Posted on 10/09/2002 1:36:41 PM PDT by hoosierskypilot
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:51 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Funny, how you chose to address just one of the facts I sited. The fact remains...if you disarm the law abiding citizens (not subjects, mind you) then only criminals will have them. Look what happened in Kennesaw, Georgia. That town enacted a law that made it manditory for every home have a firearm. Almost overnight, breakins, rape, etc. dropped by almost 90%, while surrounding towns crime rate skyrocketed. Ya think MAYBE the criminals want to go where they KNOW there's no weapons to stop them?
You cannot name ONE state, country, etc. that has gun control, who's crime rate is lower than those that do NOT have gun control. That is FACT. Gun control SOUNDS good, however it is a complete & utter failure.
Yes, but in England it is considered "excessive" if you use a higher degree of force against an attacker than they weild against you-for example using a club against an unarmed attacker or a knife against an attacker armed "only" with a club.
In the US the basic rule is that lethal force can be used if a reasonable person would fear that their life was in immediate danger. Thus no charges would be filed against a man armed with his skeet shotgun who was trapped in his house by two career criminals if the homeowner reasonable believed that he was under attack. No charges would be filed against the grandmother armed with her .22 revolver who shot the "unarmed" (but naked and obviously excited) man who appeared in her bedroom. No charges would be filed against the man in the wheelchair who used a rifle to repel the crowbar armed men who were prying open his back door.
Why do I feel like the US posters/gunowners are better informed about England's crime rates and weapons laws than you are?
If you ever make it to Californina I'll treat you to a few hours at the shooting range.
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/crvsgraf.html
In 1987, two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, ''My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life.'' In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
In August 1999, Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two professional burglars burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before but, like 70 percent of rural English villages, his had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and 12 months for having an illegal shotgun.
In 1994, an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house, while he called the police. When the officers arrived they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to put someone in fear. Parliament is now considering making imitation guns illegal.
This is a cautionary tale. America's founders, like their English forebears, regarded personal security as one of the three great and primary rights of mankind. That was their main reason for including a right for individuals to be armed. Everyone doesn't need to avail himself of that right. It is a dangerous right. But leaving personal protection to the police is also dangerous.
The English government has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society. ''It is implicit in a genuine right,'' an English judge pointed out, ''that its exercise may work against (some facet of) the public interest: a right to speak only where its exercise advanced the public welfare or public policy ... would be a hollow guarantee against repression.''
Public safety is not enhanced by depriving individuals of their right to personal safety.
Spinney, let me chime in here. I do not own a gun because of gun crime. I own guns for several reasons. One reason is that I am a small female. I don't fear the criminal with a gun nearly as much as I fear the one with a baseball bat or just his fists. I know how to defend myself but my chances of being seriously hurt or killed is high by these criminals if I am not armed.
Armed on the other hand I can defend those in my home and myself. I would never give up that ability.
I have lived where gun control was in place and extensive. I had iron bars on the windows of my home, a six-foot wall with broken glass on top, a dog and nearly always had to leave someone in the house. I was still robbed twice. First time was in one of the rare instances that no one was home, the second time they were not content with poisoning my dog and with taking our few positions. They decided to pistol whip the young man who was watching the house while we were away. So much for gun control. The criminals had guns. Soon I did too. Making me a criminal as well I guess for wanting to be able to defend my household.
There are no bars on my windows here, no guard dog, no wall. I don’t need to cower in fear behind locks. Americans, I have found, don’t have to live like that. Like they do in the parts of the world where there is “gun control.”
I'll bet there are a lot of disputes etcetera in America that escalate unnecessarily to gun use simply because almost anyone can get a gun.
And you would be wrong. Actually the saying that “a armed society is a polite society” is very apt. Unlike you I don’t care why a would be thug doesn’t lay in to me just so long as he doesn’t.
a.cricket
That is a Robert A. Heinlein quote (without the "well"). I'm sure Will uses it.
The trend towards new classes of 'crimes' really disturbs me. I'm not a lawyer and I haven't read these laws but something tells me that hate crimes laws somehow circumvent the proper functioning of the legal system (not least the 'presumption of innocence') and that we haven't seen the full extent of this phenomena yet.
Now she's a OLD skank.
Speaking of skanks,wouldn't you like to get a look at Michael Moore's wife? I'm betting SHE is a real winner!
Spinney, I tried to warn you about "thinking."
You don't have the facts correct even with regard to the Tony Martin case. If you can't get these details accurate how do you expect the rest of us to take you seriously when you advocate something as serious as disarming an entire population?
If you're serious about this subject, do some research, and come back with some facts to back up your assertions. Otherwise...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.