Let's put a spark in this section

I think that we've got enough problems in the UK with people carrying knives without adding more guns to the equation. There's also so many legal guns in the US, any ban would be unlikely to change much. Bottom line, it's one are where our cultures are (& probably will remain for the forseeable future) worlds appart.

As for Tony Martin? Like I've said all along on this, once someone breaks into your house, pretty much anything you do should be nice & legal. If someone gets killed, then they had no business being there in the first place & it would probably of more use than our judicial system at present.

Yeah these two incidents are certainly coming at interesting times. It helps to prove though that no matter what your laws are, these things will happen.

brother of destruction wrote:I think that we've got enough problems in the UK with people carrying knives without adding more guns to the equation. There's also so many legal guns in the US, any ban would be unlikely to change much. Bottom line, it's one are where our cultures are (& probably will remain for the forseeable future) worlds appart.

As for Tony Martin? Like I've said all along on this, once someone breaks into your house, pretty much anything you do should be nice & legal. If someone gets killed, then they had no business being there in the first place & it would probably of more use than our judicial system at present.

But the counter argument is that how do you prove they broke in, and its not just a murder that is using home intrusion as cover.

Big Dave wrote:

brother of destruction wrote:I think that we've got enough problems in the UK with people carrying knives without adding more guns to the equation. There's also so many legal guns in the US, any ban would be unlikely to change much. Bottom line, it's one are where our cultures are (& probably will remain for the forseeable future) worlds appart.

As for Tony Martin? Like I've said all along on this, once someone breaks into your house, pretty much anything you do should be nice & legal. If someone gets killed, then they had no business being there in the first place & it would probably of more use than our judicial system at present.

But the counter argument is that how do you prove they broke in, and its not just a murder that is using home intrusion as cover.

Can I just say, not as a dig at either of you, that I have issues with the fact that Tony Martin, who I have been to see speak, has been turned into this figure of a corrupt justice system. People completely ignore (or aren't aware of) the fact that he's borderline psychotic and he shot the theives (and killed one of them) whilst they were running away empty handed.

JK wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

brother of destruction wrote:I think that we've got enough problems in the UK with people carrying knives without adding more guns to the equation. There's also so many legal guns in the US, any ban would be unlikely to change much. Bottom line, it's one are where our cultures are (& probably will remain for the forseeable future) worlds appart.

As for Tony Martin? Like I've said all along on this, once someone breaks into your house, pretty much anything you do should be nice & legal. If someone gets killed, then they had no business being there in the first place & it would probably of more use than our judicial system at present.

But the counter argument is that how do you prove they broke in, and its not just a murder that is using home intrusion as cover.

Can I just say, not as a dig at either of you, that I have issues with the fact that Tony Martin, who I have been to see speak, has been turned into this figure of a corrupt justice system. People completely ignore (or aren't aware of) the fact that he's borderline psychotic and he shot the theives (and killed one of them) whilst they were running away empty handed.

That was sort of my point.

Sorry that was my fault. When I said both of you I was referring to Phenom and Bod. Your post kinda got caught in the crossfire...

Call me insensitive, but I have no sympathy for dead thieves. You want to break into a home, you're breaking the law, and you're taking a risk.

As far as proving a break in goes, forensic science has come a long way. To the point where you can pull shoe imprints off of the door that was kicked in, prove tampered entry via tumblers in the locking mechanism, all sorts of crazy things. I've been to the FBI academy to view this type of shit, it's incredible what can be figured out about a crime scene.

Ah yes, when someone commits theft respond with murder. One sin for another, just as Jesus taught

At the end of the day, the safety of my family is my top priority, I'm not going to allow anything to happen to them. How can you be against this? Because if you let these thieves just walk away, they're going to go somewhere else. And now, since they're scared to break into the home of a normal family/man, they're going to choose someone weaker (i.e. the elderly and single women). FACT.

Now, I'll admit I don't know much about this guy Tony Martin, but I can tell by the conversation that his issue was one that was exploited (and is still being exploited) by anti gun people to make their case, as if his case is the norm.


Edit: And now that I've read up on the situation I found this little morsel. This is what is wrong with the criminal justice system. Put away a man defending his home and himself, yet, let this loser out numerous times.


