“If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night you can presume he is not there to read the gas meter. But current British law insists that he have the freedom of the premises. When, last Christmas, thousands of Radio 4’s Today listeners called for legislation authorising them to protect their homes by any means necessary, the proposal was immediately denounced as a “ludicrous, brutal, unworkable, blood-stained piece of legislation”. Until recently that “unworkable, blood-stained” legislation was the law of the land. There was no need to retreat from your home, or from any room within it. An Englishman’s home was his refuge, and, indeed, his castle.”
-snip-
“This trade-off of rights for security has been disastrous for both. Crime has rocketed. A UN study in 2002 of 18 developed countries placed England and Wales at the top of the Western world’s crime league. Five years after the sweeping 1998 ban on handguns, handgun crime had doubled. As was forecast at the time, the effect of outlawing handguns has been that only outlaws have handguns.”(excerted from article)
Funny. If I recall correctly you were one of those who felt the Guardian should butt out of US politics. Now you’re enamored by some US gun owner butting his nose into UK politics.
In any event, since you like the Telegraph, here’s another quote from them from October 21:
Moreover, your gunowning intermeddler has mischaracterized both US and UK law. Regarding US law, his suggestion that many Americans have an unfettered right to blast away at home intruders is completely false and could land a household guardian in jail or in court defending a lawsuit brought by the intruder.
Your pal was also wrong to ridicule the following advice from UK authorities: " the authorities’ response to the recent series of brutal attacks on home-owners has been to advise people to get more locks and, in case of a break-in, retreat to a secure room - presumably the bathroom - to call the police." Sounds like good advice to me.
It’s ironic that your pal is so fixated on the notion of castles, because his logic is stuck in the middle ages. By now it is a well-established fact that handguns are far more likely to be used against oneself or members of ones own family than to kill an intruder. But for those who have an erotic fixation with guns, facts do not matter.
MT…I am constantly fascinated by your ability to comment on articles you obviously do not read.
Your ability to proceed, completely unhindered by logic, eleoquence or common sense is truly amazing.
Your technique of turning any post into a personal jihad of charater assasination is reminiscent of the paranoid ramblings of the deranged. :taz:
Where you pull the “…your pal…” from is obviously a place not graced by the warmth of sunshine. :loco:
Might I politely suggest, with all appropriate sincerity, you remove your head from this place, read the articles completely, try to understand them…then make your comments.
Or continue as you do…and we can all have a good laugh!
Do you deny that despite the scare tactics employed in the article that you posted, the risk of being a victim of crime in the UK remained at its lowest level since 1981?
Do you deny that handguns are far more likely to be used to kill oneself or ones family members than to kill an intruder?
Do you actually believe that the guns in the US actually make US citizens safer? Why do we have such a horrifically high rate of handgun homicides and suicides? Do you really believe that the way to improve upon that horrific record is for people to have more guns?
The real question is why do other countries with high levels of gun ownership not have the same levels of gun-related crime as the USA? Any Canadians or Swiss with opinions on this?
Hmm…good question. My parents have two machine guns in the cellar, my dads and my brothers. For all those who don’t know, in Switzerland military service is compulsory and you take your gun home with you. Why? Cause from time to time you have to go practice your shooting with it and it’s more convenient to have a gun at home in case evil neighboring countries attack :loco: Honestly, I don’t really know why, that’s just how it is.
The guns just stand there, bullets are in a sealed box somewhere else of course, and nobody really cares about them. Nobody uses the gun, cause if you do, or if you only open the sealed box with bullets, you’ll get fined or jailed or whatever. I don’t know, cause it really just doesn’t happen. I’ve also never heard of anybodies gun being stolen and used for a crime.
So why are there less gun related crimes in Switzerland even though almost every household has a machine gun at home? Guess, cause we just don’t care much about guns. We don’t put them in a showcase in the living room for everybody to see and for kids to take out and accidentally kill their little brothers and sisters. We don’t show off with it, cause everybody has the same gun at home anyways, so nothing special at all. We wouldn’t even think of taking the gun and shooting intruders with it. Takes to much time anyways to run to the cellar, take the gun, open the sealed box with bullets to shoot an intruder, who later turns out to be the little brother who came home late.
In spite of the rather over dramatic language and baiting Q’s, here is my response to MT’s usual harrangue. Hyperbole does tend to work for the touchy-feely crowd. Means absolutely nothing to the facts. But it seems that facts to MT are like kryptonite to Superman…(props to Larry Elder)
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]I read your article. What’s your point?
Do you deny that despite the scare tactics employed in the article that you posted, the risk of being a victim of crime in the UK remained at its lowest level since 1981?[/quote]No scare tactics. You obviously did not read the article. Cite your source for that statistics.
