If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... In fact he was cleared of manslaughter on appeal. Keith Keith - my apologies, you are quite right. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
: "Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "Paul J. Adam" wrote in : Absolutely true: but it's a poor advertisment for the idea that a few thousand weapons would transform the UK and turn it into a crime-free paradise. Never claimed it would.It would allow ODCs to defend themselves with less risk to themselves,though.Especially the elderly,infirm. Not if the criminals are aggressive, armed and practiced, and the ODCs are not. It takes hard work, practice and a lot of rounds to become proficient with a handgun. Well,that's NOT the way it's been here in the US,and I doubt that UK criminals are any different.I've read of plenty of examples of elderly people using handguns well enough without any extensive training. It's simply not that hard to use a handgun. I challenge him and he starts to run. Can I shoot him? If not, how do I detain him? If he runs towards you,then you shoot him.If he runs away,then he gets away. So in other words, exactly the same as in the UK: if I see him he runs away. Depends on how close he is to you,too. Why does adding firearms to the mix help matters? He grabs it off a shelf in a supermarket and runs for the exit. Can I shoot him? I see where you are going here,and I'm not playing that game. Dodging the question, Jim? No,you're trying to pin me down with a dumb question.I'm not playing that game. Someone snatches a loaf of bread and runs away. How many rounds are you allowed to fire at his fleeing back, to prevent the theft? How much risk are you allowed to take? If they're running through a crowd, how many bystanders are you permitted to hit before your use of force becomes "unreasonable"? No, he committed premeditated murder, and a jury agreed. Well,one of your appeasing jurys ruled that way. They saw the evidence, noted that the defended lied repeatedly, and drew their own conclusions. That's the point of juries, Jim, they're selected from your peers. If Martin had called the police and presented them with a corpse whose wound was in the chest, he'd maybe have been hit for the illegal firearm. In the US,many jurys would rule justifiable homicide.Some places would not even bring charges. So, shooting fleeing and unarmed boys in the back and lying to the police is acceptable behaviour in the US? Lying,no.Shooting those two after repeated burglaries with police being useless would be "justifiable homicide" in many parts of the US. (He'd have been acquitted if he'd ceased fire when they fled: he might even have been acquitted or had the charges downgraded if he'd told the truth. But to (a) pursue the intruders and continue firing when they were in headlong flight, and (b) to lie about events both to the police and to the court, convinced the jury that he wasn't acting to defend himself but had planned and prepared to kill.) And that's about the only way his burglaries would have been stopped.The police failed him. Sure, and nobody's denied it. On the other hand he was notably eccentric, refused to fit the most basic security, and contributed a lot to his own misfortune. You're entitled not to have your car stolen, but part of the deal is not leaving it parked with the window open, door unlocked and keys in the ignition. And I doubt he left the keys in his door locks,or windows open after repeated burglaries. Sitting up in the night with an illegal weapon waiting for intruders so you can go downstairs and kill them (and then claim never to have left your room)... that's not self-defence, that's premeditated murder. Justifiable homicide.Police could do noting for him,he had no other recourse.Why should he have to turn his home into a prison? Again, I can only presume life is much more difficult and dangerous where you live, that so much theft happens in plain sight and unprevented. Property theft here is done where nobody's looking, so issuing firearms wouldn't help. So,you are saying there's no at-home burglaries in the UK? No, just that they're generally rare enough to make newspaper headlines. Well,I believe that they would not make newspaper headlines,but that does not mean they don't happen.Heck,many people,especially the elderly are embarassed that they were victimized,and don't report such crimes. Iknow George Harrison would have benefitted from having a handgun when that intruder entered his home. Sure - how many years ago was that? He's been dead and buried for a while, Jim. Don't you have any new examples? Or is life in the UK actually a lot quieter and safer than your NRA tracts would like you to believe? Why should the passage of time make that example any less valid? I don't keep up on what happens in the UK,that's just the most visible and remembered incident I know of.You still haven't refuted it after all this time,either. Maybe he (and his wife)wouldn't have been stabbed so many times. Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had the option been open to him - ever pause to consider that? well,sure,it's his choice(or it would be,if UK alowed it) to be armed(and prepared for such things,especially after the Queen having an intruder in her bedroom,and Lennon getting killed.) But peaceniks have a habit of changing their position after they've been attacked or threatened,and they find out what the police CAN'T do for their security. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
