Gun control: What is your position?

[SevenStarsHK2N]

ok first up - I have things to say regarding the gun debate - I have my own opinion - and i am enjoying the freeform debate (after all it would be terribly boring if we all just agreed)

However - I am going to put my personal views to aside - and make a post now simply responding to this chain email.

I am going to do so objectively - with no agenda

I am going to make my answers as impartial as possible - I will NOT be spinning facts or trying to make some point about gun control - for or against - I am simply going to comment on the statements made in this email -

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it...

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door

and lurches outside.

This is a miss-telling of the Tony martin case - from what i remember - Tony was at the top of his stairs - the burglars were at the bottom of the stairs - Tony's life was not in any danger - nor did Tony feel that his life was in danger

the first shot scared them away and they began to run - he fired again - this was when the injuries were done -

the gypsy that died was actually shot in the back

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before,

and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

I would doubt that Tony's shotgun was illigal - most farmers in the UK have shotguns and rifles - they are legitimately used for pest control - and for pointing at ramblers while saying "get off my land"

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry:

authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.

"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

This is pure conjecture - though when it came down to it Tony didn't spend a long time in jail

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Yes it very much was

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them..

not at all - both 'victims' were gypsy's - the tabloid and right wing press took tony's side
the lefty and centrist papers (broadsheets) - went more into the discussion of what is reasonable and what is not

Tony was not painted as a VILLAIN by any media outlet

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

this is fiction - I've even done a google on this "headline" no pages from the uk have this as a head line in relation to the Tony martin case

As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up,

then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

The national media were on this from day 1 - as for international media - I couldn't comment

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

the surviving thief DID receive legal aid to file a civil claim for compensation - years after mind - he was however exposed as being full of **** by a tabloid newspaper - it never went to court

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and

that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

this all sounds true

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced,

we don't have district attorneys - thats not how our legal system works -
taking the case on behalf of the crown would be the Crown prosecution service -

The charge was reduced from Murder to manslaughter - In UK law if you kill someone - even accidently - through actions you took on purpose - that's manslaughter - there have been executives of rail companies in the dock facing prison for Corporate manslaughter -

edit: i just want to add that any statement that Tony may or may not have made to his neighbors would be classed as "hear-say" and inadmissable in a UK court of law

as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at

again can't comment

the injustice of it all works against you.. Prosecutors paint a picture of you

as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

he was a ******* nutter tho - and the fact that he shot the gypsy in the back - and fired at them while they were running away is what ultimately did him in - he only didn't get done for murder because his brief argued that it was dark - he couldn't see properly - and only shot in their general direction to scare them - he did not mean to actually shoot them.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

I don't think he got life

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term..

I do know that he is now a free man

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and

established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and

mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.

(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland,

Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.

Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.

The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm's

still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights,

the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened,

claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.

I dunno much about this stuff - so can't really comment -
It is however a tenant of UK law that lethal force is not justified as a form of self defense

Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

thats just bolloxs - not just in the uk - but anywhere - what police force is going to say - well you did rape her yes - but then she shot you in the leg - so meh - let's call it evens

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,

"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

indeed - and they usually do when something similar comes up - it is a quote any police force in the world would agree with - and any sensible citizen agree with.

Innocent until proven guilty - magna carta, habeas corpus - even those who are guilty have the right to have their case heard in a court of law - This is very important - this is what destroyed the slave trade - So for a single citizen to act as police - judge - jury and execution - is simply not on - regardless of the situation

All of Tony Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times,

and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs

who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques,

had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

Tony didn't have any neighbors - he lived in rural norfolk - in the middle of nowhere - which is why the police were unable to help him

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns

were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law.

The few who didn't were visited by police

couldn't really comment on dunblane

and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

but i call bullshit on this - for a start minimum sentencing is a new thing - as part of operation trident (which is no more than 10 years old - probably less - and a reaction to gang on gang gun crime) - the minimum sentence for possession of a firearm is 5 years

Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed.

Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA;

THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

I don't think you actually need to register specific guns in the UK. instead you are required to have a gun licence - the licence tells you what kind of guns you may own - i don't think they are specific about how many you can own.

again - i'm not drawing conclusions - or attempting to sway arguments -

I would say however that this email has made a clear and concerted effort to sway opinion - and hasn't let the facts get in the way of a good story

(will resond to other points in the thread when i have time - please see this post as interdependent from my other posts here - and from my own opinions - again - written without agenda - have guns don't have guns - either way - tony was a ******* nutter and he shouldn't have shot those pikies)

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

SevenStars, thanks for that lengthy response, which, if not entirely free of bias, is at least rational and free of ad hominem. I suspected this chain email probably has exaggeration and misinformation, as they usually do. Still, I have to comment on some of your points.

"This is a miss-telling of the Tony martin case - from what i remember - Tony was at the top of his stairs - the burglars were at the bottom of the stairs - Tony's life was not in any danger - nor did Tony feel that his life was in danger

"the first shot scared them away and they began to run - he fired again - this was when the injuries were done -

"the gypsy that died was actually shot in the back."

Do you have a source for that language I put in bold? Because this is the key issue. If Tony reasonably believed his life was in danger, whether the burglars were running away or toward him should be irrelevant. Under the high-stress, high-adrenaline state that Tony would have been in at the time, we can't judge his actions by the cold emotional distance of people who didn't experience Tony's situation. A good defense lawyer would try to put the jury in Tony's shoes at the time of the shooting.

Incidentally, any reasonable person in that situation should presume that an intruder entering an occupied building intends or is willing to cause harm to the occupants. If not, then the miscreants would be burglarizing unoccupied houses and buildings.

"edit: i just want to add that any statement that Tony may or may not have made to his neighbors would be classed as "hear-say" and inadmissable in a UK court of law"

The Hearsay Rule came to the US, with its 25-odd exceptions intact, courtesy of English common law. So I'm going to assume the Rule works much the same way in the modern UK. If you're actually a solicitor or barrister there, I'll defer to your superior knowledge of UK law.

Tony's alleged statement to his neighbors that after the last break-in he "would be prepared next time" fits the admission against interest exception to the Hearsay Rule. A neighbor's testimony about those words would fit the definition of hearsay, but it's admissible because Tony has (if the witness is to be believed) made an admission against his own interest; it shows an intent to shoot the burglars, and intent makes the homicide a more serious crime.

"It is however a tenant of UK law that lethal force is not justified as a form of self defense."

Again, if you're a solicitor or barrister there, I'll shut up. But that statement is incredible to me. Are you saying a person about to be raped or murdered can't use lethal force to defend herself? Even fists can be lethal force; people die from bare-hand battering every day, and even pro boxers sometimes die in the ring from a single punch.

A gun is probably the only commonly-available and effective means for a smaller or weaker person to defend herself from a larger or stronger attacker, regardless of whether the attacker's hands are empty.

"the minimum sentence for possession of a firearm is 5 years"

So wouldn't that mean that if I shoot an intruder with an unlicensed or illegal firearm, I would likely go to prison for at least five years? Even though I am am minding my own business in my own home, and the burglar caused his own death by invading my home? In that situation, a rational citizen should just go dig a big hole in his back yard and make the burglar disappear.

 

[Orochimaru]

ok first up - I have things to say regarding the gun debate - I have my own opinion - and i am enjoying the freeform debate (after all it would be terribly boring if we all just agreed)

However - I am going to put my personal views to aside - and make a post now simply responding to this chain email.

I am going to do so objectively - with no agenda

I am going to make my answers as impartial as possible - I will NOT be spinning facts or trying to make some point about gun control - for or against - I am simply going to comment on the statements made in this email -



This is a miss-telling of the Tony martin case - from what i remember - Tony was at the top of his stairs - the burglars were at the bottom of the stairs - Tony's life was not in any danger - nor did Tony feel that his life was in danger

the first shot scared them away and they began to run - he fired again - this was when the injuries were done -

the gypsy that died was actually shot in the back

Could you please learn how to make a mother ******* sentence? Thanks.