An oft quoted lie, proven wrong by the statistical analytical prowess of Dr. Lott. And never proven incorrect. Also per FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, which, by the way, are considered expert evidence and legally admissable in a US Court of Law. If you would say otherwise, PROVE IT.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Do you actually believe that the guns in the US actually make US citizens safer?[/quote]Crime has demonstarbly been reduced by the enacment of CCW laws by citizens meeting the legal reqwuirements. FBI UCS and Dr. Lotts research statitics. NEVER proven wrong.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”] Why do we have such a horrifically high rate of handgun homicides and suicides?[/quote]Who is this “we”? Aren’t you a neutered French-Canadian? Quebeqoise? (or however they spell it) What are the comparisons? US per capita suicides are not the highest.
Legal carry of handguns by US citizens has reduced crime everywhere it exists. Thise are the facts.
Why you wish to make a display of panty wetting with this diversion from the posted article says more for your own paranoid insecurities than you may wish to display.
Do try to comment on the article and not attempt to hijack this thread.
[quote=“stragbasher”]
The real question is why do other countries with high levels of gun ownership not have the same levels of gun-related crime as the USA? Any Canadians or Swiss with opinions on this?[/quote]
You might want to take alook at the FBI’s stats at:
The real question is why do other countries with high levels of gun ownership not have the same levels of gun-related crime as the USA? Any Canadians or Swiss with opinions on this?[/quote]
The majority of gun related deaths in the US relate to domestic disputes or criminal activity. Since fewer average citizens in Canada own guns we have fewer domestic disputes ending in gun related murder.
As for criminal activity the US seems to have too many people (largely black and hispanic) existing in a sort of underclass with poor schooling, substandard healthcare, and limited job prospects. The only areas in Canada that can compare are native reserves. Not suprisingly, the native share of the prison population is much greater than their share of the general population.
pulling out a handgun from the desk drawer is not quite as complicated as digging out the military issue machine gun from the basement. apples and oranges, the answer will have to be found elsewhere.
With all due respect, TainanCowboy, I don’t believe that you ever responded to Mother Theresa’s stinging indictment of your own hypocrisy:
Is it true that you were one of those who objected The Guardian’s letter-writing campaign in Ohio? And if so, how can you object to that without condemning Dr. Malcolm as well?
Are you honestly telling us that you think there is a difference between a UK media company campaigning in Ohio and a fellow of the Royal Historical Society (rhs.ac.uk/fellmem.htm) writing an article at the request of a newspaper in her field of expertise?
My Dearest fellow Hobbes…points well taken.
My laxity has been noted. The connection between those two seemingly dissparate items should have lept off the page at me, clawed my eyes from their bloody sockets and danced on my skull.
I shall arrange for a good thrashing. Preferrably delivered by a nubile & flexible lady. Followed by an oil massage and bowl of noodles.
Deny it? Er, no, I call it a complete fabrication made up by Josh Sugarman, who put it out as disinformation in his campaign to ban handguns.
Sugarman’s claim was that handguns are used to kill “acquaintances” significantly more often than non-acquaintances. He spun that to mean “family members and other loved ones”.
But what does “acquaintance” mean in the context of the statistics? It means “two people who are known to each other”. You are acquainted with your wife, surely, but you are also acquainted with the kid down the hall who keeps breaking into apartments and stealing things. Two drug dealers who are rivals are also “acquainted” with each other. Rape victims are, more often than not, “acquainted” with their attackers.
Do you deny that a woman being attacked by a would-be rapist should have the right to shoot her attacker? Or would you rather have the police find her naked, battered body in an alleyway, strangled by her own pantyhose?
Yeah, I think that when Congress eliminates the gun prohibition in D.C., the streets will magically become safer within weeks. There may be an initial rise in deaths as the criminals finally get what they deserve, but after that things will settle down. Hell, the place might even become inhabitable again.
And in 1993 the NEJM published the results of another study on homicides committed with guns in the gunowners’ homes in three diverse counties. Results showed that:
Only 14% of the homicides committed in the home with a gun involved forced entry;
Only 3.6% of the homicides were legally excusable – that is 96.4% of them lacked legal jusitification; and
“Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.” content.nejm.org/cgi/content/ful … bc24a96e70
In Canada anyway, the courts have sometimes taken the disagreeable but rational position that since so few women who are raped end up being murdered as well, self-defense is not an automatic justification for shooting and killing a would be rapist.
[quote=“Mucha (Muzha) Man”]
In Canada anyway, the courts have sometimes taken the disagreeable but rational position that since so few women who are raped end up being murdered as well, self-defense is not an automatic justification for shooting and killing a would be rapist.[/quote]
That would quickly change if more Canadian judges were raped.
I’m not certain that is an entirely rational position.
The Canadian Courts have recognized, I suppose, that in some rape cases, the victim is murdered. How (and when) does a rape victim know whether or not she will also be murdered (and thus whether she is justified in using deadly force to protect herself)?
Using the courts’ logic, could we not also say that police officers are not entitled to draw and fire their weapons when the bad guys are aiming their weapons at the police, because, after all, not everyone who is shot at is even hit, let alone murdered???
If a scumbag is attempting to rape a woman, the woman should be permitted to use deadly force to protect herself. That’s what I think.