Guns in the home

[Fierce_LiNk]

I regularly read up on other forums, particular the misc section over at bb.com (it's very different to this place). One of the longest threads of the day is about a member who shot and killed one of three armed intruders who came into his home.

 

This is the thread in question

 

This is the corresponding news article

 

It's amazing how quickly that thread has grown. It does once again raise the issue of whether guns should be allowed in the home. I can see both sides here, but I'm still not entirely sure on how I feel about this issue.

[Cube]

It's a massively different issue in the USA than it is over here. Due to the gun laws, criminals are much more likely to be using guns. Banning them over there would still mean that there are a massive amount of guns "on the street" and it would be chaotic.

 

Over here, it simply isn't needed, and I don't think anyone should be using a weapon specifically designed to kill to defend themselves.

[Agent Gibbs]

It's a massively different issue in the USA than it is over here. Due to the gun laws, criminals are much more likely to be using guns. Banning them over there would still mean that there are a massive amount of guns "on the street" and it would be chaotic.

 

Over here, it simply isn't needed, and I don't think anyone should be using a weapon specifically designed to kill to defend themselves.

 

See I feel the UK has gone too far in the opposite direction in that everything is banned from being owned, and I don't see why pepper spray is banned, and that could help prevent a lot of muggings or rapes, and likewise certain takers could also be useful

As it stands we can't defend ourselves on the street on our property or in our home, and we're expected to curl up call the cops and hope we survive.

I'm not saying we should legalise guns (although I wouldn't be opposed to armed police) but we need to alter the way the law/cps and judiciary work in regards to home defence.

The government are trying to make it easier but still the police arrest people who defend themselves and it's months before the cps stop investigations/court cases etc during which time you're treated as a criminal

[MoogleViper]

As it stands we can't defend ourselves on the street on our property or in our home, and we're expected to curl up call the cops and hope we survive.

 

In my bedroom (well the one at my parents at least, not the one I'm living in now) I have 4 swords, a hunting knife, a crossbow, and downstairs I have a .22 pellet gun. I feel pretty well defended.

 

I also have a set of golf clubs, and if I wanted to, I could get a baseball bat.

 

I can easily defend myself with that, but I'm not able to get jumpy and end up shooting my relatives with a lethal gun.

[Blade]

The government are trying to make it easier but still the police arrest people who defend themselves and it's months before the cps stop investigations/court cases etc during which time you're treated as a criminal

 

As a lawyer I completely agree. A lot of my clients are in this position where they find themselves rebailed all the time or even put on remand in some cases only for the CPS to drop everything due to deciding (after many weeks of letters/calls/threatening judicial reciew from the defence) that it isnt in the public's interest to take it any further.

 

In that time said client has lost job, no income so loses house, due to stress marriage falls apart etc etc.

[LegoMan1031]

The government are trying to make it easier but still the police arrest people who defend themselves and it's months before the cps stop investigations/court cases etc during which time you're treated as a criminal

 

At the end of the day the police only act upon what the government set out in law etc.

 

I believe current guidance is reasonable defence can be used to defend yourself or your property - if that is clear cut then you wont be arrested. (key word is reasonable)

 

If there is any element of doubt then an arrest may be nessisary for an investigation, who is to say you haven't murdered someone and staged a burglary? By not arresting someone evidence could be covered up.

 

I have seen a few in the media the last year where an arrest was made, investigation was undertaken but then they were realised without charging when it was deemed reasonable force was used, I seem to remember one in Manchester last year where a home owner killed someone and was released without charge. Although when ppl are released they tend not to get as big of a news story.

[Blade]

At the end of the day the police only act upon what the government set out in law etc.

 

I believe current guidance is reasonable defence can be used to defend yourself or your property - if that is clear cut then you wont be arrested. (key word is reasonable)

 

If there is any element of doubt then an arrest may be nessisary for an investigation, who is to say you haven't murdered someone and staged a burglary? By not arresting someone evidence could be covered up.

