic violations, to hit and runs, to the car being used as a getaway vehicle after a murder, and beyond. There is so much crime that involves a vehicle at some point, that, using the same logic, should mean a ban of vehicles should stop those crimes.

Of course, the principle proves itself to be inherently flawed. The car, the gun, the knife, the spatula, the pool stick, the hammer, and the bathtub are completely innocent of actually causing any crime involving their use. The idea of banning them for their involvement is idiocy because it doesn't prevent somebody from just using something else. Take away a gun, and a determined murderer will use a knife, or a rope, or his bare hands.

EDIT: I would also like to see where you got those statistics please. I thought accident related deaths were at about 5% and homicides under 1%, and heart disease around 25%. Should we ban hearts because most people die from their failure per year than any other cause?

Those are ratios. The ratios are the number per 100,000 it's how nearly every country marks their country wide statistics, so I didn't elaborate on it much. It's not an overall percentage of total deaths because that doesn't mean much outside the country in question. You can find all the statistics on Wikipedia, you just have to be careful when you look around if the date the statistic was taken is not listed. They have gone to great lengths to correct this problem, you used to be able to find statistics from all over the late 80s to the early 2000's. Real statistics, but you can't use them to compare against each other.

As for the rest of that, traffic deaths usually means deaths related to vehicles, but in some areas excludes deaths related to vehicles not operating on public roads still it's a fairly good indicator of how many people died because of operating vehicles. I still get where you are coming from. Another poster makes a great point when he compares alcohol to firearms in much the same way.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

You quoted me correcting someone else concerning the laws in the States and somehow applied it to yourself, when I had actually said nothing at all to you or about what you said in that section of my post.

I think you need to go back and look at who, and more importantly, what, I quoted, and realize that you've made some sort of very large mistake, and now look like a fool because of it.

There's a reason I put "OT:" in front of the part concerning the topic.

I wasn't talking to you, I was using your post as an example of what I meant.

I think you need to go back, and read the whole of my post and then realise that you have made a mistake and now look like a bit of a fool because of it.

I put a : at the end of sentence before I quoted you for a reason.

 

[MartialArc]

But anyway, I don't really see the problem with having to get a higher rated certificate (aside from the cost, thats ridiculous for a piece of fricken paper).

For sure, there obviously needs to be some level of control. You have to register your car but nobody complains. I'm not too sure on law in the UK, but having to register, sure. Background check, sure. Psych eval? Maybe pushing it a bit there. Having to give a need? Ridiculous. Lots of money? Pure and utter bullshit.

It happens in the US as well though. Folks pushing an agenda at any cost. Can't get something banned all together? Legislate gobs and gobs of minor restrictions to just increase the difficulty and expense.

Somewhere there is a line between control for the sake of sensible control, and control as an attempt to eliminate an activity.

If you have to give a valid reason as to *why* you want a gun, imo you have drifted beyond reasonable control, unless your willing to hear "cuz I want one" as a reason.

To be honest, the "Why do you need such and such" should be the first question on any liscence. Just to throw people off balance. Especially with extremely dangerous things such as guns whos sole purpose is to destroy things.

No. No. No. You don't need a reason to exercise a privilege. If someone is going to go through the hassle of the background check, and whatever hoops you set in front of them, that is enough. Short of the guy saying "I want this gun so I can go on a rampage and kill people" it's not anybodies business. And as mental soundness is already a consideration in gun ownership, that is covered.

Nobody "needs" a gun, just like nobody "needs" any other recreational item. You don't "need" that video game, that icecream cone, or that margarita. You don't "need" 95% of your possessions to be sure. Doesn't mean they should be withheld.

Ummm i think you mean you dont need a reason to exercise a RIGHT. A privilege is something you have to earn, and thus are rightly so to be asked what you want it for.

I mean privilege. You have surprisingly little in the way of "rights." You don't have a "right" to own a gun, even in the US. It is a privilege that can be revoked, just like the privilege to drive a car, or exist outside of a prison. Generally privileges are afforded on the contingency you play by the rules. Anyone can get a driving license by passing their test. They don't ask why you need to drive, or where you will go. Provided you don't break the rules, you are permitted to exercise your privilege as you see fit. You wouldn't accept having to give a reason to buy a set of lawn darts, get your driving license, have a drink, or probably anything else you yourself enjoy. Why then would you insist others give a reason to buy a gun?

