Britains restrictive gun laws

[stephenray]

A little more detail might be useful about Tony Martin.

First, he had no right to own a shotgun. As a farmer, he had been in possession of a shotgun licence but it had been withdrawn after he developed a habit of threatening passers by with the gun, and also on one occasion driving to a neighbouring farm and threatening them with it. Ergo, he had no excuse for having one in his house in the first place.

Second, the gun he had has never been a legal weapon in the UK, viz. a pump-action shotgun. Even people belonging to the now defunct gun-clubs weren’t allowed such a weapon, whereas semi-automatic rifles were (then) permitted.

Third, he had more than ‘expressed a hatred of gypsies’, he had on several occasions threatened to kill any gypsies, ‘burglars’ and any trespassers in general who he found on his property.

Fourth, doesn’t it strike you as odd that he would keep a pump-action shotgun in his bedroom? Why?

Fifth, he had booby trapped his house in an additional effort to kill ‘burglars’, to the extent that he himself had difficulty getting up and down stairs because of the treads he had removed.

Sixth, both of the burglars were wounded in the back. He did not shoot until they were already trying to get out of the house as fast as they could.

Seventh, having seen the lad who died crawling into the bushes, he then drove to (presumably another) neighbour’s property and asked to be let in, rather than call the police or the ambulance. He is clearly a monomaniac as could be seen in the interviews he gave after his sentence was reduced.

Eighth, whilst there may be many reasons why he was refused parole (we call it ‘release on licence’), the main one was, as in the US I believe, a refusal to recognise that your crime was a crime is one of the things that will deny you an early release.

Ninth, you say ‘it was dark and they were in the guy’s house’. It was dark because he didn’t switch the light on. If he’d done that, they’d probably have been driving away before he got down the stairs. So why didn’t he do it? Seems likely that it was because he wasn’t interested in protecting his home (after all, a few window locks and better security would have been cheaper than a pump-action shotgun, and more effective) but in killing somebody.

Lastly, your answer seems to suggest that you feel it is OK to deprive someone of their life because they are in your house without your permission. That, in my humble opinion, is one of the things that makes your country barbaric - notwithstanding the increase in violent crime over here. The rule in England and Wales (and I dare say Scotland) is that any violence offered by a citizen can only be defended in law if it is commensurate with the violence offered by the other party. Punch a bloke in a pub, and it’s “assault occasioning actual bodily harm”. If he punched you first, 99/100 that will excuse your subsequent blow as due to “provocation”. Pull out a stanley knife and slash his throat when he punched you first, and (if he survives) you’ll both be charged and convicted. Now isn’t that more civilised?

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

ypically, we consider it good manners to post a link to the column in question.

And the use of the word “barbaric” is, I contend, flaming. If I am correct, you have violated the rules of the Board by flaming outside the Forum for reserved for that purpos; i.e. the BBQ Pit.

[Una_Persson]

Bosda, your admonition would have carried more weight if you had done the legwork to link to the thread in question instead of snarking at a Guest commenting on Cecil’s column.

The column in question:
Have Great Britain’s restrictive gun laws contributed to the rise in violent crime? (05-Nov-2004)

Welcome to the Boards, stephenray. For your information, the subject of this column was also discussed in another thread, which can be found here:

Great Britian's gun laws and crime

In there, you may find some views that agree with yours, or some other points to consider.

[Hostile_Dialect]

It’s noteworthy that the state of Israel has relatively liberal gun laws, and also a relatively low gun violence rate. Although I don’t have cites, and don’t claim that my argument is bulletproof (so to speak), the evidence is clear when one visits the nation in question. One can find gun-toting Israelis abound everywhere. Soldiers and ex-soldiers alike (all Israelis are soldiers or ex-soldiers unless they have a religious or other exemption, as the state practices a draft for all citizens) carry handguns and rifles to malls, restaurants, etc. Generally speaking, people are not afraid of crime in public places because there’s a law-abiding citizen a few feet away with a gun who’s ready to stop the criminal. Of course, if gun ownership was this widespread in a country such as the United States (or, I would imagine, a lot of European states), we’d all be pretty scared. Who knows what might happen, or what kind of wackos might get guns? I suggest that the reason gun violence is so much higher, or so much worse, in one place or another is because of a cultural difference. To Israelis, for example, guns are respected tools to fight terror and crime. To many Americans (perhaps Brits? I’m not familiar enough with the culture to say), guns are toys, or magic wands that make bad men go away.

[cuban_ninja]

[/QUOTE]

[FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=3][COLOR=DarkRed]

Fetus has it right, it’s all in the attitude one has towards firearms. If people didn’t have such awe of them, instead viewed them as tools as opposed to wands, that they are there to defend the home against intruders, not to settle arguments with your neighbor over a parking spot, crime would be lower, and there would be fewer incidences of tragic accidents.

[tracer]

@stephenray

Fourth, doesn’t it strike you as odd that he would keep a pump-action shotgun in his bedroom? Why?

