What's funny is the people telling me weapons can't be used defensively despite the entire history of human military using weapons defensively, are implying that I don't have common sense. I feel like I stepped into bizarro world.
It's different in different countries. In Scotland, there's no offence as arson, as arson not is statutorily defined. What one country considers arson to be, Scotland treat it under different offences, there's more than one. If you lived in Scotland and thought you were a victim of arson, the perpetrator might get charged with culpable and reckless conduct, or even vandalism. So it begs the question, is vandalism violent crime?
pedestrians sometimes have to go to war as in deal with an attack. A weapon would make it easier for them to defend themselves that's why we've spent the entirety of human history developing them. No not all police have guns but all police have weapons. That's why I said weapons. do they carry weapons of any type? why would they need guns? How much training is necessary? People say training I went to Police academy in the US I had a lot of training one thing that we didn't spend a lot of time training with was firearms they're not that complicated. So now all the sudden common Sense has changed why would they need guns? When terrorists just walk away with kicked testicles or a bloody nose?
Weapons in the UK can be used for self defence, but the conversation just moves over to reasonable force laws. Many Americans think you can't defend yourself in the UK, but if it's deemed reasonable, then the law allows you. If a would-be burglar is running away and you shoot him in the back, is that reasonable? No per UK law. If someone is breaking in and shoots at you, you shoot back and injure/kill them, was that reasonable? Yes per UK law. In America, bang bang bang bang bang bang, clip, bang bang bang .........
that's all weapons through all history in all countries. no I'm pretty sure you can defend yourself and you could defend yourself with a gun if that's all you had and if some arbitrary group of people decided that that was reasonable from their armchair. yeah that's going to be a very difficult one to defend in the US too. well it steamed anybody breaking in means you harm and you're allowed to shoot them here you don't have to wait till they try and kill you or succeed. So yeah I hear we have the ability to defend ourselves before we're dead. Really? I've lived here for decades in a bad City and I don't experience that what part of America have you been to? Do you know anything about this country or are you just going by what you see on movies?
How many times have you gone to war as a pedestrian?? Now you're choosing to use the phrase common sense!! Police use to carry handcuffs and a whistle. Then the truncheon appeared. I believe they carry pepper spray now. Also, only officers with training carry a taser. All these "weapons" are to arrest, sub due a person, not kill them. If there's a gun incident, then the firearms division responds. It's a case of reasonable force. If an officer tasered an 80 year old frail little woman, instead of getting her to sit down, maybe tell her off and give her a cup of tea, then they can kiss their badge goodbye. I believe American cops just kill instead.
more than once. Mockery. so you understand firearms can be used for defensive purposes? I think you just have nicer criminals. If sitting down and having whatever magic tea you're talking about worked in the US that's what we do too.
It's almost like gun ownership doesn't have any effect on it at all so regulating it just to please you is kind of stupid and pointless
Reasonable force - https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/self-defence-and-prevention-crime Yes, a gun can be classed as reasonable force. In the case - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer) Tony Martin fell foul because he didn't hold a valid firearms certificate (because he wrecked that chance by shooting at an apple thief's car) and the prosecutors were successful in arguing against Martin's evidence. Look under Burglary and shooting.
So if you don't file paperwork and in the course of defending your Life you have to use deadly force you can be charged with murder for not filing paperwork? How on Earth is this the slightest bit common sense? He shouldn't have even had it reduced to manslaughter it should have been a firearms possession charge. A registration this instance is exactly where we have the second amendment sorry government can't abuse people this way. You just made the absolute best possible case for the second amendment that I've ever seen.
It does, because too many are not being sensible with guns, because some are not suitable to own one. Their background in being suitable is purely down to them, they create it. The UK police can't deny you in having a shotgun, they have to prove otherwise, so if your police record is clear, no dangerous driving convictions, your medical background checks out, then enjoy your shotgun or two or three etc.. Then regulations covers your secured cabinets at home. They also regulate the firearm, in that, it's not automatic, pump action etc.. Then where you can use your shotgun, so on your land, at a clay/pheasant shoot, vermin control on farms etc.. And that's it. So in America, why would Americans be afraid of gun regulations? Would they fail a basic check?
You copy and paste anti-gun propaganda from the likes of every town USA. They clearly have an agenda that colors every little bit of their so-called "research". Anyone who is not in denial right along with them can see that as obvious.
Evidently some don't believe that the mere commoners life is worthy of the same level of self-defense as their betters.
No. Owning guns in the UK is down to you. Your background and mental state of mind is down to you and you only. Tony Martin shot at a car of an apple thief. So go back to reasonable force. So he lost his licence, a shotgun is not to shoot at a person trying to drive away after stealing apples, just note the registration and ring the cops, that's reasonable. Tony Martin didn't fail at filing paperwork, he made himself unsuitable to own a shotgun, and as this case shows, he was unsuitable because he used it against a person where it wasn't reasonable to do so. I wonder, this is all so basic easy stuff but why do Americans find it complex?
What they completely fail to account for in many cases of defensive gun use is the fact that the person using the gun stop the crime merely by brandishing the gun and decide not to get the police involved because they stop the crime themselves and at that point getting the police involved is only going to be a headache for them. But of course they'll tell you that that never happens...
If you make a claim, simply provide the academic study link. Otherwise, opinion unfounded and ignored.
I bet that guy doesn't steal apples again. Unfortunately for Mr Martin your government considers the rights of an apple thief more important than his rights. I'm not saying he should have shot him but a warning shot? If I was on a jury I would convict him of nothing if he did not hit the man.
Again, Harvard debunked that opinion, the evidence didn't back the vast majority of 'alleged' incidents.
I did not call the police that night that my incident occurred. So tell me how does Harvard prove negatives? Did they go around and interview everyone in the entire nation? The incidents that are not reported are not reported.... Do you see what that means? It means they're not on record for anyone to study
No. They often reoffend, plus, it's not reasonable. The government considers the rights of everyone. Everyone just needs to live within the law. Those that break get, get prosecuted. You steal apples, get prosecuted. You don't show reasonable force, get prosecuted. Very simple really. The weight/value of punishment is determined by the law. The courts here would likely find you not suitable for jury duty.