 

[-Samurai-]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

You quoted me correcting someone else concerning the laws in the States and somehow applied it to yourself, when I had actually said nothing at all to you or about what you said in that section of my post.

I think you need to go back and look at who, and more importantly, what, I quoted, and realize that you've made some sort of very large mistake, and now look like a fool because of it.

There's a reason I put "OT:" in front of the part concerning the topic.

I wasn't talking to you, I was using your post as an example of what I meant.

I think you need to go back, and read the whole of my post and then realisze that you have made a mistake and now look like a bit of a fool because of it.

Didn't see the semicolon after the "however" and assumed you were moving on to what I had said.

My mistake, and there's no getting around that.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

You quoted me correcting someone else concerning the laws in the States and somehow applied it to yourself, when I had actually said nothing at all to you or about what you said in that section of my post.

I think you need to go back and look at who, and more importantly, what, I quoted, and realize that you've made some sort of very large mistake, and now look like a fool because of it.

There's a reason I put "OT:" in front of the part concerning the topic.

I wasn't talking to you, I was using your post as an example of what I meant.

I think you need to go back, and read the whole of my post and then realisze that you have made a mistake and now look like a bit of a fool because of it.

Didn't see the semicolon after the "however" and assumed you were moving on to what I had said.

My mistake, and there's no getting around that.

I'm English. REALISE. You really do like jumping the gun don't you?

 

[David Bray]

A gun is a gun is a gun. Every projectile weapon capable of murder should be registered under the full extent of the law.

Personally, the idea of even having them in the country seems stupid but that's licencing laws for you.

Huzzah for this. I can feel mildly safer. No where near as close as i should though.

 

[-Samurai-]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

You quoted me correcting someone else concerning the laws in the States and somehow applied it to yourself, when I had actually said nothing at all to you or about what you said in that section of my post.

I think you need to go back and look at who, and more importantly, what, I quoted, and realize that you've made some sort of very large mistake, and now look like a fool because of it.

There's a reason I put "OT:" in front of the part concerning the topic.

I wasn't talking to you, I was using your post as an example of what I meant.

I think you need to go back, and read the whole of my post and then realisze that you have made a mistake and now look like a bit of a fool because of it.

Didn't see the semicolon after the "however" and assumed you were moving on to what I had said.

My mistake, and there's no getting around that.

I'm English. REALISE. You really do like jumping the gun don't you?

They're technically both correct.

Yes, I know the origins of both. No, I don't care where you're from. I like the z. Get over it.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

You quoted me correcting someone else concerning the laws in the States and somehow applied it to yourself, when I had actually said nothing at all to you or about what you said in that section of my post.

I think you need to go back and look at who, and more importantly, what, I quoted, and realize that you've made some sort of very large mistake, and now look like a fool because of it.

There's a reason I put "OT:" in front of the part concerning the topic.

I wasn't talking to you, I was using your post as an example of what I meant.

I think you need to go back, and read the whole of my post and then realisze that you have made a mistake and now look like a bit of a fool because of it.

Didn't see the semicolon after the "however" and assumed you were moving on to what I had said.

My mistake, and there's no getting around that.

I'm English. REALISE. You really do like jumping the gun don't you?

They're technically both correct.

Yes, I know the origins of both. No, I don't care where you're from. I like the z. Get over it.

You're the one that 'corrected' my spelling. You are free to use z as much as you like, I didn't 'correct' your post, don't go 'correcting' mine. I use s. Get over it.

 

[manaman]

I get a bit put off by the fact that you find it so easy consider the entirety of the US bloodthirsty. No I wasn't thinking that was a conscious malicious act on your part, so I didn't respond in kind, but it does bring out a bit more the less friendly side of me.

To answer your questions I understand perfectly well that in this usage of the word an intruder is a person that enters property, or a building without permission of the owner. I was taking your statement to extremes to prove how faulty it was, after all how does someone after the fact know the difference between an intruder and a person invited inside?