 

I have seen a few in the media the last year where an arrest was made, investigation was undertaken but then they were realised without charging when it was deemed reasonable force was used, I seem to remember one in Manchester last year where a home owner killed someone and was released without charge. Although when ppl are released they tend not to get as big of a news story.

 

Try dealing with South Yorkshire Police. They do not follow what parliament has stated all the time. They do not follow PACE all the time.

 

Currently have 120 plus clients all with potential claims against the police for false imprisonment, assault, claims under the Human Rights Act. fact is police will do what they think they can get away with without getting sued.

 

You are right in respect of the reasonableness. Its all in the defence of self-defence. re burglary for example if someone is in your house may be reasonable to smack them on the back of the head with a frying pan but would it be reasonable to shoot them whilst they are running away?

[LegoMan1031]

Try dealing with South Yorkshire Police. They do not follow what parliament has stated all the time. They do not follow PACE all the time.

 

Currently have 120 plus clients all with potential claims against the police for false imprisonment, assault, claims under the Human Rights Act. fact is police will do what they think they can get away with without getting sued.

 

You are right in respect of the reasonableness. Its all in the defence of self-defence. re burglary for example if someone is in your house may be reasonable to smack them on the back of the head with a frying pan but would it be reasonable to shoot them whilst they are running away?

 

Well if individual officers are not following PACE then it will need to be dealt with by way of complaints etc and if procedures are not followed then stuff will be dropped. Culture changes are always hard to swallow I think, I know the new Code G under PACE for need to arrest is extremely recent and that will take a while before everyone follows that properly with people having to re-learn.

 

I would say neither is reasonable as offender is leaving the scene and so your self defence is gone, unless they were then to try and affect a citizens arrest then you could possibly deem a frying pan as reasonable force to detain...

[Blade]

Well if individual officers are not following PACE then it will need to be dealt with by way of complaints etc and if procedures are not followed then stuff will be dropped. Culture changes are always hard to swallow I think, I know the new Code G under PACE for need to arrest is extremely recent and that will take a while before everyone follows that properly with people having to re-learn.

 

I would say neither is reasonable as offender is leaving the scene and so your self defence is gone, unless they were then to try and affect a citizens arrest then you could possibly deem a frying pan as reasonable force to detain...

 

Obviously go down the complaints procedure using full investigation. Most complaints that are investigated by individual force professional standards depts are not upheld anyway.

 

Well I have no hope for Code G. Its not like they follow the other codes anyway. Just me speaking from experience. Also if the police have not used their powers correctly does not necessarily mean things will be dropped. Just means that they open themselves up for a civil claim. I have some clients in prison who have been convicted of crimes that have legitimate yet possibly morally controversial claims against the establishment.

 

I dont think I made myself clear when using example of reasonableness. I was trying to say that hitting someone over the head whilst in the house may be reasonable whereas shooting someone running away (albeit with your stuff) would likely be not.

 

So no guns should not be allowed in the home. Potentially more trouble then they are worth to be honest.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Blade

[Fierce_LiNk]

In my bedroom (well the one at my parents at least, not the one I'm living in now) I have 4 swords, a hunting knife, a crossbow, and downstairs I have a .22 pellet gun. I feel pretty well defended.

 

I also have a set of golf clubs, and if I wanted to, I could get a baseball bat.

 

I can easily defend myself with that, but I'm not able to get jumpy and end up shooting my relatives with a lethal gun.

 

(Hypothetical question, you'll probably answer with "I don't know" or something) Would you ever use the swords if an intruder came into your house? Or the hunting knife? By use, I mean use on them.

[Daft]

If the NRA has taught me anything, it's that we need more guns to protect ourselves from guns.

[LegoMan1031]

Obviously go down the complaints procedure using full investigation. Most complaints that are investigated by individual force professional standards depts are not upheld anyway.

 

Well I have no hope for Code G. Its not like they follow the other codes anyway. Just me speaking from experience.

 

I dont think I made myself clear when using example of reasonableness. I was trying to say that hitting someone over the head whilst in the house may be reasonable whereas shooting someone running away (albeit with your stuff) would likely be not.

