UK gun control a complete failure?

Great Debates
41

MrSmith – I said the police should have the ability, not that I believe they do, I also offered an alternative, which was that career burglars should be kept out of society’s way.

In the US people may have the right to shoot burglars in their homes on sight, but I bet they don’t have the right to shoot them whilst they are running away.

If I may, I think this business of vociferously demanding the right to shoot burglars is macho posturing, there is certainly a hefty dose of melodrama in the posts of those demanding the right to do so “to protect their families”. I would certainly rather live in a state that had adequate police to stop burglary than have to resort to shooting them.

42

Of course you would, after all, most gun-totin’ Americans are just a bunch of beer-swillin’, butt-crack showin’, knuckle dragging Neanderthals just looking for an excuse to play cowboy and shoot the bad guys, or whatever that moves. Movies like Die Hard, Taxi Driver and Lethal Weapon are pretty fair examples of the typical American lifestyle.

And what state would that be? The one where every third citizen is a policeman?

43

Well, shit! Why didn’t I think of that? We’ll just lock up all the burglers. “Escuse me, are you a burgler? No? Ok”

I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer. Forget shooting for a second. Say some guy is climbing in thru my window? Can I crack him in the head with a 9-iron even if it kills him? Do I have to wait until he is in my home and hope he doesn’t rob and ass-rape me?

Generally no, you do not have the right to shoot an intruder if you are not in immediate danger. However, he could be running away in order to draw his own weapon so if he’s in the house, he’s fair game. . I also don’t advocate simply fireing away blindly in the dark, especially if you live with other people.

The US is a big place and we don’t have enough police to watch every single inch of it all the time. For the most part, you don’t have to worry about burgleries, and there are non-leathal steps you can take to lessen the chance of a burglery, but they do happen. I would rather live in a place where I am allowed to not be a victim instead of waiting and hoping that the police will get there in time.

Actually, as one of my friends discovered, the best way to chase a burgler out of his home was to sic his relatively quiet 120 lb Doberman on him. He doesn’t bark much but he can crush a fireplace log in his mouth.

44

As far as I can see, the basic principles of the law in the England and the US are the same; you can use reasonable force to remove an intruder from your property, and to protect yourself against assault. What differs is what is considered to constitute “reasonable” in the case of a burglar.

In England it is most unusual for a housebreaker to be armed; being armed does not materially improve his prospects of successfully completing his crime, or of avoiding arrest for it, and he does not expect to have to defend himself against armed resistance from a householder, or against armed police. But being armed will dramatically increase his sentence, if he is arrested. Hence his rational choice is to go unarmed and most housebreakers, although dishonest and sometimes violent, are rational; they go unarmed. Armed housebreaking is in fact extremely rare in the UK. I live in Ireland, not the UK, but if I met a burglar in my house I would not expect him to have a firearm any more than I would expect a street mugger or a pickpocket or a shoplifter to have one; it is not a tool of his trade. Bank robbers, now, might carry firearms. A burglar might be armed but, frankly, it’s not the first thought that would leap to anyone’s mind.

This reality in turn affects what might be considered reasonable action on the part of a householder faced with an intruder. The use of lethal force may be reasonable, but where the burglar has already been attacked by a rottweiler and has been shot twice, and is trying to leave the premises, and is crying “I’m sorry. Please don’t. Mum.”, and hasn’t at any stage produced a gun or any other weapon, as in the Martin case, the jury is probably within its rights in concluding that a third shot is not reasonably necessary to remove the intruder or protect the householder. At any rate the jury, who heard the full evidence in the case, thought so, and who are we to say they were wrong?

In the US, I suspect that housebreakers go armed more frequently and, again, this affects what will be considered a reasonable response by a householder. Probably recourse to firearms is more readily accepted but, even still, there will be a point at which further use of force cannot be considered reasonable. In the different circumstances which prevail in the US, it will be a different point, but so what?