"Fearon, a small time career criminal who had been convicted of a string of about thirty offenses, starting with handling stolen goods in September 1986, for which he was fined £25, through theft, burglary, drugs, fraud and wounding, for which he received a 1 year sentence, his third and longest custodial sentence, in May 1997."

Well done on leaving out the bit about Tony Martin being a paranoid psychotic who was a danger to himself as much as anyone else and who effectively murdered someone by shooting them and then not bothering to call the police. He got a longer sentence because he murdered one of them and attempted to murder the other one and had a firearm for the purposes of shooting other people which, funnily enough, carries a higher sentence than attempted burglary.

Actually the pro-gun people got more out of him than the anti crowd did. He basically threatened these theives with a shotgun and they put all the stuff down and ran and he shot them both in the back whilst they were fleeing, then went and hit the weapon and left one of them bleeding to death in his garden without telling anyone it had happened.

I'm against it because I don't believe any crime justifies killing another human being in retaliation, simple as that.

EDIT: Oh and he's also a member of two extreme right wing political parties.

The Phenom wrote:At the end of the day, the safety of my family is my top priority, I'm not going to allow anything to happen to them. How can you be against this? Because if you let these thieves just walk away, they're going to go somewhere else. And now, since they're scared to break into the home of a normal family/man, they're going to choose someone weaker (i.e. the elderly and single women). FACT.

That's not a fact, regardless of your use of capital letters. That's a GUESS.

The Phenom wrote:
Now, I'll admit I don't know much about this guy Tony Martin, but I can tell by the conversation that his issue was one that was exploited (and is still being exploited) by anti gun people to make their case, as if his case is the norm.

Yeah but pro-gun people talk about home invasions as though they are the norm. Or would be if they didn't have a gun. Which is just silly.

If it's okay to have a gun to defend yourselves in your home, theres no real argument that I can see as to why you shouldnt be able to carry a gun on the street. Just go back to wearing hats and riding horses while you're at it.

I'm also confused as to why your country having such shitty gun control means that everyone should be armed. Surely the focus should be on removing all guns rather than making sure everyone has one. There's a reason why fire isn't literally fought with fire you know.

Remove guns, less guns in the country, should be a worldwide ban on the bloody things bar military and sporting uses, and even with the latter you a) have to be licenced and b) store the weapon at the shooting club. Screw Smith & Wesson, goodbye Glock.

JK wrote:Well done on leaving out the bit about Tony Martin being a paranoid psychotic who was a danger to himself as much as anyone else and who effectively murdered someone by shooting them and then not bothering to call the police. He got a longer sentence because he murdered one of them and attempted to murder the other one and had a firearm for the purposes of shooting other people which, funnily enough, carries a higher sentence than attempted burglary.

Actually the pro-gun people got more out of him than the anti crowd did. He basically threatened these theives with a shotgun and they put all the stuff down and ran and he shot them both in the back whilst they were fleeing, then went and hit the weapon and left one of them bleeding to death in his garden without telling anyone it had happened.

I'm against it because I don't believe any crime justifies killing another human being in retaliation, simple as that.

EDIT: Oh and he's also a member of two extreme right wing political parties.

You already mentioned him being an odd fellow, so why mention it again? As far as not calling the police, he should have. Definitely in the wrong there, but that doesn't change my point of view that he had every right to defend himself and his property at the time. His actions after the incident are wrong, no debate from me there.

And why does no crime justify killing another? I am a pro-death penalty person. But if I'm being threatened by a criminal, I'll take any means necessary to defend myself and my loved ones. No questions asked.

Him being a member of extreme political parties has nothing to do with this. Ted Kennedy killed a girl, and he's one of the most celebrated American liberal politicians ever. Robert Byrd used to be in the KKK, same story, Democratic icon.

MTW wrote:That's not a fact, regardless of your use of capital letters. That's a GUESS.

No. The Uniform Crime Report and National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by local, state, and federal police departments, as well as the FBI, confirm that. Over numerous years of reporting. Many trends in states that have stict gun laws show that the elderly and single women are more victimized. This was my main area of study at University (Criminology, Justice, and Criminal Justice trends/statistics), trust me.

MTW wrote:Yeah but pro-gun people talk about home invasions as though they are the norm. Or would be if they didn't have a gun. Which is just silly.

If it's okay to have a gun to defend yourselves in your home, theres no real argument that I can see as to why you shouldnt be able to carry a gun on the street. Just go back to wearing hats and riding horses while you're at it.

