Rifleman Archive

---

Waste93 wrote:

Bashbacharac wrote:

Good lord, I've made this one lurch off topic!

True. Maybe we should move this to another thread?

But anyway, I can quite see your point of view. A few responses though... The Tony Martin case (the farmer who shot intruders) is not particularly clear cut. As much as I can condone using force to defend yourself (and any Burglar breaking into my house in the middle of the night's gonna get a plank wrapped around his head), in this case Martin shot the kid in the back. Meaning he was running away . Self defense? Your guess is as good as mine, but the police thought that the kid had seen the gun, and tried to flee. Clearly (and understandably) Martin was so angry that he shot this person... however, had there been no gun, there would have been no shooting. On the other hand, had there been no gun, would the burglars have run away? Would Martin himself have got attacked? Like I said, its a difficult one to call.

The fact that he was shotin the back is not conclusive proof that he was running away. I work in law enforcement and could give you examples of people being shot in places that didn't make sense at first. He could have heard another noise and started to turn, he could have been going for a light switch, his friend could have said something making him turn, he could have tripped over a cat, etc. He could have been turning for any number of reasons. However you also have to look that there is also absolutely no right to self defense in the UK anymore are articulated by the prosecutors (solicitors). You also have that rather foolish statement by those opposing Martins release that he was still a danger to burglars. If I remember correctly, there were two burglars. One was killed and the other wounded. The wounded one is already out of jail. Wasn't he also suing Martin for emotional and physical distress?

One other thing about the Martin case. He has been repeatedly robbed. Nor was it these kids first time robbing him.

But as you say what would have happened if he did not have a firearm? It's a guess. He might have been attacked he might not have been. Which is a big difference between the US and the UK in a point of law. In the US he probably wouldn't have been indicted since self defense relies upon a reasonable fear of life. Which in this case wouldn't be that hard since he had been a repeated victim and both burglars were younger and more likely stronger than Martin.

But in the UK that wasn't relevant since there is no right to self defense. In the Martin case the self defense arguement couldn't even really be used since there is no longer such a right.

That violent crime is on the increase is a damning indictment of our society, although it must be said that it is not uncontrollably increasing. But with guns off the street, at least there is less chance of getting shot by some mixed up kid. And we all know the damage mixed up kids can do; just look at your high school massacres. Would these have happened if their parents didn't own guns, and they had no way of obtaining them? No.

Again not quite true. Violent crime involving weapons has had a dramatic increase in the UK. There are actually more guns on the streets there now then there were before. Many of these weapons are also full autos from the stockpiles of collapsed Eastern European countries. Gang related crimes in the UK have gone up dramatically.The reason being that those that followed the law and turned in their weapons were those that were not likely to use them for crimes anyways. Those that have them now feel safer to use them since they know that the people the assault, rob, rape, etc are very unlikely to have the means to defend themselves. A clear indicator is the rapid increase on home invasions while the owners are home. The invaders have no fear of entering a residence since they know the person shouldn't be armed. In the US the number of home invasions in those areas where firearms are not heavily restricted are much lower. The criminal wants to steal property and maybe assault or rape people. They don't want to die.

As for the school shootings in the US. You make a couple of flawed assumptions. There is no indication that having a firearm at home led to these. Also there are plenty of illegal ways to obtain firearms. One thing to remember is that 30-40 years ago it wasn't uncommon for kids to bring firearms to schools and leave them in their vehicles. Also if the availability of firearms is what causes the shootings, then why have there been no shootings at gun shows like this? The reason that you see school shootings isn't the guns, it's how the media covers them. Any nut that wants to make a scene goes to kill children because they are kids which the media will cover and because they have little fear of being stopped by anyone at the school since it's highly unlikely anyone there will be armed and able to stop them.

Move to Montana...it still is like that. I lived out there for a year when I was fifteen, I went to school with my cousin and we kept his three hunting rifles in the truck box in his pickup truck. We used to go hunting like 4 days a week after school

Personally, I'm of the opinion that if no one has a gun, then no one's going to get shot.

