OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Too bad you folks are so civilized... You would only have to have a mob
tar
and feather one magistrate, to put an end to such rulings... It is
terrible
to see our staunch allies in two world wars, emasculated so...

It's not the magistrates so much as the liberal judges. Anyway,
the Brits aren't doing badly in Iraq, so there's still fire there.


"Tony Cox" wrote in message
. net...

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tony Martin. He
was a home owner who dispatched a low-life home invader
with his shotgun. He was convicted of murder, reduced to
manslaughter on appeal, and denied parole as he was deemed
"a danger to burglars". The public outcry is such that now
37% (BBC Radio 4 poll) think that a law to allow householders
to use any means to confront burglars is called for. So things
may well change for the better.

Arguing over gun control and calling each other names doesn't help the
conversation, does it? The US does things their way, the UK does
things their way - what's right for one isn't necessarily right for
the other.

On the question of the sky marshals, the main reason for the UK pilots
opposing them is not, as I understand, a fear of guns per se. The
government has said the sky marshals will only be used on flights
where there is a perceived threat to that flight; the pilots are
saying that if there's a known threat, they're not going to fly with
or without marshals, which is, they say (and I tend to agree) the
safest option for all concerned.

Now some might say fly anyway and let the marshals take care of
things, but they're not the ones (the aircraft captains) who are
responsible for several hundred lives in the air and, as per 9/11,
thousands on the ground.

Peter Stokes

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
. net...
What the Brits have traded (mostly without realizing it) is a
slightly lower gun homicide rate (those previously-legal-gun
owners who go postal) in exchange for a vastly enhanced
rate for burglary and other crime. It seems like a bad bargain
to me.

No, no, there is no trade. The British have never had handguns
in the home or concealed on their person for protection. Never.
Not before, not after. The law didn't come in and make everyone
give up their handguns. We didn't have them before. This is not
the reason for burglary figures.

In fact (repeating again)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/975561.stm

Since handguns were banned in 1997, crime went down by
10%, with burglary down by 21%. I don't know where people
keep getting the idea that burglaries, etc, went up, let alone
be "vastly enhanced". I'd be the first person to say that the
drop had absolutely nothing to do with banning handguns
though.

But I'm surprised no one has mentioned Tony Martin. He
was a home owner who dispatched a low-life home invader
with his shotgun. He was convicted of murder, reduced to
manslaughter on appeal, and denied parole as he was deemed
"a danger to burglars". The public outcry is such that now
37% (BBC Radio 4 poll) think that a law to allow householders
to use any means to confront burglars is called for. So things
may well change for the better.

Tony Martin was a farmer and had a shotgun. Farmers (and
anyone else who has a locked gun cabinet) could own a shotgun
before. And they still can. I think Mr Martin should have been
acquitted. In my opinion he was fearful of his safety. However
I think the conviction had something to do with the fact that he
shot the burglar in the back while he was running away. When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The other burglar was going to sue him, but dropped the case
because of a huge public outcry.

As for what's happened since WWII, I think you'll find people
didn't have guns in the house back then either. But you'll find the
British forces are just as good as they ever were.

Paul

Nomen Nescio wrote:

Which basically means that if they get in trouble again (like WW II),
they'll have to beg us "gun toting Americans" to save their asses, again.

What a bizarre view of history. Prior to the welcome arrival of
American troops, the British had fought for three years, managing to
rebuff the numerically superior German Air Force in the Battle of
Britain, and endured devastating bombing of their cities during the
Blitz. Don't downplay their accomplishments by chest-beating
nationalistic pride. That's how wars start in the first place, and an
attitude that most people hopefully outgrow in high school.

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Nomen Nescio wrote:

Which basically means that if they get in trouble again (like WW II),
they'll have to beg us "gun toting Americans" to save their asses,
again.

What a bizarre view of history.

