In the Gun Free Paradise of the UK, the Law Will Not Protect You

[MTT TL]

This is an interesting legal case whereby the judge decided to not send the assailants to jail because they were Muslim and therefore unused to drinking alcohol. The alcohol was clearly responsible for the attack.

A decent video at the link shows most of the attack. Surprisingly one of the victims was not charged even though he choose to fight back (poorly) instead of just laying there and taking a beating.

I am thinking that this means that if you try PCP for the first time and then run around assaulting people you are not responsible for your actions?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-on-woman.html

[BlueTrain]

That's funny. There's a pub on every corner in the UK. Why bother with illegal drugs?

[Patriot86]

Don't get me started on the UK, this is a great example of the direction America could go in and should be a cautionary tale. The justice system aint just and the authorities cannot protect you. Thank god (most) states allow average people to carry a concealed firearm for protection.

[BlueTrain]

You mean a pub on every corner?

[BGutzman]

It seems few nations in history have been so willing to so completely disarm themselves (the citizenry). When the times of trouble which history says happens to all nations they will reap the rewards for their poor choices....

Even the UK police do not have the power to protect the citizenry....

They have no way to force the government to respect its citizens and that decision never ends well at one point or another...

[secret_agent_man]

What you see in Jolly Olde England today is what the Pilgrims saw coming down the pike before they came here.

[FrankenMauser]

The best part of that video, is when the police show up, try to arrest a victim, and don't even pay attention to one of the attackers casually walking away in the background....

If you don't take your country back by force, you must live in the filth you created...

[Pond, James Pond]

I would caution against members judging (pun intended) a country's entire judicial system based on one news article.
If I were to dig around for a bit on the internet, I'm sure I might find examples of absurd sentences being handed out, or miscarriages of justice. Would I be then justified in damning the whole US judicial process as a result?

So... perhaps a wider minded approach is advisable...

Also, the link between this and gun ownership is less than sure in my opinion, so not even sure it should be on here....

What I would criticise in that article and media in the UK in general these days, is bringing religion into the picture: their being Muslim has nothing to do with the outcome.
Their not being used to drinking is the important factor. Why they don't drink is pretty irrelevant, IMO...

[MTT TL]

Also, the link between this and gun ownership is less than sure in my opinion, so not even sure it should be on here....

It is not about guns.

Discussions in this forum will be centered upon legal issues as they relate to the 2nd Amendment and other Civil Rights. Constitutional law (which would encompass separation of powers, the impairment of contracts clause, the full faith and credit clause, etc., as well as the Bill of Rights) will also be on topic.

Which reminds me of something else...

Their not being used to drinking is the important factor.

Firstly I don't see how it could be important, even if were shown to be true in court. The effects of alcohol are near universally known. If, as they claim they were Muslims and unused to drinking than they should have had a lifelong indoctrination into the evils of drink.

Secondly the law does not protect you, even in England if you commit felonious acts while intoxicated. If intoxication were an excuse than anyone could commit practically any act and then walk free with a dressing down and some community service.

[BGutzman]

I would caution against members judging (pun intended) a country's entire judicial system based on one news article.
If I were to dig around for a bit on the internet, I'm sure I might find examples of absurd sentences being handed out, or miscarriages of justice. Would I be then justified in damning the whole US judicial process as a result?

I have done hours of research concerning the UK and gun control and yes on the basis of the research I have conducted it is my informed opinion that as a nation there is a willful and purposeful intent by the legislative and judicial system to suppress all guns to the extreme. Freedom requires that one must be able to defend ones self and despite what some may think not everyone is a ninja or a multi discipline martial artist nor capable of ever being one.

Also absolutely our system of justice is completely broken along with our legislative and executive system.... Dont think so, go read the unconstitutional Patriot act and get back to me on an appropriate website.

The difference is on some level our broken system has been forced to own up to the fact that "arms" are a right.... in the UK you dont have anything approaching a right to self defense or arms capable of providing that defense for the average citizen. A people incapable of defending themselves are by my definition and many others not free....

One day they will pay a high price for this foolishness.... history is full of examples of what happens to unarmed populations....

The true shame as they as a nation dont even recognize it as a right when in history they often had a requirement of law to bear arms and practice with them.

[MLeake]

Pond, what about the woman whose shotgun was confiscated after she had a verbal altercation with gypsies who were cutting her trees, illegally. One had a chainsaw; the other threatened to knife the landowner. So the bobbies came and took her licensed shotgun, to diffuse things...