 

So no guns should not be allowed in the home. Potentially more trouble then they are worth to be honest.

 

Sounds like you have seen a lot of negative stuff then! Well I suppose you would do, being a lawyer n all. I'm sure majority following things, just the minority make them all look bad.

 

I can only speak for Cheshire as a matter of fact but when anyone is booked into custody the computers are prompting the sgt to ask for Code G reasons now, if they ent got them then custody wont authorise detention and should have been dealt via other means like voluntary interviews etc.

 

No worries, I mis-read your post.

 

And yeah I agree on the gun issue, certainly for this country anyway. I can't really speak for America because as it has already been stated, it's a different world over there!

[MoogleViper]

(Hypothetical question, you'll probably answer with "I don't know" or something) Would you ever use the swords if an intruder came into your house? Or the hunting knife? By use, I mean use on them.

 

Absolutely. There have been a few times when I've found myself creeping down the house with my sword (Sting replica, gotta slash this motherfucker in style) in hand, and sometimes hunting knife in my pocket, after hearing a noise. There's never been anyone there though (or they're really good at hiding).

 

I just hope I'd have the nerve to use it, and not just freeze in fear.

[Blade]

Sounds like you have seen a lot of negative stuff then! Well I suppose you would do, being a lawyer n all. I'm sure majority following things, just the minority make them all look bad.

 

I can only speak for Cheshire as a matter of fact but when anyone is booked into custody the computers are prompting the sgt to ask for Code G reasons now, if they ent got them then custody wont authorise detention and should have been dealt via other means like voluntary interviews etc.

 

No worries, I mis-read your post.

 

And yeah I agree on the gun issue, certainly for this country anyway. I can't really speak for America because as it has already been stated, it's a different world over there!

 

Completely agree. I do only see the negative stuff. Im not called into the police station at stupid o clock because the suspect is lovely. And they dont tend to quote their human rights when the police have been nice to them.

 

Also bear in mind that the other side for me is the force that covered themselves up regarding Hillsborough.

 

Are you a copper then?

 

Is anyone on twitter and follows Piers Morgan? I know he is a bit of a nob but to be honest his comments on guns are just common sense

Edited February 22, 2013 by Blade

[LegoMan1031]

Completely agree. I do only see the negative stuff. Im not called into the police station at stupid o clock because the suspect is lovely. And they dont tend to quote their human rights when the police have been nice to them.

 

Also bear in mind that the other side for me is the force that covered themselves up regarding Hillsborough.

 

Are you a copper then?

 

Is anyone on twitter and follows Piers Morgan? I know he is a bit of a nob but to be honest his comments on guns are just common sense

 

Yeah, Hillsborough. Idiots, the lot of them involved in that cover up!

 

I just like to keep 'up to date' on these kinds of things.

 

I don't follow him, but I remember the 'outcry' when he initially made anti-gun comments after that school shooting.

[Jonnas]

I'm completely opposed to the system in the US where anyone can have a gun. Fatal wounds are very likely to happen if a conflict arises, and accidents can easily happen.

 

Having guns in your house should only be allowed after obtaining a license, for which you'd need to take psychological tests and basic training. And being required to renew said license every couple of years or so.

 

At least this is how I believe it should be.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

The US gun culture is just insane, and it blinds them to how much of a problem it is when it's so obvious to the rest of the world. Unfortunately it also means that laws are unlikely to fix the problem as long as the mentality exists. I've followed so many gun debates with 'Muricans that I've almost certainly lost IQ points in the process, and they're extremely worrying and depressing to read.

 

People should be able to defend themselves, and in this respect almost anything is better than a gun. Pepper sprays, frying pans, golf clubs etc. are much more suited to defend yourself without risking serious injury and death for both yourself and your target.

[Cube]

I've followed so many gun debates with 'Muricans that I've almost certainly lost IQ points in the process, and they're extremely worrying and depressing to read.

 

Like the thread Flink posted. It troubles me that there's a place on this Earth where a normal response for killing someone is "well done, mate".

