Theives!

[RogerS]

DW wrote -

Interestingly, Switzerland has more guns per head of population at home than any other country in the world (tho' may be wrong there) but don't seem to suffer from the sort of gun related crime that we see at the present time in the UK...

- Rob

Doesn't that sort of act as a counter argument to what you said earlier in the post?

I agree with you...if we lived in a different society where everyone went around in a purple haze of happy nirvana then we'd not be having the comments made in this thread.

But we don't and so I would argue that it is my right to protect my nearest and dearest and all my property by whatever means I have at my disposal since our society does not.

 

[devonwoody]

Also ought to be mentioned that insurance is refused (for home cover against theft ) if many claims are received from a client also some residential areas the company will duck you.

So no police cover,
no insurance cover
no right to protect yourself against theives even with weapons.

 

[RogerS]

Or a very large bloke breaks into your house and threatens you with a knife

Or a gang of drug crazed kids break in while you and your family are asleep

Mmmm...gun or no gun....now let me see now.

and this happens to you on a regular basis?

Fortunately not ....about as likely to happen as ByronBlack's examples though.

 

[woodbloke]

Roger S wrote -

Doesn't that sort of act as a counter argument to what you said earlier in the post?

Not really. A lethal weapon like a gun or rifle is simply a lump of innate metal until an individual picks it up and does something with it. The society that we live in largely determines (IMO) whether that individual does in fact do something with the weapon. In Switzerland as I said, there are a huge number of weapons kept at home, but such is the nature of their society, the sort of gun related activity that's been on the increase in the UK doesn't appear to happen over there.
Agree with you also Rog that you ought to be able to protect your loved ones with any means at your disposal.....just not a lethal firearm, that's all :wink: - Rob

 

[RogerS]

no right to protect yourself against theives even with weapons.

Not strictly true, dw. Uncle Jack says that we can and he should know wot with being a lawyer and ex-Home Secretary and such :wink:

Any road....there's those that think we should be able to protect ourselves and there are those with rose-tinted spectacles who don't. Neither camp will convince the other.

 

[ByronBlack]

Or a very large bloke breaks into your house and threatens you with a knife

Or a gang of drug crazed kids break in while you and your family are asleep

Mmmm...gun or no gun....now let me see now.

and this happens to you on a regular basis?

Fortunately not ....about as likely to happen as ByronBlack's examples though.

I disagree, there was a story only last week about a little boy who killed his sister with a gun that his mother was 'storing' for her criminal boyfriend.

Kids are stupid, and when drunk even more stupid, so if you start putting hand guns in the home, you'll see a massive increase in accidental killings.

DW, the law doesn't say you can't protect yourself, thats a nonesense. You have to use reasonable force, so if someone comes at you with a knife, then it would be reasonable for you to them with a large hammer or baseball bat, however, guns are illegal so theres nothing in the remit of reasonable to use them.

Most burgleries are carried out by drug addicts, these are not hardcore criminals armed to the teeth with firearms, so I think keeping a bludgeoning instrument close by quite reasonable.

If we go down the route of guns/rifles for every home, killings will go through the roof, look at the amount of killings we have now when guns are not freely available to all and sundry, besides whatever the home-owner will do, the hardcore criminal will go one better and far more ruthless than the average homeowner, you all might be quite gung-ho now, but in the middle of a situation it takes a certain kind of person to willingly kill someone for breaking into your home.

 

[Mike.C]

Roger,

Any road....there's those that think we should be able to protect ourselves and there are those with rose-tinted spectacles who don't. Neither camp will convince the other.

Until god forbid, their 90 year granny gets ***** by these animals, and then all of a sudden they see the light.

Cheers

Mike

 

[RogerS]

Or a very large bloke breaks into your house and threatens you with a knife

Or a gang of drug crazed kids break in while you and your family are asleep

Mmmm...gun or no gun....now let me see now.

and this happens to you on a regular basis?

Fortunately not ....about as likely to happen as ByronBlack's examples though.

I disagree, there was a story only last week about a little boy who killed his sister with a gun that his mother was 'storing' for her criminal boyfriend.

Kids are stupid, and when drunk even more stupid, so if you start putting hand guns in the home, you'll see a massive increase in accidental killings.

DW, the law doesn't say you can't protect yourself, thats a nonesense. You have to use reasonable force, so if someone comes at you with a knife, then it would be reasonable for you to them with a large hammer or baseball bat, however, guns are illegal so theres nothing in the remit of reasonable to use them.

Most burgleries are carried out by drug addicts, these are not hardcore criminals armed to the teeth with firearms, so I think keeping a bludgeoning instrument close by quite reasonable.

If we go down the route of guns/rifles for every home, killings will go through the roof, look at the amount of killings we have now when guns are not freely available to all and sundry, besides whatever the home-owner will do, the hardcore criminal will go one better and far more ruthless than the average homeowner, you all might be quite gung-ho now, but in the middle of a situation it takes a certain kind of person to willingly kill someone for breaking into your home.

I don't quite follow your reasoning.

For a start, legitmate guns are kept under lock and key in a secure gun cabinet. Just because a criminal doesn't is no argument against using guns in defence of your property/attack etc.

You then say 'killings will go through the roof'....where is your evidence to support this statement?

You say in one sentence that most burglaries are carried out by drug addicts. A bludgeoning instrument close by is quite reasonable. But what if you are infirm/not very strong etc. Do you really think that an 80 year old grannie with a broomstick is a match for your drug crazed addict armed with a knife?

If most crimes are committed by drug addicts then the hard-core criminal issue fades away a bit, doesn't it?


What do you mean by 'a certain type of person'?