Well, it's difficult to fight over 60 years of Americans being taught a
rather Ameri-centric view of WWII and of world affairs in general,
both through schools and through the American media. History
continues to be re-written by Hollywood to this day.

America's role in WWII in Europe shouldn't be underplayed though.
To do so would be a disservice to those who participated. The US
kept Britain fed with the Atlantic convoys. Without the US, the
counter attack on the Germans may have been rather different, and
the latter half of the 20th century may have been rather different, with
at best the USSR coming further west in their German invasion.
Would the UK have been able to drive anywhere into mainland
Europe without the help of the US?

Paul

Nomen Nescio ] writes:

From: "Paul Sengupta"

As for what's happened since WWII, I think you'll find people
didn't have guns in the house back then either. But you'll find the
British forces are just as good as they ever were.

Which basically means that if they get in trouble again (like WW
II), they'll have to beg us "gun toting Americans" to save their
asses, again.

I'm as supportive as pretty much anyone of gun rights and self-defense
(I'm an NRA certified instructor for basic pistol and personal
protection in the home and an aacfi certified instructor for Minnesota
carry, and I have a Minnesota carry permit), but I really don't see
that our ability to own guns privately had much of anything to do with
our ability to fight in WWII. That was mostly our industrial capacity
-- and the fact that our productive areas were out of reach of both
opponents didn't hurt any either.

Anecdotally, I hear the army found it easier to teach people to shoot
who *didn't* have previous experience; they didn't have anything to
unlearn.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

In article , "Paul Sengupta"
writes:

When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The Government can appeal an aquittal in Britain?

Here, in the States, if you are aquitted, that's it. No double jeopardy, no
second guessing of a finding of fact by a jury, only appeals of procedural
error.

Don


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote in message ...
In article , "Paul Sengupta"
writes:

When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The Government can appeal an aquittal in Britain?

Here, in the States, if you are aquitted, that's it. No double jeopardy, no
second guessing of a finding of fact by a jury, only appeals of procedural
error.

The principle of the prohibition on double jeopardy in the U.S. Constitution was
actually based on British law. Britain does have a prohibition against trying someone
anew for the same crime he has previously been acquitted. However, in certain cases
the prosecution does have avenues to appeal the acquittal (sort of an extension of the
first prosecution, not a second trial).

There has been move afoot both in the UK and in some other areas of the commonwealth
(such as Australia) to further broaden the cases where prosecution appeals could be made.
Some of this is internally generated by an attempt to increase the ability to combat serious
crime in the light of new evidence such as DNA testing. Part is also that bringing British
law in line with the EU law considerably weakens the double jeopardy and certain other
long standing principles of British law.

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...

No, no, there is no trade. The British have never had handguns
in the home or concealed on their person for protection. Never.

My grandfather did. So did most of his friends. As I remember,
the restrictions started shortly after the "Red letter scare" in the
20's when the government became worried about communists.


Tony Martin was a farmer and had a shotgun. Farmers (and
anyone else who has a locked gun cabinet) could own a shotgun
before. And they still can. I think Mr Martin should have been
acquitted. In my opinion he was fearful of his safety. However
I think the conviction had something to do with the fact that he
shot the burglar in the back while he was running away. When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The other burglar was going to sue him, but dropped the case
because of a huge public outcry.

The other burglar was going to sue because Martin allegedly
disabled him. He dropped the case only because a some tabloid
newspaper reporter caught him doing press-ups in the gym.
His 'case' was financed by legal aid (free for the poor). Martin
had to pay his own costs for defense.

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...
In article , "Paul Sengupta"
writes:

When
he was first acquitted (before appeal) there was huge public
support for him.

The Government can appeal an aquittal in Britain?


Not as far as I'm aware. Same double jeopardy rule.

But Paul is wrong. Martin was convicted of murder, not
acquitted. He appealed and the conviction was reduced to
manslaughter. He is right about the substantial public
support, especially in the shires where (as it happens) my
parents live.