In that case, I’m sorry to have picked you up on it like that. I hope you feel better soon.
I haven’t ever noticed anyone trying to interfere with US gun laws from outside the US. Does it happen?
Yes. Pretty much entirely through the UN. One of the very, very few things that happened during the Bush administration of which I approved was our ambassador to the UN telling them to get bent WRT to treaties that would restrict private ownership of arms in the US.
That attitude 'll change once Obama has time to devote to the issue. The UN will be pushing at an open door.
You had no way of knowing; it was an inappropriate post in the thread. I am better today, after sleeping most of the afternoon. Thanks for the good wishes.
Fair enough, and individual residents of the UK will continue to exercise the right to criticise and pass comment on US policy and laws as they see fit. If you don’t want to comment on UK laws that’s your choice but you retain the right to do so.
Quite.
Arguing/debating an issue is one thing; I seriously doubt any foreigners are actively lobbying your parliament to change your gun laws.
See Scumpup’s posts, above.
I haven’t even addressed anyone’s “points,” let alone dismissed them. I expressed a desire, admittedly in a hyperbolic manner, for British people (not necessarily anyone in this thread) to “put a muzzle” on those other British people (again, not necessarily anyone in this thread) who feel the need to TELL us [Americans] what/how/where/etc. we should be doing with our guns.
If anything, my post was an extremely oblique crtique of Johnny. In fairness to him, he wasn’t even making a point in his OP. At least not much of one, beyond a somewhat inflammatory thread title. Really, he just posted some mundane, pointless stuff he felt he must share.
So all you folks with your dicks in a twist can just do me solid and pull your panties out of your asscrack, ease up off my ass about it, and chill the fuck out.
We are members of the U.N. If the proposed U.N. treaty stuff that has been mentioned had come to anything we would be in there too.
In actuality it wouldn’t matter jot as only, police(not on the beat though), army, criminals, paramilitaries, sportsmen and farmers have guns here 
The UN seems to be pretty keen on making it almost impossible to ship sporting arms from one country to another as part of a private sale, so I’d say that yes, foreigners are actively lobbying my parliament to change gun laws and policies.
This isn’t a criticism of you, ExTank, but I’ve certainly noticed a tendency amongst Americans to try and tell Australian gun owners what we should be doing with our gun laws. Indeed, pretty much any conversation I’ve had with vehemently pro-gun Americans invariably turns to how it’s some failing on my part that Australia has laws prohibiting the ownership of self-loading centrefire rifles and so on. So it goes both ways, I think.
I have no argument with that. I’m not familiar enough with the law to argue the point. My point is it is dangerous to say that just because Parliament or Congress passes a law, the prosecutor prosecutes individuals for violation of that law and jurors convict people of violating that law, that that makes the law just.
For example, suppose the limit on force was such that the law required me to flee my home rather than defend it in the face a burgular (with a gun, my fists, a trout, whatever). I would say that is unjust as it requires me to give up my right to my property to protect someone who is breaking the law and could very well mean me harm. It also could put my family in jeopardy. If I’m downstairs looking for a midnight snack and I see someone robbing my house, I don’t think saying, “Excuse me while I gather up may family–including my 16 year old daughter and leave–BTW, the silverware is only plated” is a fair thing to ask me to do.
In this particular case, I don’t know how far the law goes. Someone up thread justified the ruling because the house looked like an abandoned shack. Is a good looking home a prerequisite for protecting it? If the law requires a warning before shooting, that’s fair, though I think that assumes you know how many bad guys are in the house, where they are and whether or not they’re armed.
From what I read about this guy’s history–shooting because someone stole his apples, etc. he probably is a nut, but I empathize with an old guy who is alone in a secluded area at 2 in the morning when guys break in. Yeah, he snuck up on them, but its not like he was sitting there in a rocking chair at the door with the shotgun across his lap waiting for someone to come in. BTW, if I approach a property and big dogs come at me, I would run away from the property not into the house where I could be cornered.
And also, I’ve never owned a gun in my life. Fired one ONCE in the military 23 years ago and that was it.
Actually, that’s pretty much exactly what he DID do, from what I understand. He was waiting fully clothed and his boots on, and his gun loaded and ready by his side.
Yeah, we’re the ones getting uptight here.
Look, I did not think you were addressing any of the issues aired in this thread before your first post. You implied you were unhappy with British people commenting on US laws in general. I took that to mean people like us, or people on the Guardian website. If there are specifics incident of foreign people actively lobbying legislatures in the US with regard to gun control then it might have been better if you’d given a link to that because I certainly didn’t know about it and I don’t think it made the news here.
If these lobbyers are not braking the law it’s not something I’m going to lose sleep over myself, but I could understand why people might get annoyed with them and I would be less inclined to stand up for them (that is subject to someone actually providing a link to a relevant incident).
I have no doubt that US Arms manufacturers are actively lobbying the UK parliament to relax gun ownership laws.
They’d have more luck doing it here in Australia, where there is still a tradition of “average” people owning guns, unlike the UK.
Quite right: it was a perfectly reasonable response to Peter Morris’s comment, and an important principle in general. I just thought it was worthwhile making clear that the current state of this particular area of law is, as much as any, the result of exactly those forces and processes – and, indeed, continues to be shaped by them.
Following the press’s sensationalist coverage of the Martin case, there were a lot of people here with similar worries, and calls for the law to be changed etc. As it happens, the law doesn’t say anything of the sort. You are allowed to defend yourself, your property, and other people – in fact, I’ve read one commentary that suggested that the law more or less expects you to. The limit is “reasonable force”, which is one of those slightly vague legal things that gets decided on a case-by-case basis by a jury if it ever comes to that.
There was some sympathy for Martin, I think, even from the prosecution – he’d apparently suffered a number of burglaries, and police response had been inadequate. The feeling was, though, that rather than seeking to protect himself or his property, he was out for violent revenge. This is where the state of his home comes in: instead of trying to make it less attractive to burglars by making it more secure, there was evidence that he was turning it into some sort of burglar trap. It wasn’t a deciding factor in itself, but taken along with other things, it was some evidence of his motivation.
And I used to do a bit of rifle shooting when I was a kid – interesting, but not something I ever fancied as a serious hobby.
Show even one example.
That’s fine, as long as you recognise that it works both ways. Hypothetically, a state may have laws that give certain rights to intentionally injure burglars. You may approve of these laws, but it would be just as dangerous to assert that they are just, solely on the grounds that they have been passed by the state legislature.
If you asked them they would say, "This is a court of law, not a court of morals. * Lawful* is what we deal in, not just "