Piers Morgan on Colbert said the British Cops did not carry guns?

[tagos]

@Simple_Linctus

I thought that we were going to introduce a right to use excessive force on home invaders? Not an absolute stand your ground type thing, but something where you would really have to try something like the “pit of fire” guy above to get prosecuted. Martin would get released fine.

I still support the right to self defence by excessive means, and I support the right of people to get weaponry to do it. Ain’t ever gonna happen though and I also think frankly you’d be very paranoid in almost all parts of the UK to want to use it, I mean I wouldn’t. But it fucks me right off I’m not allowed to. Hell I should be allowed plastic explosives if I like.

The trouble is, once guns become routinely available, the criminals will be coming in similarly armed and ready to use them. At the moment we have a situation where it is not very likely the burglar will have a gun.

The guidance on self-defence has been clarified endlessly by this government and in a home invasion situation we can now happily blast, stab and bludgeon away so long as we don’t get stupid.

More info here

How likely is prosecution?

There have been very few prosecutions in these circumstances. Between 1990 and 2005 there were 11 prosecutions of people who attacked intruders. Seven of them related to domestic burglaries. One of the cases that was prosecuted involved a man who lay in wait for an intruder and then beat him, threw him into a pit and set him alight.

Buckinghamshire businessman Munir and Tokeer Hussain were jailed in different circumstances. Hussain had returned home to find that three intruders had tied up his family. He escaped and, with the help of his brother, chased one of the intruders, Walid Saleem. Hussain caught Saleem and hit him so hard with a cricket bat that he inflicted permanent brain damage.

Saleem was incapable of entering a plea at trial and received a lesser sentence than the man whose house he broke into. It’s important to note that the brothers did not plead at trial that they acted in self-defence when they chased and attacked the intruder. The Court of Appeal reduced their sentences but emphasised that the case was very unusual - and included an eyewitness who pleaded with the men to stop attacking the intruder.

What about if someone shoots?

The most recent case was that of Andy and Tracey Ferrie. They were in bed when two burglars entered their home. Mr Ferrie fired his (legally-held) shotgun at the men. The couple were arrested but then released without charge.

[BrokenBriton]

@tagos

The trouble is, once guns become routinely available, the criminals will be coming in similarly armed and ready to use them. At the moment we have a situation where it is not very likely the burglar will have a gun.

A burglar doesn’t need a gun. A burglar doesn’t want a gun - at that point the offence become armed robbery or worse and a very significant custodial sentence looms.

All most burglars want is your phone, laptop and any handy cash - they don’t need the aggravation of guns anymore than the householder does.

[Alessan]

@BrokenBriton

A burglar doesn’t need a gun. A burglar doesn’t want a gun - at that point the offence become armed robbery or worse and a very significant custodial sentence looms.

All most burglars want is your phone, laptop and any handy cash - they don’t need the aggravation of guns anymore than the householder does.

To be fair, they’ll also steal your gun.

[BrokenBriton]

Would they.

[Princhester]

@BrokenBriton

A burglar doesn’t need a gun. A burglar doesn’t want a gun - at that point the offence become armed robbery or worse and a very significant custodial sentence looms.

All most burglars want is your phone, laptop and any handy cash - they don’t need the aggravation of guns anymore than the householder does.

Unless they think you are likely to have a gun, in which case they are more likely to have one and use it.

@Alessan

To be fair, they’ll also steal your gun.

If you have one. If you don’t, not so much.

[BrokenBriton]

@Princhester

Unless they think you are likely to have a gun, in which case they are more likely to have one and use it.

I’m taking about straight forward house burglary.

If you have a gun in this society (a) you’ve gone to a lot of trouble to acquire it, and (b) because of the rarity of them in society in general, and the sentencing tariff associated with possession, you’ll be inclined to do a little more than steal laptops and mobile phones from a domestic dwelling.

[tagos]

@BrokenBriton

I’m taking about straight forward house burglary.

If you have a gun in this society (a) you’ve gone to a lot of trouble to acquire it, and (b) because of the rarity of them in society in general, and the sentencing tariff associated with possession, you’ll be inclined to do a little more than steal laptops and mobile phones from a domestic dwelling.

But in a context where guns are freely available in the UK the rarity argument goes out the window. All I was saying is that if any householder can get a gun then so can anyone else. And if someone breaks in they will go equipped to deal with it.

I want guns to remain a rarity in the UK, which is why I’d rather see the rules tightened even further. There’s a kid I grew up with, who is a complete and utter lunatic and probably a sociopath. He has a shotgun licence and one day he will kill somebody. He was even allowed to keep it when police were called on him when he was drunk and threatening to kill his father.

But if I lived in the USA I would have a gun for home protection.

[artemis]

@Princhester

Unless they think you are likely to have a gun, in which case they are more likely to have one and use it.

Except that true burglars are interested in stealing stuff, not in confronting a homeowner (armed or not), and so they generally avoid breaking into occupied dwellings. They’ll often check (by ringing the door bell, or calling on the phone) to see if the place is truly unoccupied before they break in.

People who break into houses they know are occupied should not be regarded as mere burglars; they are quite a bit more dangerous. They’re after the “thrill” of scaring the crap out of the homeowner as much as they are after stuff.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@janeslogin

Did I hear it correctly Piers Morgan on Colbert said the British Cops did not carry guns?
If our US cops did not carry guns I would feel comfortable with *almost *any gun control legislation.
I see authorities with guns as a greater potential threat in the long run than civilians with guns.

BTW: I don’t have any functioning guns and don’t plan to get any. This thread states an oversimplified statement of my feelings about governmental authorities.

I might give up my guns if cops stop feeling the need to carry guns. I would certainly be willing to give up possession of a gun outside my home and restricting my gun to rifles and shotguns.

[Deeg]

@Musicat

The ghost of 1776 often rears its ugly head. It’s dead, but not gone from memory.

The government in 1776 was not a democracy, so it doesn’t apply.