UK seems to be going nuts when it comes to property rights, self-defense, and crimes by racial, religious, or ethnic minorities... Italy is not much better, FWIW.

[BGutzman]

So the bobbies came and took her licensed shotgun, to diffuse things...

Not only that but the firearm in question had never left her house nore was it ever mentioned by her in the confrontation and yet the police were completely aware of it and confiscated it as if it had been used in the issue...

Again a culture of antigun backed by the system itself...

[aarondhgraham]

...despite what some may think not everyone is a ninja or a multi discipline martial artist nor capable of ever being one.

That wouldn't make any difference,,,
Less than three months ago a woman was arrested for kicking her attacker in the face.

He had followed her and her boyfriend home from a pub,,,
Then assaulted them at the door to her apartment,,,
Somehow he went down and she kicked his head,,,
And was arrested for using too much force.

Less than ten years ago I visited some friends in London,,,
Some young skinhead type made rude comments to my friends wife,,,
I gave him the one-finger salute, he charged at me, and I dropped him with a punch.

Guess who sat in the police department for more than 6 hours,,,
While they decided whether to charge me or not,,,
The punk wasn't even taken into custody.

That country has gone insane!

Maybe it's a good thing they can't have firearms any more,,,
I firmly believe they have lost the capability of rational decision making.

Aarond

[Pond, James Pond]

MTT TL Wrote:It is not about guns.

Well, the very title of this thread proclaims a link that is not there. In the past I have seen threads closed for the same lack of gun related content...

BGutzman wrote: I have done hours of research concerning the UK and gun control and yes on the basis of the research I have conducted it is my informed opinion that as a nation there is a willful and purposeful intent by the legislative and judicial system to suppress all guns to the extreme.

It is my guess that your research was probably biased in favour of your own views.
Actively looking up stuff that is about gun suppression will give you an informed opinion, sure, but only informed on one side of the arguement.

Still I may be wrong and if you tell me you took steps to make your research as even handed and objective as possible, looking at all the reasons for and against gun ownership, setting aside your own personal views and focusing only on the UK, then I'll believe you...

Besides, that is a moot point: you'll never find any post of mine saying that they have the right attitude to gun ownership in the UK....

Freedom requires that one must be able to defend ones self ....

....in the UK you dont have anything approaching a right to self defense or arms capable of providing that defense for the average citizen. A people incapable of defending themselves are by my definition and many others not free....

All these seem to be your definition of freedom.
I could argue that the UK is more free because we can actually buy a drink from a shop without having to show id, despite being old and grey etc... We can go on demos without getting pepper sprayed (although the Met police have been sailing close to the wind there, with kettling techniques). In the UK, people can marry who they like, even if they are the same gender. I don't believe all States do in the USA. All valid examples of freedom, IMHO.

Either way, its not all about putting holes in people, or being allowed to.

As for the rights to self defence: they do exist. The law aims to limit excessive force. Killing someone for being on your property uninvited would be viewed as excessive: in that respect, I agree. Yet in the US, that seems to be OK, based on some comments I've read.
Similarly, despite having the right to carry for self defence, if I shot and killed an knife-yeilding assailant here in Estonia, I'd probably be sent down: or come very close.
Yet, Estonia is a gun-friendly, free country; according to your definition.

As a counter, stand alone, equally unrepresentative example: a few months ago, a guy had two blokes break into his home: he stabbed one with a kitchen knife. I believe the BG died: the home owner was not prosecuted.

Also absolutely our system of justice is completely broken along with our legislative and executive system.... Dont think so, go read the unconstitutional Patriot act and get back to me on an appropriate website.

Not sure what you're trying to say here.... sorry...

Mleake wrote: Pond, what about the woman whose shotgun was confiscated after she had a verbal altercation with gypsies who were cutting her trees, illegally.

I don't know about that case, but once more you're judging based on one article: you can't look through the key hole and expect to appreciate the room. Why do you think such seemingly ludricrous actions by the police get into the papers? Because they are ludricrous and out of the ordinary. Ordinary don't sell papers...

Do they report on all altercations and court hearings? No. It only sells if it catches peoples attention or massages their prejudices: like, say, any headline that might talk about anti gun actions

Let's make something clear:
I don't claim that the UK is perfect, by any means. Far from it: that is why I moved.
I get incensed when I read about dum-@*se rulings like that and yes, the UK gun laws are over restrictive and a product of ill-thought out legislation designed to appease the masses, after very extreme and isolated events. Making in depth psych evaluations of gun owners compulsory would have been better and more effective, but banning was cheaper.... and got more headlines.