I keep a pump-action shotgun in my bedroom. Because if an intruder does break in, and my turning on the lights and locking my bedroom door and making a loud racket isn’t enough to ward him off, then I’m going to need something with some real stopping power for a last-ditch defense.

[Debaser]

@stephenray

First, he had no right to own a shotgun.

Cite?

Ergo, he had no excuse for having one in his house in the first place.

He was robbed six times before? That sounds like he has six good excuses to have a gun in the house to me.

Second, the gun he had has never been a legal weapon in the UK, viz. a pump-action shotgun.

This statement is false. Pump action shotguns weren’t banned in England until 1988. (According to Popular Mechanics).

Even people belonging to the now defunct gun-clubs weren’t allowed such a weapon, whereas semi-automatic rifles were (then) permitted.

The Brittish fear of pump action shotguns is very odd indeed. They are a very useful and affordable type of gun. Nothing makes them so dangerous that they need to be banned.

Third, he had more than ‘expressed a hatred of gypsies’, he had on several occasions threatened to kill any gypsies, ‘burglars’ and any trespassers in general who he found on his property.

So what?

People should have the right to defend themselves in their own home. This is true whether they like gypsies or not. Having been robbed a half dozen times, I don’t find it odd at all that he was hostile to trespassers in general who come onto his property.

Fourth, doesn’t it strike you as odd that he would keep a pump-action shotgun in his bedroom? Why?

I don’t find it odd at all. At night he sleeps in the bedroom. At night is when he’s most likely to be robbed again. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Why do you find it odd?

Fifth, he had booby trapped his house in an additional effort to kill ‘burglars’, to the extent that he himself had difficulty getting up and down stairs because of the treads he had removed.

Cite?

Sixth, both of the burglars were wounded in the back.

Cite? Cecil’s article says that only one of them was wounded in the back.

But, regardless, they were breaking into his home in the dark. There’s no way to prove that he knew that their backs were turned. If they didn’t want to get shot (in the front or the back) they shouldn’t have broken into his home.

He did not shoot until they were already trying to get out of the house as fast as they could.

Cite?

How could you possibly know this unless you were there?

Seventh, having seen the lad who died crawling into the bushes, he then drove to (presumably another) neighbour’s property and asked to be let in, rather than call the police or the ambulance.

Cite?

Even if true, this seems reasonable to me, depending on the circumstances. There may have been other intruders in the house. Fleeing to a neighbors may have been the safest thing. Plus, after shooting a couple people, I’m sure he was scared and excited. It’s easy for us to pick apart his actions after the fact.

He is clearly a monomaniac as could be seen in the interviews he gave after his sentence was reduced.

Cite?

Eighth, whilst there may be many reasons why he was refused parole (we call it ‘release on licence’), the main one was, as in the US I believe, a refusal to recognise that your crime was a crime is one of the things that will deny you an early release.

That the fact that they feared he might harm additional trespassers was even an issue in considering his realease at all is just insane. For this to even be a consideration at all then the inmates are running the isylum. The rights of criminals breaking into his home should never trump the right of him to protect himself.

The fact that he didn’t want to admit causing a crime causing a denial of the release I can understand. We have similar things here in the states. In order to get a deal from the system, you often have to admit what you have done. However, I certainly understand his unwillingness to agree that what he did was wrong. I don’t agree that it was myself.

Ninth, you say ‘it was dark and they were in the guy’s house’. It was dark because he didn’t switch the light on.

It’s not his responsibility to provide a well lit area for them to rob. If someone shines a flashlight in your face in the middle of the night then it’s not reasonable to expect him to go fumbling for a lightswitch.

If he’d done that, they’d probably have been driving away before he got down the stairs.

Cite?

How would you know this? If they are brash enough to break into his home while he’s awake then why would you assume that a simple light would stop them? Breaking into the same house six times doesn’t seem like timid robbers to me.

So why didn’t he do it? Seems likely that it was because he wasn’t interested in protecting his home (after all, a few window locks and better security would have been cheaper than a pump-action shotgun, and more effective) but in killing somebody.

You know nothing of his motives. You seem to assume the absolute worst about this man whenever possible.

He lived in a remote area in a dilapidated farm house. That sounds like it would be very expensive to upgrade to locks and security. My pump action shotgun only cost me $200. You couldn’t buy much security for that price.

Lastly, your answer seems to suggest that you feel it is OK to deprive someone of their life because they are in your house without your permission.

You absolutely have the right to protect yourself and your family. You seem to assume that these criminals had no harmful intentions at all. They were the ones breaking the law. Invading someones home at night is the barbaric act here, not defending yourself against unknown attackers.

That, in my humble opinion, is one of the things that makes your country barbaric - notwithstanding the increase in violent crime over here.

So, notwithstanding the actual facts, we are more barbaric. But, it we consider the reality and the actual crime rates you are the barbarians? OK. Sound fair.

