Right or Wrong .

[scothunter 12,609]

kinda like the death sentence in countrys that still practice it.it does not stop murders or crime.

I your right mate , but as Albert Pierrpoint once pointed out "Any one i dealt with NEVER RE~OFFENDED" , Look how many times in this country people who commit bad crimes are released to commit WORSE CRIMES, you have some points about guns i agree with 100% , but the legal system is designed to benefit the criminal not the victim, some crimes you read about sicken you then you read the scum that done it was on early release or paroled just think the system is a joke , though it aint a laughin matter when it helps destroy families by its softly softly approach .

oh yea totally mate,you look at some crimes and think that was a bit harsh of the judge,and in the next breath some filthy beast or some other despicable crime gets a lighter sentence.most defo the justice system in this country is lacking in some real common sense.i think a lot to do with judges not living in the real world.although in jury cases you got to ask what were they thinking?or maybe the lawyer put across a good case.certanly needs a shake up.

[Born Hunter 17,820]

is it really an offence to confront a burglar with a bat or something similar.i was always led to believe that you could use resonable force if you were attacked in your home.i know if you chased them out the door and caught them i the street and laid into them,then you would more than likely be prosecuted as the courts would deem that as you were not in danger you went after them.i may be wrong mate its just what i always thought was the law.

i think if you were attacked and you tattoed them with a bat,i would imagine the courts would be pretty leiniant with you under those circumstances.

 

If you were attacked and a weapon came to hand you would legally be on safe ground. If you took a weapon (ie a bat) and went down stairs to 'f**k off', for lack of better wording, the thieves you have broken the law and is no different to walking downstairs waving a legally owned shotgun about. The law look at it this way, you took that weapon with you 'pre-meditated'. Whereas if your life is in immediate threat, picking up the nearest weapon for defence is legal. Thats how I understand. Point still being is we are not allowed to protect our property unless unarmed and certainly not with a weapon. I would feel much safer walking down stairs to confront a number of dog thieving scumbags with my shotgun than I would with my fists! In my opinion it should be every humans right. Particularly seeing as we cannot rely on plod for f**k all.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Born Hunter

[robo-christ 40]

very true born hunter,the government is imo trying to leave us completely helpless,first no guns then no weapons at all now theyre introducing the dog control bill which will effectively outlaw guard dogs,then they will imo move on to martial arts.

 

the price of freedom is eternal vigilance,and we've really took our eye off the f*****g ball.

[Fishslayer 10]

I am licensed to carry a concealed handgun and do so every day.

 

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Benjamin Franklin

[Attack Fell Terrier 864]

I don't mind people having a gun in the house to protect themselves, but taking on the Yankee gun culture, walking around the streets with a shooter in a holster like a rooting tooting cowboy I think is too extreme. In saying that I'm also against the laws we have here for a man to protect his family from an intruder in his own home.

 

It pisses me off when the government allows their police force to walk around with Pepper Spray and a Kosh for protection, as well as the use of dogs (that they'll set on suspects even if they're running away) Yet we're called criminals if we walked about with pepper spray for protection, and would never be allowed to use a dog on someone in our own homes the way they're free to do on the street to someone who is just a suspect of a crime.

 

It's a bit of a piss take IMO.

 

In saying all that, I don't care who tries to creep my drum, I'm taking the law into my own hands regardless of what the law says is acceptable. If protecting my family and property means going to prison, then so be it.

[Mickey Finn 3,034]

http://johnrlott.tri...ConFailure.html

 

 

Add Gun Control To Litany Of Misbegotten Gov't Plans

By John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer

The gun -control movement is in trouble internationally. From Britain to Australia to Canada, promises of lower crime rates from gun control have turned into historic increases in crime. While the normal knee-jerk solutions are to press for even more controls, once guns are banned the explanation that the laws failed simply because they didn't go far enough becomes almost humorous.

All these experiments were adopted under what gun -control advocates would argue were ideal conditions. All three countries adopted laws that applied to the entire country. Australia and Britain are surrounded by water, and thus do not have the easy smuggling problem that Canada claims to exist with regard to the U.S.

Take the United Kingdom: With new data showing violent crime soaring, Britain's home secretary announced legislation this month that would impose an outright ban on many toy guns. Britain has already banned just about every type of weapon that a criminal might want to use. Handguns were made illegal in 1997, and nearly every other firearm (even BB guns) is now subject to a complex regulatory regime.

 

Twice As Dangerous

The laws didn't do what was claimed. The government just reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03. The serious violent crime rate soared by 64%, and overall violent crime by 118%. The violent crime rate in England and Wales now stands at twice the rate of that in the U.S.

Understandably, the government wants to "do something," but it is hard to believe that the new proposals will succeed where past efforts have failed. With the exception of the U.S., other English-speaking countries have followed Britain's lead in limiting gun ownership. Like the British, they have nothing to show for it.

 

(Please Read the entire article before you comment)