However, it urks me when members decide that one article, that didn't even have anything to do with guns is enough to get on a high horse and suggest that their country has nothing to learn but everything to teach.
And that is the impression it gives....

The only person so far that has, I think, the grounds to be truly critical of the UK system is Aarond, given that he has experienced it first hand.
Has everyone else on this thread been to the UK, or better still lived there? If not, well...

It is ironic however that in the UNODC survey of 2010, that both the gun friendly states of Estonia and United States had higher rates of Intentional Homicide than the UK...

Perhaps we respectively need self defence more than the UK do...
My 2p

[BlueTrain]

While you're at it, you might get the gypsies' point of view on matters there.

[MTT TL]

that didn't even have anything to do with guns is enough to get on a high horse and suggest that their country has nothing to learn but everything to teach.

LOL, I forget that Americans come off differently in the rest of the world than they often do to each other.

All these seem to be your definition of freedom.

Self defense (the right to life) is considered an inalienable right as spelled out in our Constitution. Surely you are not arguing that people can deny you your life at will? I am not sure how the rest of the world views it. Poorly I guess.

Has everyone else on this thread been to the UK, or better still lived there? If not, well...

I have been to the UK and Ireland many times (although I only stayed in Ireland a total of three days.... Ireland I know... but they are so close and speak a similar language.). All these were visits, I never lived there. My last boss was actually a British immigrant. I understand there is rabid media there just as in the states that goes to efforts to make the police look foolish.

Perhaps we respectively need self defense more than the UK do...

On this I would agree to a point. We have a very different society in the US that is much less homogenous and more abrasive. If you read the NYPD shooting report in the Tactics thread you will get a good idea as to why many of the shootings occur. Based upon the comments made by the attackers I am guessing there is a similar problem in some places in the UK.

For a long time the UK had the "duty to retreat" issue. However there is still no final answer on spelling out defense laws despite multiple attempts. What is certain is that based upon the historical examples if you use force to defend yourself you will be in a world of trouble.

In your knife wielding mugger example, a knife IS deadly force. Someone can kill you with a knife. So legally, to protect my life or others I can also respond with deadly force. I don't have to go find a knife to fight back with.

[BGutzman]

It is my guess that your research was probably biased in favour of your own views.
Actively looking up stuff that is about gun suppression will give you an informed opinion, sure, but only informed on one side of the arguement.

Still I may be wrong and if you tell me you took steps to make your research as even handed and objective as possible, looking at all the reasons for and against gun ownership, setting aside your own personal views and focusing only on the UK, then I'll believe you...

Its already posted in this forum just search for my name..... and by the way yes I did look at both sides.

Do I believe that gun control is always wrong: absolutely, if you cant be trusted with a firearm then you dont need to be on the street either... IMHO if your not in prison you have a inalienable right to bear arms.... The law disagrees but I dont think the founding fathers would have but then again if you did something serious they had a tendancy to hang you... really reduced repeat crimes...

I could argue that the UK is more free because we can actually buy a drink from a shop without having to show id, despite being old and grey etc... We can go on demos without getting pepper sprayed (although the Met police have been sailing close to the wind there, with kettling techniques). In the UK, people can marry who they like, even if they are the same gender. I don't believe all States do in the USA. All valid examples of freedom, IMHO.

Beer wont save your life, a firearm properly employed and used can. Our constitution was based on natural law as I believe your rights used to be (I could be wrong on your rights).... Natural law is abhorent of some things you name but not a proper place to discuss here. Freedom by its nature must include the right to protect yourself so that you can live...

[Pond, James Pond]

@ MTT TL & BGutzman

We talk about freedom, yet in the strictest sense none of us are free, but that is a topic or another debate.
Still with regards to self defence, as I already posted and as I think you will know given the research that has been done, in the UK citizens have the right to defend themselves.
Guns happen to be prohibited as part of that defence. Guns are not the only self defence, but they are the easiest to use for the untrained.
If you say, however, that to be denied guns is to be denied freedom, it holds that you suggest guns are freedom. Needless to say, I would say that was stretching it a bit.

BGutzman, you say that all gun control is wrong.
Having to get a gun licence as I did in Estonia is gun control and therefore wrong .

Are you suggesting that a gun is less dangerous than the smallest car on the market?
If you don't think a gun is less dangerous, how can you justify people buying them without some sort of check that you can handle it safely, physically or intellectually?
If you believe a gun is less dangerous, I guess you have your reasons....