The most common murder weapon in the Soviet Union prior to the collapse was the hammer. Sure no one would get shot, instead they would be stabbed, bludgeoned, etc. Samuel Colt was correct in stating that the firearm is the great equilizer. As other weapons rely on physical strength, the firearm does not. So it allows the weak to defend themselves from the strong if neccessary.

Having the right to protect yourself is all well and good, but then it comes down to theold 'my gun's bigger than yours' argument, andfor a perfect way of condemningthat, think nuclear weapons.

Actually your example proves my point. Atomic weapons were a deterent. They prevented a full scale war like those seen in 1914 and 1939. The consequences were to drastic for that scale of combat to occur between nations. So you ended up with much smaller brush wars. Same thing with firearms. In a study done by John Lott in the US, he found that most cases where a firearm prevented a crime they were never reported. In this study it was shown that over 90% of the time the weapon only had to be displayed to stop the crime. The number of crimes prevented in the US this way was between 2-10 million. The number of crimes commited with firearms is well under 1 million.

So though people say "But is it worth it if it costs one innocent person their life ?" The response is should be "But what if it were to save the lives of two or more ?"

However, had I been a victim of armed robbery, i might well change my mind! There's certainly a few unprintable things I'd like to do to the thugs who robbed my 90 year old grandmother (thankfully without any violence).

Again it should be everyones choice. But what if your grandmother only had to display a firearm to stop the attackers?

---

Message Edited by PyscoJuggalo on 07-23-2004 10:44 PM

---

PyscoJuggalo wrote:

Is there another orginization like the NRA but not the NRA? I am extremely supportive gun of ownership, but the NRA has certian aspects to it that I just don't like.

Message Edited by PyscoJuggalo on 07-23-2004 10:44 PM

---

---

RemoMoxey wrote:

In the UK they have the right to do whatever the Queen (or King) thinks is best for the country as a whole. This system is fundamentally flawed (as evidenced by the Monarchy being simply a Figurehead now). Parliment still looks like an "Elitist" group to me. The Few ruling the Many (which is yet another fundamentally flawed system).

---

---

SpawnofHell wrote:

well now that im awake i can start to be a bit better i feel better last night didnt go to plan (no corvette pritty bad loot from NS execpta defesne vs dizzy 11) so wasnt the best of times thanks to the mod who ever took this out of the other forums. as everyone has said it is orange to apple. it is working for is the house of lords which was the elitist house is now very weak and cant do much compared to the house of common which is elected by the people so in a sense we are like america from the people by the people stuff. we can get laws changed if we wanted just might take ever so slightly longer as well the economy has factories if people have the pushing force to burglar the will do it with or without the worry of being shot.

take the scenary (in the usa) you've return home and see 2 people running from your front door you get out of your car see your weapon has you get out aim and pull the trigger several times (from what you say this is all allowed) you hit one and he fall the other run off free so how. you walk over to the one you shot and find that your bullet has stroke him in the back of the head, now youve killed someone in cold blood people say it won't effect them but it does and it will. over here this exact same story end with no one getting killed and insurace paying for damage.

in UK it is possible to get licenses for gun and people do people just like the raw power of holding a gun but a license is only to shot one with out being fined not to shot at people also its a damn slight hard to get meaning only those that want it do get it. but i have no knowledge on what required and the rest so im not sure.

also everyone over here is just slight pissed at ameria for coming into world war 2 in the last closing years of the war and no more and still saying we saved your bacon in world war 2. england doesnt need to fight wars we are surround by nations we have been for year and are all nearly part of the EU so if any break treaties all countries are allowed to attack.

as well if you think we r tea drinking wimps over here recently my friend read a magisne stating on the best top end special forces aka SAS navy seal etc. and the UK SAS was rank in the top 4-5 and the Navy Seal was down near the buttom but the list only had 20 in it.

but to frank we r we even arguing we r too different people and different opininons on how should be done i think weapon can be a deterent but its like the death penality would you ever really want to take a life, from read about it in english lesson (we had to right a speech on capital punishment) most people are against it cause it does take a life. the last person to be killed by law over here was inthe late 50s i believe yet most of america still carry it on actually all of it does if the need arises.