 

(Not including in the army - those guys need the morale).

[Agent Gibbs]

At the end of the day the police only act upon what the government set out in law etc.

 

I believe current guidance is reasonable defence can be used to defend yourself or your property - if that is clear cut then you wont be arrested. (key word is reasonable)

 

If there is any element of doubt then an arrest may be nessisary for an investigation, who is to say you haven't murdered someone and staged a burglary? By not arresting someone evidence could be covered up.

 

I have seen a few in the media the last year where an arrest was made, investigation was undertaken but then they were realised without charging when it was deemed reasonable force was used, I seem to remember one in Manchester last year where a home owner killed someone and was released without charge. Although when ppl are released they tend not to get as big of a news story.

 

Don't get me wrong, i dont see the police as the issue, they should investigate. but its the cps i see as the problem, they take forever deciding on if charges should be brought,upheld etc

In general the don't support the police and seem to require so much evidence that you'd think they want police to stand by and video crimes, and you can bet if they did the cps would bring charges against them

 

From a personal viewpoint which has influenced my views on defending yourself, i was injured/attacked with a hatchet during an armed robbery where i worked, i didn't do anything to provoke it, i was just made an example of so we'd see they meant busines.

CID were very comfident they had enough evidence, fibger prints, cctv, eye witness statements and fibers from the getaway vehicle, it was even a notorious gang known for other robberies at the time...........guess what the CPS said? not enough evidence

 

love the police, hate the red tape and dinosaur thats the cps

 

(Sting replica, gotta slash this motherfucker in style)

 

hahaha i have the exact same thing under my bed and do the same!

 

 

in general with american gun laws, i think that thhey need more thorough psychology tests as part of gun licences, and even more frequent check ups, and as for automatic weapons, they should have heavy restrictions and frequent checks

 

i dont think the right to bare arms should be given up, just the whole prevellance of them needs to be looked at, they are tools not toys

[pratty]

I think the reason guns are used for self defence is that they are at least on par with with whatever the criminal is bringing to the fight. When people say guns aren't necessary to defend yourself they always use a hypothetical scenario as an example where a gun perhaps isn't necessary. Using a gun for self defence better equips you for the worse case scenario. If the criminal has a gun good luck using a cricket bat to defend yourself.

 

Even if the criminal is unarmed, I's still have to tackle them upclose with whatever I have to hand and could still be overpowered, especially if there's more than one of them, where as a gun would give me a much better chance. The way I see it is if somebody attacks me I don't owe them a fair fight and my survival trumps theirs. That doesn't mean I want to kill everybody that attacks me, just that it's more important that I survive than they do should it come to that.

 

Also a gun in the home acts as a much better deterrent than household objects If you think commiting that crime could easily cost you your life you're going to think harder about whether it's worth the risk. Nobody ever mentions the number of potential crimes guns prevent and the innocent lives they save.

 

That said I'm not sure I would introduce ownership of guns in the Uk because I think we would pobably have at least a couple of years of total wild west chaos, where some people would think owning a gun was a licence to just do what you want and use it to settle every dispute. After a while it would settle down once people learned that you can't just bully people with a gun because you're just as likely to get shot yourself. But it would take a while for that to happen and it would cost a lot of innocent lives in the process, at which point we'd probably just ban guns again and the whole thing would have been pointless.

 

However the US has had their wild west period and for the most part the majority of gun owners are responsible and only use their guns for hunting or self defence. Plus they realise the simple fact that the police/government cannot protect you, you have to protect yourself so why take your chances with a baseball bat when a gun gives you a considerably better edge?

 

I think there should be checks on people wanting to buy guns and I understand there are checks in place, so what was a right has already become a privilege to an extent, and as a general rule you should be very careful about the government turning rights to privileges, as it sets the precedent the government can do it with other rights.

 

On top of that what people forget is that the right to bear arms is also a deterrent to the government should it become tyranical. People could argue that scenario would be unlikely in this day and age but the right to bear arms is there as a safeguard incase it ever does happen, regardless of how unlikely it might be. I would think when the Nazis were rounding up disarmed Jews in Germany every American thanked God for their founding father's foresight to include the second amendment.