 

[devonwoody]

who started this hijack. :wink:

Roger is correct there are those that say yeh and those that say nah, its a case of waiting until their spouse dies because they were not able to defend them.
Lets call it a day.

 

[Losos]

After all in the cold light of day I don't expect he really wanted to kill anyone, when he said he did, it's much the same as anyone who gets angry might say "I'll kill the little ****," same stupid mistake as dipsticks at airports mentioning "bomb" .
Alan

Yes, Alan I know exactly what you mean. In the situation he found himself at that moment he was undoubtedly angry. We all sometimes say things when we're angry, we certainly think them.

IIRC it was dark (He hadn't sitched on the light) and he could well have hit the ceiling or the floor, it just happened he hit the thief.

In the cold light of day and definately in court you need to say the 'right' thing.

 

[Losos]

So no police cover,
no insurance cover
no right to protect yourself against theives even with weapons.

Yep, this is what it has come down to in the current day.

As it happens I don't advocate the universal use of guns, as has been pointed out there are risks. But, in farner Martins case he, like many farmers, have a gun for their work, (it's like a tool of their trade) just like all the pros on this board have a circular saw. So why shouldn't he use it :?:

I honestly don't know what the answer is, but the guy who mentioned Switzerland failed to mention that there is a strong 'family' tradition in that country, and also it's very hard to gain entry on a permanent basis so all the laws in Switzerland are understood and supported by the population.

In America, and in many European countries their is such a high percentage of people who do not agree with the laws, who do not hold the traditions of the country in high regard, and who feel that they can do whatever they like to achieve a lifestyle that is paraded in front of them everyday in the media.

OMG I've moved on to my pet hate.............The media.............better stop now before all your eyes glaze over :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Jake]

But, in farner Martins case he, like many farmers, have a gun for their work, (it's like a tool of their trade) just like all the pros on this board have a circular saw. So why shouldn't he use it :?:

Unlike most farmers, he had no fire arms certificate and a pump action shotgun. And he wasn't using it to shoot pheasants or foxes, he used it to kill someone and shoot another person in the crotch.

The circular saw analogy doesn't work. Try a chainsaw. If I own one to cut wood, can you see any reason why I shouldn't also be allowed to chop people up into little bits with one?

 

[Gary]

There is a lot of hot air being talked here about who would do whatever to whoever.

How many of you would really have the balls to do it if you were put in the position?

I suspect not very many if you were honest with yourselves.

 

[Mike.C]

Jake,

he used it to kill someone and shoot another person in the crotch.

Good, and hopefully now he will not be able to bring another thief into the world, who would terrorizes old people in their homes. Remember we are not talking about an innocent man here, he had robbed Tony Martin on a number of occasions before. And when he tried to sue Martin and lost, he was doing so from a jail cell, in there for another crime.

If a person commits a crime they deserve what they get. The misery these people cause is unbelievable, just ask Kevin, who now not only has no tools to carry on his hobby, but also ended up in hospital because of these scum.

Cheers

Mike

 

[Jake]

Do you really think that the punishment for breaking and entering should be death?

Where would you stop that? Stealing a loaf of bread?

 

[Karl]

Mike

I don't know if you have children. I do, so imagine this scenario.

Your child gets caught up with the wrong crowd. Gets a drug habit. Takes to breaking into peoples houses to fund this habit. Is shot dead by the houseowner under these "new rules".

Would you think your son got his just deserts?

Cheers

Karl

 

[Jake]

Remember we are not talking about an innocent man here, he had robbed Tony Martin on a number of occasions before.

I don't think there was any evidence that Fearon or Barras had robbed him before, and there was at least some doubt cast over whether he had been robbed before at all - Martin was, after all, later diagnosed as paranoid (in the proper mentally ill sense).

Let's not forget that he was given a jury trial, and the jury was given the option of a manslaughter conviction but rejected it in favour of a murder verdict. They'll have had a whole lot better sense of the evidence than any of us can have.

 

[motownmartin]

Do you really think that the punishment for breaking and entering should be death?

Where would you stop that? Stealing a loaf of bread?

No, thats a bit harsh, just chop their arms and legs off :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Mike.C]

Karl,

Mike

I don't know if you have children. I do, so imagine this scenario.

Your child gets caught up with the wrong crowd. Gets a drug habit. Takes to breaking into peoples houses to fund this habit. Is shot dead by the houseowner under these "new rules".

Would you think your son got his just deserts?

Cheers

Karl

My kid's would not get into drugs, so it would never happen, but I can see your point, and so no I would not think they got their just deserts, but if that was the law I would not want to see the innocent houiseholder jailed either.

On the other hand when you have had your house broken into a few times, you do not give a s--t what happens to the criminals of this world.

To try and make you understand why I feel like I do, if a burglar broke in here now, because of my condition I could not do anything to stop them, so i would welcome a law that gave me back the edge.

Jake,

I don't think there was any evidence that Fearon or Barras had robbed him before, and there was at least some doubt cast over whether he had been robbed before at all - Martin was, after all, later diagnosed as paranoid (in the proper mentally ill sense).

Let's not forget that he was given a jury trial, and the jury was given the option of a manslaughter conviction but rejected it in favour of a murder verdict. They'll have had a whole lot better sense of the evidence than any of us can have.

I think it all depends on what newspaper you read and whos side they were on.

Cheers

Mike

 

[Mike.C]

Martin,

Jake wrote:
Do you really think that the punishment for breaking and entering should be death?

Where would you stop that? Stealing a loaf of bread?


No, thats a bit harsh, just chop their arms and legs off :lol: :lol: :lol:
_________________
Martin

I like your style Martin :lol: :lol:

Cheers

Mike