45

It’s very hard to argue against the responsible use of guns. So people in favour of gun ownership focus on that.

It’s very hard to argue in favour of the irresponsible use of guns. So people in favour of banning guns focus on that.

And so it goes on, round and round forever, the debate equivalent of perpetual motion.

46

You act as if “responsible” were self-defining.

47

Now BF, I never gave you any reason to think that I believe armed Americans are Neanderthals, you read that into my post yourself. I am sure that Americans, gun toting or otherwise are, on average, as intelligent and refined as citizens of any other nation are, on average.

And yes, I ‘d quite happily live in a state where one in three people was a policeman, if that was what it took to get guns out of society.

MrSmith, what’s your point? Unless I misread your sarcasm, there’s a logical disconnect in your post. “Well, shit! Why didn’t I think of that? We’ll just lock up all the burglers”, you start. OK, with you so far. In the hypothetical situation I posed, that’s what I was suggesting. Then you go on “Are you a burgler? No? Ok”. What sort of police force goes about it’s business like this? what’s your point? I don’t get it.

“Do I have to wait until he is in my home and hope he doesn’t rob and ass-rape me?” - This is precisely what I mean about melodrama in these posts. If the likelihood of combined theft and sodomy is statistically different to zero, well, I’ll be buggered and robbed.

I think UDS’s points are extremely valid. The main difference between burglary in the UK and US is expectancy of encountering guns, whether in the hands of robbers or householders. The result is, in the UK you are much less likely to be shot in a robbery, whether as the burglar, or as the householder. I like it that way.

MrSmith, you are allowed so may ways to not be a victim, both in the UK and the US. Buy a good security system, buy a dog, set up a neighbourhood watch scheme, campaign for more police, or longer sentences for burglars, fit strong locks to your home. Most burglars are opportunists. If you make your property unappealing, they’ll try someone else’s house. If you and your society rely on guns for security, you might shoot a burglar, but then he might shoot you too.

48

msmith537, I’m curious. Based on the facts that you’ve now been given, do you really feel that Tony Martin’s actions were not excessive and dangerous?

I would ask you to specifically focus on the way he shot a fleeing person 3 times in the back with an illegally held shotgun. Somehow this does not strike me as a person acting in self defence.

49

Continuing my usual agnosticism on the gun control issue, I do feel moved to correct the following stunningly afactual characterization:

Actually not probably, you significantly and materially misrepresented The Financial Times, (FT) and the excuse as to an “American” position is at best weak, although I suppose if one lacked any sense of a general framework of political thought outside of the most recent and most intellectually void red-meat neoconservativism of the United States, one might, in a fit of misunderstanding, characterize the FT as ‘liberal’.

For those readers who don’t know, FT is a financial newspaper which on the international level is The Wall Street Journal’s main competitor (and in my opinion a signficantly better paper all around if one is not hopelessly US focused). Along with its sister publication The Economist -with which it shares certain content etc. although the 2 are independent on a reporting basis- the FT takes a rather libertarian political line.

Conservative, quite clearly conservative by any measure -although not know-nothing meat and potatoes isolationist obviously - but also non-ideological in the sense both publications are capable of printing items, even editorial items which question the ideology when fact and ideology conflict.

To characterize FT (and above all Martin Wolf!) as “liberal” borders on idiocy or flagrant self-deception.

That aside, let me say as a long-time it is a damned good paper.

50

So to sum up this thread:

  • The FT is not liberal.

  • Self defense in the UK is not more punishable than the perpetration of a crime.

  • UK gun control is not a failure. (In fact, it’s popular here, including us having unarmed police.)

51

So to sum up this thread:

  • The FT is not liberal.

  • Self defense in the UK is not more punishable than the perpetration of a crime.

  • UK gun control is not a failure. (In fact, it’s popular here, including us having unarmed police.)

52

One more:

  • The UK approach to gun control is not really relevant or appropriate for the US.