What would you do about Virginia Tech?

[[Phill]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brits,

From a historical perspective, I find the fact that citizens of the UK are telling us we should have gun control laws very LOL.

Part of the reason that the US has historically been very anti-gun control is because of the actions of your government during colonial times. I'm not laying blame, I just thought it was kind of funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

232 years almost to the day. Brits tried to take Americans guns. Didn't work then. Doubt it will work now.

How many Brits are behind bars for defending themselves with a gun (shotgun) in the face of an armed intruder into their house? Nice law. Punish the good guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Urgh.

You are referencing the case of the farmer guy (whose name escapes me). He owned an illegal pump action shotgun. He confronted burglars who, as they were leaving, he shot in the back.

They were unarmed.

When they got outside his property he followed and gunned one down killing him, and seriously injuring another.

He should have had his murder conviction upheld. Newspaper coverage was biased in his favour and he got away with murder when his sentence was reduced to manslaughter (or something lesser like that).

It is pure ignorance to say that the law is stacked against the homeowner in the case of house defense. The same is true with a mugging. The only cases where someone has been convicted has been cases where gross excess of force was used (like gunning down a kid in the back as he runs away) or where one guy captured said burglar and tortured him.

If someone invades your home you are able to use force in your defense provided it is reasonable given the situation - if the burglar is holding a weapon then a fatal blow from a cricket bat or 7 iron is fine. If you are a woman and there is a burglar there is virtually no limit to what you can do (assuming you arent trained for such a situation, of which a self defense course does not count as training).

There was a few hyperthetical test cases ran through the system under as close to real circumstances as possible, including a guy alone killing a burglar who had a weapon and a case where he killed an unarmed burglar who took an aggressive stance when he made his presense known. In the case of a woman alone she killed the burglar whilst he had his back to her and made no aggressive motives known. All cases were examined by lawyers, barristers and judges and in all the cases but one the crown wouldnt have even taken steps to press charges, and in the one where it felt there was a case to be heard all the barristers and judges agreed that the case wouldnt result in a conviction.

The UK law is balanced and fair, and to suggest otherwise is gutter press led BS.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Brits,

From a historical perspective, I find the fact that citizens of the UK are telling us we should have gun control laws very LOL.

Part of the reason that the US has historically been very anti-gun control is because of the actions of your government during colonial times. I'm not laying blame, I just thought it was kind of funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

232 years almost to the day. Brits tried to take Americans guns. Didn't work then. Doubt it will work now.

How many Brits are behind bars for defending themselves with a gun (shotgun) in the face of an armed intruder into their house? Nice law. Punish the good guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Urgh.

You are referencing the case of the farmer guy (whose name escapes me). He owned an illegal pump action shotgun. He confronted burglars who, as they were leaving, he shot in the back.

They were unarmed.

When they got outside his property he followed and gunned one down killing him, and seriously injuring another.

He should have had his murder conviction upheld. Newspaper coverage was biased in his favour and he got away with murder when his sentence was reduced to manslaughter (or something lesser like that).

It is pure ignorance to say that the law is stacked against the homeowner in the case of house defense. The same is true with a mugging. The only cases where someone has been convicted has been cases where gross excess of force was used (like gunning down a kid in the back as he runs away) or where one guy captured said burglar and tortured him.

If someone invades your home you are able to use force in your defense provided it is reasonable given the situation - if the burglar is holding a weapon then a fatal blow from a cricket bat or 7 iron is fine. If you are a woman and there is a burglar there is virtually no limit to what you can do (assuming you arent trained for such a situation, of which a self defense course does not count as training).

There was a few hyperthetical test cases ran through the system under as close to real circumstances as possible, including a guy alone killing a burglar who had a weapon and a case where he killed an unarmed burglar who took an aggressive stance when he made his presense known. In the case of a woman alone she killed the burglar whilst he had his back to her and made no aggressive motives known. All cases were examined by lawyers, barristers and judges and in all the cases but one the crown wouldnt have even taken steps to press charges, and in the one where it felt there was a case to be heard all the barristers and judges agreed that the case wouldnt result in a conviction.

The UK law is balanced and fair, and to suggest otherwise is gutter press led BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can use any item you happen to have, but you can get into trouble if you held such an item purely for the purposes of using as a weapon, this is the way it should be. Give them a chance though, they have 800+ years of catching up to do.

Mack

[[Phill]]

Yeah, ive often wondered if i bought a baseball bat for the pure purpose of home defense it would be a problem?

I mean, ive no intention of ever playing baseball.

Similarly, what if i have an ornimental katana or bowie.

But either way, i wouldnt worry about using such an item if i felt it was justified. I mean, if he pulls a shiv, "this is a knife". If i get in troube for it later, ill take my chances with the courts.

Fwiw, i have a lock on my bedroom door, thatll do me instead of a weapon of anykind. But ive not really got anything i could and would use as a weapon. Maybe a laptop or a monitor i guess :/

Even if it were legal, i know i wouldnt own a gun.