As for restrictions, yes I find being forced to register at a gun club, having to follow specific highly restrictive transportation rules, and having to purchase two separate safes that are secured to the floor and then to submit to babysitting by the goverment on top of it to be restrictive. Background checks for guns, licenses to carry handguns, those types of restrictions I am perfectly okay with. Do I have gun safes? Yes, I actually have three of them, but none of them are mounted to the floor. I also have several guns in a few display cases, and I have an antique side by side 12ga shotgun mounted on a wall, it doesn't fire anymore but that doesn't matter.

And I get a bit put off by deliberately snarky comments like yours.

I am also well aware that you can't just blow away anyone for any reason, however:

Here in Ohio(and in many, many other states) we have what's called the Castle Doctrine. It states that if someone breaks into my home(and has now been extended to vehicles as well) and they give me a legitimate reason to fear for my life, or that of my family, I have the right to put them down for good, and can suffer no legal consequences from it(aside from the intruders family trying to wrongfully sue).

So, if someone breaks into my house brandishing an ice cream scoop, and I have a legitimate fear of being killed by it, I have the right to blow him away.

That is what I was getting at. You seem to have read my comment and instantly assumed the worst on every level. Do you go around looking for things to be offended by? I have noticed a tendency for people to suddenly get ultra defensive and see insults or attacks where there are none when it comes to gun control. It makes you look paranoid.


You find it that restrictive that you have to come out with the old 'holy crap, glad I don't live in your country' routine? You don't like those restrictions, fine but again the manner in which you say it basically makes me feel like responding with the old...'holy crap glad I don't live in your country with its 2-3x as many murders'

Your country has six times the rate of violent crime. You know since you wanted to stick numbers out there. I find those laws intrusively restrictive for no real justifiable reason. Sure they lower gun deaths, but that's not he homicide rate, that's just a subsection of that rate. Canada has a comparable homicide rate, and much less restrictive gun laws that allow nearly anyone access to a firearm Canada has the second highest gun ownership rates among industrialized nations. Russia has much more restrictive gun laws and yet they have a homicide rate three times that of the US. US homicide rate is somewhat high for a western country, but much lower then the world wide average and has been decreasing steadily for years despite the last decade actually decreasing gun legislation. Russia however comes in at double that world average. Overall Europe currently has the same homicide rate as the US, and much stricter gun laws. South Africa is possibly the bloodiest westernized country in the world with a homicide rate of 37 (rates are all per 100,000), and extraordinarily restrictive gun laws. Note that South Africa has a lower violent crime rate then the UK, the UK actually has the highest violent crime rate out of all industrialized nations.

Also that poster is one of many that is mistaken. There is still excessive forces clauses to that. Ohio is not exempt. Should that poster actually kill a person brandishing an ice cream scoop at them they would be carted off to jail. Those types of laws exist only to codify what actions may be taken in personal defense. The law is merely stating that lethal force is an acceptable defense when your own life is in peril and that you don't need to retreat from an intruder. It also give immunity to civil suits from death or injury resulting from trying to protect yourself from harm by an intruder there with the intent of committing a crime.

In other-words if a person breaks into your home to steal something, or to assault you (a felony) and you did not provoke them into it (as in smack them in the head then run into your house), you can confront them and tell them to leave. If they then threaten serious bodily harm (there as loss of limb, or other major injuries may not lead to death, but you should still be able to defend yourself form them, not there to justify killing someone because they punched you in the face) or death you have the right to defend yourself, even if defense ultimately leads to the death of the intruder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

This is a difference of culture. In the US a persons property is theirs, and in most places we don't feel that allowing people free reign on your property with retreat clauses is the way to go. Other then that I doubt anyone will disagree that people have a right to protect themselves from others with harmful intentions.