The rule in England and Wales (and I dare say Scotland) is that any violence offered by a citizen can only be defended in law if it is commensurate with the violence offered by the other party. Punch a bloke in a pub, and it’s “assault occasioning actual bodily harm”. If he punched you first, 99/100 that will excuse your subsequent blow as due to “provocation”. Pull out a stanley knife and slash his throat when he punched you first, and (if he survives) you’ll both be charged and convicted. Now isn’t that more civilised?

But, we aren’t talking about a pub. We’re talking about a man in his own home. A man awakened in the middle of the night. A man awakened by criminals for the seventh time.

He doesn’t know if they mean him harm or not. After being terrorized by these criminals for so long he had every reason to fear for his life.

---

You need to back up many of your claims with some actual facts from reputable sources.

You have assumed without any evidence that this man had murderous intentions and wasn’t simply protecting himself.

You are wrong when you assume that the intruders were harmless and the man defending his home should be subject to the same standards as someone in a barfight.

[cuban_ninja]

[de baser is totally right , this man had every right to defend himself, and his property. Britain’s restrictive gun laws are ridicoulous. Just think It’s what the “politically correct” far left would like to do in the U.S.A.

[GorillaMan]

@Debaser

You have assumed without any evidence that this man had murderous intentions and wasn’t simply protecting himself.

Without any evidence - apart from having previously told police that he planned to kill any tresspassers. :rolleyes:

People should have the right to defend themselves in their own home. … Having been robbed a half dozen times, I don’t find it odd at all that he was hostile to trespassers in general who come onto his property.

You state opinion as fact. Whether you think he should have had the right to shoot a fleeing man in the back, he didn’t.

[tracer]

We don’t know if he knew the men had their backs turned to him and were fleeing. He may have been temporarily blinded by the flashlight (his own house lights were off) and merely fired in the direction from which he heard the sounds of their footsteps. (Shotguns fire a blast of small pellets in a narrow cone, and don’t have to be precisely aimed to hit a target.)

[GorillaMan]

OK, granted, there’s nothing in the evidence to prove that Barras was actually running away when he was shot in the back, and there’s also the issue of what the scene would have seemed like to anybody in Tony Martin’s position.
However, Debaser makes a fool of him/herself, by happily throwing the laughable ‘cite’ challenge at things that aren’t just well-known, but were accepted by Tony Martin’s defence in court: the shotgun was unlicenced, therefore illegal. Twelve months of his original sentence were for this offence alone.

[Kal]

If anyone is interested, here is the appeal court’s judgement in the Martin case. Plenty of detail about the evidence used at trial can be found there.

[GorillaMan]

@Kal

If anyone is interested, here is the appeal court’s judgement in the Martin case. Plenty of detail about the evidence used at trial can be found there.

Thanks - one particular quote from their which I hadn’t managed to find myself, which backs up the argument that it wasn’t simply immediate self-defence:

He was heard to express the view that … if a particular team of burglars returned he would “blow their heads off”; and he was also said to have suggested that he would recommend putting such criminals in a field and using a machine gun on them.

But please, anybody else who wants to say “yeah, the guy was acting in self defence” - look at the facts. You’ve got no excuse.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

Don’t bother, boys & grrls.

stephenray did a “drive-by witnessing”, then split. Only his gospel is gun control, preaching to us poor “barbaric” heathen Yankees. Obviously, he regards his own views as the only “civilized” ones in the world. :rolleyes:

We shall never see him again.

In the meanwhile, his nation is increasingly awash in crime, & his remarks suggest, correct me if I’m wrong, that he believes that the act of self defence is always worse than the crime that provokes it. :smack:

[SallyCan_tDance]

@cuban ninja

[de baser is totally right , this man had every right to defend himself, and his property. Britain’s restrictive gun laws are ridicoulous. Just think It’s what the “politically correct” far left would like to do in the U.S.A.

Yes, of course. Because the very low death-by-firearm rate in the U.K. relative to the U.S. is also, like, “ridicoulous” (ridiculous, you mean). And before you start ranting about “every right to defend his property” you should realise that the British and American laws of self-defence are, like, different. :rolleyes: For a start, the Common Law places far more importance on the value of human life than on the value of property.

[cuban_ninja]

I think the notion that people should not have the right to defend their property with deadly force iss ridicoulous. Thieves and trespassers should know that once they undertake their illegal actions , they forfeit their rights.

It’s the laws that protect criminals that are the cause of the high crime rate.

[cuban_ninja]

@SallyCan'tDance

Yes, of course. Because the very low death-by-firearm rate in the U.K. relative to the U.S. is also, like, “ridicoulous” (ridiculous, you mean). And before you start ranting about “every right to defend his property” you should realise that the British and American laws of self-defence are, like, different. :rolleyes: For a start, the Common Law places far more importance on the value of human life than on the value of property.

I TOTALLY STAND BY MY POSTING

[samclem]

Since the OP posted and left, let’s close this one.

I’d suggest to all other posters who want to debate the pros and cons of the subject, please use another fora.