UK and USA r different we have matured while you havent we r past the days of killing each other. read r history and read your they r similar but just in different times. eventually america will stop capital punish and catch up with the rest of the civilised world (btw i dont mean your on civilised thou that the way just came out)

ps sorry for terrible english as u know i'm dislexic (sp?)

this is my last post here ill read replies but that it. bring this up anywhere else and the rifleman will lose another member

---

---

Waste93 wrote:

---

PyscoJuggalo wrote:

Is there another orginization like the NRA but not the NRA? I am extremely supportive gun of ownership, but the NRA has certian aspects to it that I just don't like.

Message Edited by PyscoJuggalo on 07-23-2004 10:44 PM

---

There quite a few. Though NRA is easily the largest and most influential. But some others are the GOA (Gun Owners of America), Second Ammendment Foundation, Jew for the Preservation of Gun Rights. You can find some good sources at www.gunhoo.com. Also there are many state only organizations. A good way to find them is to go to a local gun show. They will usually have booths there or at least fliers. Also firearms ranges and gunstore will have some info.

---

Bashbacharac wrote:

Anyway, on the WW2 issue... hehe... We're an extremely proud nation, historically very powerful. A lot of people can't stand the fact that we (along with the other allied nations during the war) DID need help to win, and the fact that it has often been rubbed in our faces! More grating, perhaps, is the fact that you had to be attacked by the Axis before you decided to join in the war, when we went straight to the aid of Poland (even meek and mild-mannered Neville Chamberlain had his limits).

Yes that was the final act that led to war. However it could be argued that the Allies did not fulfil their treaty obligations when they let Germany take over most of Europe without firing a shot. Czechoslovkia also had a defense treaty if I remember correctly and Chamberlain and his compatriots handed it to Germany. So the European Allies did hesitate for years before saying enough was enough.

Also remember that the US was not part of these treaties so pretty much had to be attacked before joining. Public opinion was greatly against involvment. The US wascomming out of the Great Depression. It was seen(incorrectly in my view) that it was just a European problem. And yet another one that would get lots of Americans killed. America wasisolationist at the time.Remember that the US did not declare war on Germany. Germany declared was on the US. Also the US was helping with supplies in vast quantities prior to our actual joining. So though the people did not want to be involved the government was working to helping the Allies in what ways they could.

The war marked the end of the British Empire (undoubtably a good thing, but it did transform us from one of the most powerful nations on the globe to a relatively weak nation). We were bombed to hell, lost millions of men, and took many, many years to recover.

Spare a thought for russia though; with Hitler's obsessionof trying to capture Stalingrad. He threw millions of men into Russia, most of whom never came back, killed by the harsh winter and sheer numbers of Soviet troops. If I remember my history, almost 30million russian men, women and children lost their lives during the war. Imagine that - it's equivalent half the population of the UK. Wiped out. Or three New Yorks. In all,during Second World War, more people lost their lives than in all previous conflicts in human history.

The 30 million is all that Stalin would admit to. Estimates place their actual losses at up to 60 million. That is the upper estimate. Lower estimate is about 40 million.

So let's dropthe whole argument of who was right or wrong, who saved who's bacon.... In Europe, every single family was touched by the war, and I'm sure most American families were too. We're being disrespectful to our grandfathers who fought side by side.

Mostly agree. Though our forefathers that fought side by side also had their comments about each other. Lets not forget those two statements. The Brits complained that the Americans were "Overpaid, over sexed, and over here". While the Americans replied that the Brit were "Underpaid, under sexed, and under Eisenhower". It was meant as good natured ribbing of each other and I hope in some way our disagreements here are seen the same way.