It becomes hard to allow law abiding citizens to own gun and at the same time keep them out of the hands of criminals, in fact harsher enforcement of existing gun laws would probably accomplish the same much of what they wish to do with new legislation in the US. Do you ban guns completely? What about cars which contribute to crime, and kill more people each year? You want to argue cars provide a benefit then what about alcohol which provides no real benefits? Alcohol has detrimental effects on a person and contributes to more deaths each year then guns.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Thank Goodness I live .....
[img width= 400 size]http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs48/f/2009/185/c/3/Happy_Fourth_of_July____by_neooki23.jpg[/img]

 

[MartialArc]

Alcohol has detrimental effects on a person and contributes to more deaths each year then guns.

Pretty much my point. To boot many gun deaths involve alcohol. Though I don't want to single alcohol out, many, many, activities human beings engage in have the potential to cause harm to others. And for like the 100th time (since people seem to completely ignore it) in 2009 the UK lost 10x as many lives to alcohol, just in the form of drunk driving. So claiming you feel "safer" with an additional gun law is frankly quite stupid. There are many wondrous ways you might meet your demise at the hands of another person, but few of them will involve a gun. The majority will involve a bottle or a cell phone, in combination with a large wheeled steel cage.

Alcohol, cell phones, and rolling steel cages though will skate by since a large majority partake. Guns will be chastised, simply because the majority do not partake or understand.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Your country has six times the rate of *SNIP*

Also that poster is one of many that is mistaken. There is still excessive forces clauses to that. Ohio is not exempt. Should that poster actually kill a person brandishing an ice cream scoop at them they would be carted off to jail. Those types of laws exist only to codify what actions may be taken in personal defense. The law is merely stating that lethal force is an acceptable defense when your own life is in peril and that you don't need to retreat from an intruder. It also give immunity to civil suits from death or injury resulting from trying to protect yourself from harm by an intruder there with the intent of committing a crime.

In other-words if a person breaks into your home to steal something, or to assault you (a felony) and you did not provoke them into it (as in smack them in the head then run into your house), you can confront them and tell them to leave. If they then threaten serious bodily harm (there as loss of limb, or other major injuries may not lead to death, but you should still be able to defend yourself form them, not there to justify killing someone because they punched you in the face) or death you have the right to defend yourself, even if defense ultimately leads to the death of the intruder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

This is a difference of culture. In the US a persons property is theirs, and in most places we don't feel that allowing people free reign on your property with retreat clauses is the way to go. Other then that I doubt anyone will disagree that people have a right to protect themselves from others with harmful intentions.

It becomes hard to allow law abiding citizens to own gun and at the same time keep them out of the hands of criminals, in fact harsher enforcement of existing gun laws would probably accomplish the same much of what they wish to do with new legislation in the US. Do you ban guns completely? What about cars which contribute to crime, and kill more people each year? You want to argue cars provide a benefit then what about alcohol which provides no real benefits? Alcohol has detrimental effects on a person and contributes to more deaths each year then guns.

No, I didn't want to bring numbers into it, I was just saying that dickish comments make me want to respond with more dickish comments. However, given the choice between a greater chance of getting into a punch up and a greater chance of being killed I'll pick the former thanks. If you wish to live in a country where as an individual you are allowed to carry around a firearm then good for you.

Second paragraph was interesting, thank you.

Yes, which is why the US gun laws suit the US and UK gun laws suit the UK.

 

[manaman]

A gun is a gun is a gun. Every projectile weapon capable of murder should be registered under the full extent of the law.

Personally, the idea of even having them in the country seems stupid but that's licencing laws for you.

Huzzah for this. I can feel mildly safer. No where near as close as i should though.

Your chances of dying in your workplace are higher then your chances of getting shot in most countries the US included.

Your chances of dying on your morning commute are higher then your chances of getting shot, even in the US.

Why this culture of fear exists for firearms and not for cars, is apparently, but still somewhat confusing. It's a matter of experience, you are told how dangerous firearms are, but never see them enough for positive reinforcement (as in firing one hundreds of times with no problems) to kick in and tell you they are just a machine like many other machines people use. A tool that can be used for pleasure or harm. With vehicles however there is no negative reinforcement because you spent years driving without you yourself being in an accident, and the wrecks you pass every few days are soon put out of mind after passing them.