As far as Natural Law is concerned, regardless of the name, it was still a set of principles analysed, considered and ratified by human thinkers and then society: it is not naturally occurring, only based on what is perceived to be naturally occurring.
Incidentally, certain "abhorent" behaviours seem to bother Natural Law more than they do Nature as many mammalian (and other) species display such behaviours.

MTT TL, you touched on a good point: the media.
I can't comment on the US. However, in the UK, the media have entirely too much sway over government policy, or perhaps I should say the government lack the backbone to stick to their manifestos, given that this was what they were voted in on. I don't want control of the media, other than from within their own ranks. By all means try to make money, but not by printing dross and sensation, such as the short comings of the police whose hands have been tied by the government in an attempt to hit statistical targets, rather than fight crime. The press should be educating the public, no manipulating the public. In that respect, they all deserve an swift kick up the ****.

As far as knife wielding muggers is concerned, I agree: I'm no Bruce Lee.
Up against a knife, even a knife would be little use to me as I'd be within striking distance. The biggest flaw of the UK system and seemingly here also is that it should be an even fight: ****er that, I say.
I just want to win: I don't want points for style. Still, given the example I gave, I'd still turn and run, if I could. It is just less hassle, and Estonian prisons are grim.

[Terminus009]

A firearm, in America, is statistically safer than a motor vehicle. 11.5/100,000 is the 2002 firearms-caused death rate, whether intentional or accidental, in the US. From 1998 through 2005 the average rate of vehicle-caused death, whether intentional or accidental, was 15.4/100,000 Americans. These figures were published by the CDC. Considering that cars are not made to function lethally, I think that shows just how much less safe cars are for the general public than firearms are. This very simple statistic does not take into account risk factors etc., so this posting is merely a pointer towards a larger and more complicated truth.

[egor20]

My wife's an ex-Brit.

The the 3 greatest things she likes

#1 Being an American now.
#2 Being allowed to own and carry a gun.
#3 Not going to school in London anymore.

And I guess,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I have no Idea what a Doner kebab is

[Pond, James Pond]

@ Terminus

Good news for gun enthusiasts, but if you did have more training and a more structured evaluation of who handles guns and how, then that number would doubtless be even lower. Surely, no bad thing...
Would be interesting to see if States that had some sort of assessment/training requirement prior to running into a LGS and buying a .45 had a lower incidence than those that don't...

@egor20

I am very happy that your wife is happy with her personal life choices.

Doner kebabs are more dangerous to ones health than either cars of guns. Avoid

[MLeake]

Pond, states that have no training requirements for concealed carry have not had a higher incident rate among CCW types than states with strict requirements have had.

If I were to turn homicidally insane, in a mass murder way, I would probably be more effective using explosives, or by taking my 6000+lb 4WD and driving through crowds of pedestrians.

Egor20, doner kebabs are the Turkish variant of a shwarma, kind of like a gyro. They are typically sold from stands or carts by Turkish immigrants in Germany and eastern Europe.

Pond, I have spent some time in the UK, more time in Germany, and more time in Italy. Please bear in mind that a lot of us Americans, particularly the military ones, have traveled a wee bit.

[BGutzman]

Are you suggesting that a gun is less dangerous than the smallest car on the market?
If you don't think a gun is less dangerous, how can you justify people buying them without some sort of check that you can handle it safely, physically or intellectually?
If you believe a gun is less dangerous, I guess you have your reasons....

Factually in our nation more people are killed by vehicles every year than all gun activity combined (lawful use of force and illegal use of force combined)

Approximately 1/3 of all the people "killed by guns" used the gun to kill themselves. Typically about 11,000 +/- people a year kill themselves with guns. Me personally I dont consider these 11,000 deaths to actually be a crime as how do you stop someone intent on self destruction? Sounds like a mental illness to me....

But even given that in an average year you people in the US are killed by household poisons than all actions with any guns. All my facts and figures come from the Center for Disease Control and if I can reasonably find it I will include the link to the engine to derive the numbers so you can check my facts for yourself. And yes cars are more dangerous than guns for several reasons. Even the smallest commercial cars have significant weight, a bullet on the other hand is part of an ounce or in some cases on the very low end of the ounce scale.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html - the facts the anti gunners cannot defeat....

E=MC2 - A handgun will generally have a limited recoil that should be equal and opposite to the force being shot forward... A car will have a similar effect as it is driven forward. A car will certainly take more energy to move and thus will take more energy to stop in comparison to a bullet...