I'm also confused as to why your country having such shitty gun control means that everyone should be armed. Surely the focus should be on removing all guns rather than making sure everyone has one. There's a reason why fire isn't literally fought with fire you know.

In many places in America, they are the norm. That is an unfortunate truth, and that is most evident in many suburban areas on the east coast. Criminals will travel to the less policed, generally more wealthy suburban areas to do their work.

In Vermont, people do carry guns in the street. There are essentially no laws at all. And there aren't massive shootouts. Now this wouldn't work in a lot of places, I am aware of that. But as far as focusing on removing all guns, that is not a reality. We need to focus on taking as many guns away from illegal owners, but then allowing the citizens a reasonable means to arm themselves if they so desire. Guns are not going away, ever.

TCS wrote:Remove guns, less guns in the country, should be a worldwide ban on the bloody things bar military and sporting uses, and even with the latter you a) have to be licenced and b) store the weapon at the shooting club. Screw Smith & Wesson, goodbye Glock.

You are living in a dream world if you think you can remove all guns. It's easy for a small country (that's an Island) and a large police state doctrine. But not for a place like America or much of the rest of the world. And if you remove the gun, that's just the instrument. We should be focused on removing the offenders.

Someone has just shot 8 people dead in a nursing home, gun laws still working well in America I see.

The Phenom wrote:Him being a member of extreme political parties has nothing to do with this. Ted Kennedy killed a girl, and he's one of the most celebrated American liberal politicians ever. Robert Byrd used to be in the KKK, same story, Democratic icon.

It's more evidence in favour of him being a looney.

I'm just amused at Phenom's paranoia over this "inevitable" gun ban which isn't coming. There's not enough support, even amongst the Democratic Party. (Not that I wouldn't support one, but let's be realistic here).

Can I add the shooting at the immigration centre in New York and the mum who shot her son and herself in a firing range in America to this section?

Bad times.

I was stuck in JFK for most of yesterday and saw something along the lines of 50+ people killed in gun crimes in the last week or so in the states. Not sure on the figures there, but I think so many deaths should call for better gun control.

The Phenom will possibly call for more guns so people can protect themselves better

You people make it seem like I am against all gun controls and that it should be absolutely lawless. I'm for background checks, I'm for waiting lists if the background check warrants further investigation, and I'm for age restrictions.

I am against the tightening of these controls, because all they end up doing is make it harder for normal citizens to obtain a firearm. It would be interesting to see how many of the guns used in these crimes actually were A: Legally owned by the person committing the crime. B: Were used by people that had severe mental issues.

If a person wants to commit a crime with a gun, they're going to do it whether they legally own one or not. They'll either get one legally if they have no record, or they'll get it illegally if they have a record.

It's also worth noting that a lot of these mass murderer types are just looking to inflict as many deaths as they can, no matter the method. If it weren't a gun, it would have been some sort of home made bomb, with chemicals and propellants purchased from the local hardware store, or even a large blade in an area with no security guards (happened in a mall a little while back). The people committing these crimes have a goal, and no measure of gun control will stop them. What it does stop is the common citizen from acting and stopping the crime. If I were ever to find myself in one of these situations and I had my weapon, I'd take him down. As would most people that carry a weapon, because people that legally carry weapons aren't just random people that feel like it. Most are very well trained and have reason to carry.

As for family violence that was mentioned earlier. If a family member wants to kill his/her whole family, they're going to do it and there is no way to prevent it. It is far more complicated than "let's just eliminate guns!"

And regarding the gun ban. I don't think Obama will be able to ban all guns, however I do think he is going to re-enact the Assault Weapons ban, which many democrats simply do not understand. This is part of Obama's plan, as illustrated on his website. Below is a video showing their lack of knowledge:




First, she talks of banning the guns that gangs and criminals use to kill our citizens. Well, as proved by the ban, it doesn't stop the gangs or the criminals, because they aren't using legal means to obtain. Next, she doesn't even know what she banned with this bill. A barrel shroud is nothing more than a hand guard on a barrel, to prevent people from touching it when it is hot. Tell me, how does banning that from a weapon make people safer?

Professor being hunted after 3 people shot dead at University of Georgia, yeah, intelligent people are fine with guns right enough.