The historic "wild west" of the US where firearms where exceptionally common, was actually safer then urban areas of the US at the time where carrying firearms was far less common. Boston had a far higher murder rate then any place in the Old west. Even the infamous Tombstone the location of the O.K. corral shootout had a lower homicide rate then the urban areas of the US.

Murder is a more a cultural thing then the access to tools.

 

[Squeaky]

Well, I wish to own a gun, but I'm not paying a few hundred quid for it.

Besides, I'd only use it for house protection; since its so expensive a good claw hammer, knife or baseball bat will do the same thing...

Won't you get completely fucked over for using a gun for home defence, anyway? I thought the UK was very hypocrital about stuff like that.

OT: I'm not interested in shooting in the slightest, so it doesn't bother me. I can see why some people might be angry about it though.

If its not premeditated and, the main thing is you can only use force equivilant to the threat. If i remember right so digging a spike pit is a no no.

 

[-Samurai-]

Also that poster is one of many that is mistaken. There is still excessive forces clauses to that. Ohio is not exempt. Should that poster actually kill a person brandishing an ice cream scoop at them they would be carted off to jail. Those types of laws exist only to codify what actions may be taken in personal defense. The law is merely stating that lethal force is an acceptable defense when your own life is in peril and that you don't need to retreat from an intruder. It also give immunity to civil suits from death or injury resulting from trying to protect yourself from harm by an intruder there with the intent of committing a crime.

In other-words if a person breaks into your home to steal something, or to assault you (a felony) and you did not provoke them into it (as in smack them in the head then run into your house), you can confront them and tell them to leave. If they then threaten serious bodily harm (there as loss of limb, or other major injuries may not lead to death, but you should still be able to defend yourself form them, not there to justify killing someone because they punched you in the face) or death you have the right to defend yourself, even if defense ultimately leads to the death of the intruder.

To be fair, you should see the ice cream scoop we bought 2 years ago. The thing is about 3-5 pounds and made of solid metal. You could easily use it to kill a person.

Although not exactly the best example, it works....somewhat. I understand that not everyone knows about this ridiculous scoop.

I never agreed with the clause that(in some states) says you have to make an attempt to flee before defending yourself. My property is my property, and is worth more than the life of some would-be criminal. But that's not what this thread is about.

 

[manaman]

snip
No, I didn't want to bring numbers into it, I was just saying that dickish comments make me want to respond with more dickish comments. However, given the choice between a greater chance of getting into a punch up and a greater chance of being killed I'll pick the former thanks. If you wish to live in a country where as an individual you are allowed to carry around a firearm then good for you.

Second paragraph was interesting, thank you.

Yes, which is why the US gun laws suit the US and UK gun laws suit the UK.

I didn't have to go as in depth as I did learning the laws related to gun defense, and control as I did when I got my carry permit, but I figured if I was going to carry a handgun with me I damn well better know when and when not it is legal for me to use it or even to draw it. I find individuals carrying firearms within reason to be no more deadly (and proven by numbers) then allowing people to drink, or allowing them to drive. I say within reason because for sure you don't want someone driving drunk. Just like you don't want someone with a history of mental illness, or a history of violence owning firearms. I also don't have a firearm because I fear for my life. I just figure that I can safely handle a firearm, I was in the military and was trained, I know the laws surrounding carrying a firearm, so why not.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Actually Texas has one of the oldest retreat laws on the books. Several states have laws that in the event of an intruder you are to retreat to a safe room in the house and contact the police, you are not to confront the intruder if at all possible. The enforcement of the law varies by country (more rural counties ignore it, and more urbanized areas tend to ignore it unless things escalate). Texas is not traditionally an open carry state, the gun culture that many find stereotypical of Texas is not really present to any greater extent then most places, and if you shoot an unarmed intruder in the back there you are going to jail for excessive force just like anywhere. In fact during the short time Texas was a country they banned guns because of the large numbers of Mexicans still in the newly formed country after the war with Mexico, and they feared revolt destabilizing the new country.

This isn't true at all, given that a "no retreat" law was <a href=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/03/texas-governor-signs-shoot-first-law.php> signed in 2007.