: "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had the option been open to him - ever pause to consider that? Its also worth recalling that the attacker was a paranoid schizophrenic with an obsession about harrison and not a common burglar and had no previous criminal record. In the US he like the the man who shot John Lennon would have had access to a more lethal weapon than a knife. Even in UK,people CAN get or MAKE guns if they choose to,if they know where to go. He was released in 2002 having responded to treatment and had been symptom free for 2 years. Keith How reassuring.(not) -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
: "Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "Paul J. Adam" wrote in : Of course, and always have been, but they don't get used for burglary. Because they know they are safe,protected by UK's laws against self- defense,at the expense of the citizenry. Or because they can't afford guns, because if they had that sort of cash they wouldn't be out burgling or nicking car stereos. And because if they *had* a gun they'd use it for something more lucrative. Appeasement,that's what it is. If you think any intruder in my house is safe, then come and try to break in. Stop trying to tell us what life's like here. Well,just because YOU are so capable,doesn't mean that everyone else is,nor should they be restricted by your self-limitations. delete elephant nonsense. But actually,in parts of the US,attacks by large animals such as bears or cougars is a fair possibility. Yep, there's a thread on the subject elsewhere. If I were living in the US I'd eagerly investigate the options for acquiring a firearm or two: mostly for entertainment but with security in mind. Different place, different needs. Exactly;one size does not fit all,different people may need differing levels of security. Thanks, but we like having handguns be rare and unusual. You do it your way, we'll do it ours. yes,keep those criminals safe,while your citizens suffer crimes. I'm not quite sure how proliferating firearms is going to help the situation. Most British citizens aren't familiar with firearms, don't particularly want them around and don't see why they should spend significant sums on buying, properly securing, and becoming proficient with a weapon when they have no particular need. One reason the 1997 handgun ban passed easily was that very few people owned and shot them, and the political pressure was all to ban those horrid nasty implements of Death. And yet the same thing can still happen again.If the Yardies can get machine guns,and others make,steal or smuggle in guns,the guns ARE available inthe UK. On the other hand, I can see the many criminals who haven't suffered conviction Are there a lot of those in the UK? In the US,most criminals have long histories of crimes. yet considering this would be Christmas come early, buying weapons for resale to those less able to legally purchase. (One presumes that background checks, limits on purchases, and any attempt to track weapons once sold would be considered as unfair and unreasonable in the UK as they would in the US) End result? Unarmed citizens, but the Bad Guys have even freer access to weapons. Not sure why this is supposed to help. Presumably some ODCs will then buy weapons, but isn't that a little late? Folks like me who *did* happily pay up to turn a few hundred rounds a week into .45-calibre holes in paper were a rarity. Appease them. No, keep them disarmed as a rule. except that it really does not keep them disarmed. Note the Yardies and other gangs having guns in the UK.If they want them,they can get them. Not if one or two of the group have guns: outnumbered and outgunned is a bad place to be. You're STILL better off than being unarmed. Why? Dead is still dead. But you may not always die.And that's generally the case as its been in the US.It shouldn't be any different where you are. And at least you will get some of them before they get you,maybe even the ones with the guns. And this makes you "less dead" how, precisely? you seem to think that evey shootout results in everyone dead.It doesn't happen that way. Then the next group will have second thoughts about trying such attacks against others. And this helps *you* how, precisely? Meanwhile that gang now have more weapons to play with. If these armed gangs aren't deterred by one in four USAians owning firearms, what level of ownership is needed before they stop their rampages? Many of those owning such guns do not have carry permits,and cannot carry them in public,but their homes are much less attacked.The worst places for gun violence in the US are largely where gun control is the strictest. Meanwhile we're largely bereft of such gangs and like things that way. Thus leaving the ODC open to a lifetime of legal nightmares, apparently. Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six. My attitude precisely, but then others claim the advantage of "shoot early, shoot often" is that dead men can't sue. (Which appears to suppose that killing strangers on suspicion is viewed with enthusiasm...) Where are you keeping it while you're asleep? Nunya bidness. I just remember the rules I learned in the Army: I don't think my wife would appreciate sharing our bed with a firearm of any type. YMMV. (And for the endless whines about Jill Dando - she was shot in the back of the head on her doorstep, caught completely unawares. She could have had a MAC-10 in each hand and it wouldn't have made the slightest difference) Well,so she was caught unawares;that's the result of a false sense of security that the UK residents have,from their "gun control". So having more weapons means we get to be perpetually paranoid? It might make you more concerned with what goes on around you.Maybe. Give her a gun. Give her two guns. Give her a hundred guns. What's the difference? No matter how heavily armed she was or was not, she was killed on her doorstep by an assailant she never saw. You seem to be advocating that more weapons will make us safer, which means we'll all be much more paranoid... doesn't compute, Jim. Either being armed makes us safer, or it makes us more alert and aware, but you don't go to higher alert states because the risk level dropped. And how "being armed" is far from the panacea quoted. Note also that this incident was five years ago - haven't you had any other examples to cite? Why,what's changed in the last 5 years? Nothing.But UK gun crimes have risen every year,I believe,despite gun "control". Yeah, I think we had 23 killed last year as opposed to 17 in 1999. That's *how* much more dangerous than the US? (Remember, Jim, someone using a banana in his pocket as a 'gun' is a firearm crime in the UK. Be careful what you're claiming.) It would not surprise me to find that the UK gov't has classed some crimes as other crimes,skewing the data. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in
: "Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... Why,what's changed in the last 5 years? Nothing.But UK gun crimes have risen every year,I believe,despite gun "control". Yeah, I think we had 23 killed last year as opposed to 17 in 1999. That's *how* much more dangerous than the US? Last year in fact there was a drop of 16% of robberies involving guns and a drop of 13% in homicides involving firearms. How about robberies in general? Or homicides in general? Increase or decrease? http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/index.html The same source also points out than only 0.5% of crimes reported to the police involve the use,possession or threat of use of firearms A more telling statistic is that of the number of police officers killed and injured by firearms during the course of their duty. In the 10 years between 1992 and 2002 there were exactly 3 police officers killed and 40 seriously injured. Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea. The equivalent figures for the USA are 1,533 killed and 23,000 seriously injured. Perhaps this explains why all the coppers I know prefer tight gun control, none of them are armed themselves of course. Keith -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "Keith Willshaw" wrote in : A more telling statistic is that of the number of police officers killed and injured by firearms during the course of their duty. In the 10 years between 1992 and 2002 there were exactly 3 police officers killed and 40 seriously injured. Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea. Yet around 150 are killed and 230 injured in the US every year and US cops are armed while British police typically are not. I prefer things our way. Keith |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:32:12 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: "Jim Yanik" wrote in message .. . "Keith Willshaw" wrote in : A more telling statistic is that of the number of police officers killed and injured by firearms during the course of their duty. In the 10 years between 1992 and 2002 there were exactly 3 police officers killed and 40 seriously injured. Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea. Yet around 150 are killed and 230 injured in the US every year and US cops are armed while British police typically are not. In addition, some of the US deaths and injuries are from friendly fire. Doesn't matter what the bad guys think when it's the good guys doing the shooting. Mary -- Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...
Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea. Yet around 150 are killed and 230 injured in the US every year and US cops are armed while British police typically are not. I prefer things our way. Your way didn't work too well in Northern Ireland. Nothing significant was accomplished there until there was significant international assistance with the interdiction effort. You can't expect the rest of the world to act like sheep, and that is precisely why the British foisted their biggest police problems on others -- in their colonies that is, rather than at home. Americans have nowhere to run. Our problems are here, and we have to stay here to deal with them, instead of running away from the problems like the Brits. |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
"Evan Brennan" wrote in message ... "Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... Most criminals know that shooting cops is a really BAD idea. Yet around 150 are killed and 230 injured in the US every year and US cops are armed while British police typically are not. I prefer things our way. Your way didn't work too well in Northern Ireland. You mean that place they sent the Army into. You know, those folks with really cool guns. The Royal Ulster Constabulary made considerable use of firearms as well. tim gueguen 101867 |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:45:52 +0200, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote: "Jim Yanik" wrote in message . .. "Paul J. Adam" wrote in : Aren't the criminals deterred by the armed citizens? Welll,due to those who are against people using,carrying,or even owning firearms,most US citizens do not own guns,nor carry them.Thus the chances of criminals encountering armed citizens is not high enough yet to deter such crimes. So you've got the crime anyway, and the armed criminals, and the accidental deaths and suicides... and the answer is "more guns"? There are many excellent reasons to own and enjoy firearms of all sorts, but this notion that more weapons equals increased safety just isn't one of them - not at an overall level, anyway. If the level of firearm ownership you have in the US isn't already sufficient to deter criminals, increasing ownership (unavoidably including that segment of the population known as "criminals not yet identified or convicted") is unlikely to help. There is a body of evidence that suggests that open ownership of guns and their general possession reduces some sorts of crimes-- but it also increases others, mainly crimes of passion. I think the problem is that many progun enthusiasts are taking the experience of rural areas, and uncritically assuming you can transfer that to urban areas. My family lived in a rural community where guns were omnipresent, and it was a polite community...and not one with a lot of gunplay. I live twenty miles outside of LA, and if everyone in LA had a gun, every rush hour would be a mass slaughter. The two situations are simply not comparable. And in many states,defending property with lethal force IS illegal,protecting the criminals,making it safer for them to commit such crimes. What's the property value that justifies homicide, out of interest? Can I kill a man for stealing my car? (About $7,000 at last check). Can I kill a man for stealing my watch? (About $100) Can I kill a man for stealing a loaf of bread? In california, none of the above. In the 1970's, using a weapon even against an armed intruder could see you being taken off to jail. Now, the general standard is that you are presumed to be "at fear for your life" if you are confronted. It is not a blanket protection-- if the fellow you said you were afraid of dies after being chased down the street, cornered and shot five times, the DA.... will have some questions. Other states tend to give different levels of this-- some pretty much give a homeowner ON HIS OWN PROPERTY a blanket right of self defense. I believe texas is the most forgiving in this case, but there's so much variation it's hard to say-- ditto for gun carrying laws. ISTR that in the so-called "Wild West",where many people were armed,people could leave doors unlocked,horses unattended,without much fear of theft. I seem to remember much talk of hanging horse thieves, suggesting that this "golden age" was illusory. Lower population densities-- and again not comparable, either for or against the idea of general gun possession in a modern society. But I will say that the experience of other nations where everyone has an AK-47 do not make me confident. My grandparents *did* live with doors unlocked, but that was because (a) they lived in a close-knit community where everyone knew everyone and theft would have been seen, (b) they were poor and frankly had very little to steal. (No guns, in case you were wondering) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
*White* Helicopters??!!! | Stephen Harding | Military Aviation | 13 | March 9th 04 07:03 PM |
Taiwan to make parts for new Bell military helicopters | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | February 28th 04 12:12 AM |
Coalition casualties for October | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 16 | November 4th 03 11:14 PM |
Police State | Grantland | Military Aviation | 0 | September 15th 03 12:53 PM |
FA: The Helicopters Are Coming | The Ink Company | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 10th 03 05:53 PM |