Now a taser, if they were legal here id buy one without a second thought, but thats just me. Ive argued we should be legally able to carry tasers in the same way pro gun people argue for concealed carry of handguns. Ironically few are won over even with what is technically a none lethal weapon. Culture thing i guess.

End mini hijack.

[colonel81]

banning guns is not the answer. i do not own a gun however i feel banning guns hurts the innocent who uses them properly. if guns were banned and this shooter wanted to get a gun he would still be able to. someone made a comparison similar to drugs how they are illegal but still available. the only thing i would be in favor of is harsher punishments for carrying them illegally and stricter laws similar to the brady bill making them more diffucult to obtain. it wont eliminate the problem but over the course of many years it could lower the number of illegal guns. who knows how many of these incidents have been prevented that went unannounced and hopefully more can be with modifications to the current laws dealing with obtaining guns

[onthebutton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the figure is 1 or higher, its obviously been a positive move.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the stupidest thing I've heard in my life. You can justify ANY draconian measure with this kind of logic. Hey, let's ban sex outside of licensed fertility clinics -- no more AIDS! If it saves just one life, it will all be worth it!

[/ QUOTE ]

He's talking about guns though, not anything worthwhile or necessary, this is where your argument falls down.

Regards Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about the UK though, not anything worthwhile or necessary, this is where your argument falls down.

Silly argument, isn't it? Your judgment that guns aren't worthwhile or necessary is your opinion---and only that, and happens to be one that many disagree with. It's not fact, so you shouldn't treat it as an undebatable truth.

[pdjplano]

Gun bill gets shot down by panel
HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.

By Greg Esposito
Tuesday, January 31, 2006

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

...

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.

-------------

wonder how safe Mr. Hincker feels today...

imho, carry a concealed weapon gives me an increased chance of surviving/helping with a situation such as the shootings that occurred today (or something like it, say at a mall, movie theater, restaurant, office building, etc). my ability to protect myself and my family is increased by carrying a weapon and having the training to use it. why people want to take that away from me, i have no idea, but i will do what i can to fight against those that try.

those that put forward "ban all guns" are, imo again, fools given the structure / history of our nation and the environment we live in. those fools, when successful, actually *decrease* my safety, not increase it. bless their hearts, they think they are doing good / have my best interest at heart, but they are wrong.

[[Phill]]

[ QUOTE ]
banning guns is not the answer. i do not own a gun however i feel banning guns hurts the innocent who uses them properly. if guns were banned and this shooter wanted to get a gun he would still be able to. someone made a comparison similar to drugs how they are illegal but still available. the only thing i would be in favor of is harsher punishments for carrying them illegally and stricter laws similar to the brady bill making them more diffucult to obtain. it wont eliminate the problem but over the course of many years it could lower the number of illegal guns. who knows how many of these incidents have been prevented that went unannounced and hopefully more can be with modifications to the current laws dealing with obtaining guns

[/ QUOTE ]

You may not have realised it, but you have argued to the conclusion that banning all guns is good if you carry your argument further to its conclusion.

[Nielsio]

I would personally like to have a gun that shoots those little packs of sand. They're not lethal unless they hit really nasty. They're like a professional boxer KO-ing you.

Seems like a good idea to have things like that spread among people who are in vulnerable spots like that. You train people how to use them and you have people store them safely. Or people can have them in their purse/bags. If you're worried about misuse by others you can solve that through technology. Put a number-lock on it or something to that effect.

This kind of innovation can be easily constructed financially through insurance. I think the main reasons that we don't find initiatives like that is because of laws, regulations and the broken and corrupt arbitration system. Insurance agencies are simply not allowed to go that direction because it contradicts the nature of government. Government is not about prevention; it is about permanent wars and the ideology of punishment not solving and preventing problems.

[colonel81]

i agree that guns should not be banned however im not sure that being able to carry guns on campus is the answer. in a trial that is going on in my hometown two college students from a college across the river, one of them being a former star basketball player, were drinking and playing dice when a argument insued. The former player is accused on fatally shooting the other in an argument over the dice game and the handgun. while no doubt having a gun would make u feel safer in an incident like the VT shootings, i would have to believe that being able to carry guns on campus would increase isolated shootings similar to the one on trial here.

[[Phill]]

[ QUOTE ]
Gun bill gets shot down by panel
HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.

By Greg Esposito
Tuesday, January 31, 2006

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

...

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.

-------------

wonder how safe Mr. Hincker feels today...

imho, carry a concealed weapon gives me an increased chance of surviving/helping with a situation such as the shootings that occurred today (or something like it, say at a mall, movie theater, restaurant, office building, etc). my ability to protect myself and my family is increased by carrying a weapon and having the training to use it. why people want to take that away from me, i have no idea, but i will do what i can to fight against those that try.

those that put forward "ban all guns" are, imo again, fools given the structure / history of our nation and the environment we live in. those fools, when successful, actually *decrease* my safety, not increase it. bless their hearts, they think they are doing good / have my best interest at heart, but they are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Guns are more a culture thing in America than over here. At least from what Bowling for Columbine said (stats back up murder, gun and population as being way worse in America than any other western nation).