(And yes I am not using the full set of science terms but the fact remains a bullet takes less to stop than a car at normal driving speed.)

The reason we don’t try to outlaw cars is almost everyone who is an adult is familiar with cars and they aren’t considered strictly dangerous by the general joe on the street, the same is not true for guns..... Yet factually they are both property and with few exceptions can never do anything without a human controlling the action.

People need cars for transport and thus use them every day and generally they feel comfortable with them. People may only "need" a gun for self-defense once in a lifetime although hunting and other uses are as legitimate as driving.

The rub is how many people are breaking the laws in cars every single day? How many people speed every day? Drink while driving? Road Rage? Yet people aren’t raising cain about car control..... Why because they dont want to walk to work and the store etc....

People raise cain about gun control because the media in large part focuses language to make almost anything with a gun negative and controversial. also lots of people have never held nor ever touched a gun so it seems to be some evil unknown that our media reports negatively on every day.

How do I justify people buying a gun without a permit? Rights dont require permits... where is the free speech permit? Freedom of religion permit? Freedom of the press permit? If your of the age of majority and not in prision our Consitution seems to be quite clear that you have a right to keep and bear arms...

Nowhere does our constitution say a felony conviction = gun rights removal... It does have a due process of law clause but again I think the founding father would agree that if you werent in prison you as a citizen have a right to arms...

[Pond, James Pond]

@ Mleake

Please note: I never said that none of you had travelled. I was interested to see how many. If you have visited to the UK, then great: you have a taste of the place or part of it. If you have lived there, you'll have an even better idea of real life in that country.

I have travelled to the US. However, I would not claim to know it. I am sure those who were in the military have travelled a wee bit. Having not been in the military, perhaps you can enlighten me: do you feel that travelling in a military capacity gives you as clear a picture of a place as travelling on civvy street?
I ask as my friends who were in the Armed Forces had spent time in Northern Ireland, and Germany. They seemed to know their bases and a few watering holes, but could have been accused of "immersing themselves" in the local culture... particularly Germany. In the case of Northern Ireland that was probably ill advised.

@ BGutzman.
Good to hear that guns are statistically safer than cars.
Safer and safe are alas not the same, especially when dealing with a piece of engineering designed to efficiently kill.
Your previous statements suggest your logic to be "a gun is safer, therefore any and all can have access", whereas for me the more prudent approach is "it is safe and therefore all can have access". Given that guns cannot be called arbitrarily safe, by their very nature and purpose, it seems wiser to ensure and check all those with a gun know what the heck they are doing.

You also cite mental illness. Well, again, I prefer to know that there are systems in place, for example here in Estonia, that have at least a basic psychiatric evaluation into a person's mental well being before letting them go and buy a killing utensil. Mleake mentioned explosives, well that is a rational and logical approach if you chose to go nuts, but headcases are sometimes as impuslive as others are calculating. Similary some are more prone to crimes of passion than others. You get my drift.

The former approach (gun handling and safety) would logically make NDs less likely, and the latter (So, Mr Pond. Are you a nutter? No, Doctor.) would no doubt avoid mentally unstable people from having access to a destructive weapon.

With all said and done, the relative dangers of cars v guns is a bit off topic. My bad, I brought it up. But as a comparison, for me it holds. Both require careful handling.

Still, you can guess that I disagree with your view of absolute zero gun control. I am sure that the principle fits the American constitution. However, in reality, I doubt that every person who has or could have a weapon, if they simply chose to go in a shop and buy one, would be as responsible a gun owner as, doubtless you, and most other TFL members are.
Not everyone is intelligent.
Not everyone is mature.
Not everyone is responsible.
These are all traits I would like to see in a person living next door, if they owned and keep a gun.

Ergo: for me pragmatic gun control, is not bad.
Excessive, baseless, indiscriminate gun control is.
(and the UK is not somehow the epitome of a failed state!!)

[Stressfire]

So before this gets closed:

Suspending a sentence for the reasons given by the judge in this case is absurd, and IMO a gross miscarriage of justice.

"Blame it on the alcohol" makes for a catchy hip-hop song, but has no place in the law. By the same reasoning, a drunk driver should not be charged if he's never taken a drink before that night.

Oh, and just for the heck of it, what is

Hibo Maxamed, who needs dialysis three times a week for a kidney complaint

doing drinking alcohol in the first place, just sayin'