Edited February 24, 2013 by pratty

[Rummy]

The original thread appears dead/gone on that forum @Fierce_LiNk, so I can't comment on that, but I always think this is an interesting discussion!

 

Obviously US is very different compared to over here, given gun ownership is/can be quite common there. I always think to myself though; if anyone ever invaded the US on foot - you have an army ready to defend their country, fuelled by a heavy presence of patriotism.

 

I don't agree with gun ownership over here though. I think it's just too big a risk in general. However, I think it would be 'easier' to 'defend' yourself with a gun. There's no guarantee on anything when you pull that trigger, when the bullet leaves the chamber there's still a period where you don't know what will happen(as small as it is). Imo that isn't quite the same as with a baseball bat/knife/sword/whatever phsyical weapon you have imo, and I think that makes it a much harder thing to do.

 

You are right in respect of the reasonableness. Its all in the defence of self-defence. re burglary for example if someone is in your house may be reasonable to smack them on the back of the head with a frying pan but would it be reasonable to shoot them whilst they are running away?

 

Yeah, the awkward part of the law. It lacks common sense, but reasonably so on the whole. What happens if you didn't shoot that person in the back though, and they weren't necessarily running away? It might appear that they are, but you're under thread, in an emotive situation, and you have no idea if they're running away or running to get something and return. I think it should still, circumstances depending, be reasonable in your own home.

 

Still, not having guns means that isn't even an issue.

[MoogleViper]

If the criminal has a gun good luck using a cricket bat to defend yourself.

 

So to tackle the chance that criminals might have guns, we should make guns more readily available?

 

However the US has had their wild west period and for the most part the majority of gun owners are responsible and only use their guns for hunting or self defence.

 

Yeah, it's not as if the US has one of the highest rates of firearm death in the world. You know, it's not like they're, by far, the only developed nation with such a high rate of firearm deaths. Of course not.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

I think the reason guns are used for self defence is that they are at least on par with with whatever the criminal is bringing to the fight. When people say guns aren't necessary to defend yourself they always use a hypothetical scenario as an example where a gun perhaps isn't necessary. Using a gun for self defence better equips you for the worse case scenario. If the criminal has a gun good luck using a cricket bat to defend yourself.

 

Even if the criminal is unarmed, I's still have to tackle them upclose with whatever I have to hand and could still be overpowered, especially if there's more than one of them, where as a gun would give me a much better chance. The way I see it is if somebody attacks me I don't owe them a fair fight and my survival trumps theirs. That doesn't mean I want to kill everybody that attacks me, just that it's more important that I survive than they do should it come to that.

 

Also a gun in the home acts as a much better deterrent than household objects If you think commiting that crime could easily cost you your life you're going to think harder about whether it's worth the risk. Nobody ever mentions the number of potential crimes guns prevent and the innocent lives they save.

 

That said I'm not sure I would introduce ownership of guns in the Uk because I think we would pobably have at least a couple of years of total wild west chaos, where some people would think owning a gun was a licence to just do what you want and use it to settle every dispute. After a while it would settle down once people learned that you can't just bully people with a gun because you're just as likely to get shot yourself. But it would take a while for that to happen and it would cost a lot of innocent lives in the process, at which point we'd probably just ban guns again and the whole thing would have been pointless.

 

However the US has had their wild west period and for the most part the majority of gun owners are responsible and only use their guns for hunting or self defence. Plus they realise the simple fact that the police/government cannot protect you, you have to protect yourself so why take your chances with a baseball bat when a gun gives you a considerably better edge?

 

I think there should be checks on people wanting to buy guns and I understand there are checks in place, so what was a right has already become a privilege to an extent, and as a general rule you should be very careful about the government turning rights to privileges, as it sets the precedent the government can do it with other rights.

 

On top of that what people forget is that the right to bear arms is also a deterrent to the government should it become tyranical. People could argue that scenario would be unlikely in this day and age but the right to bear arms is there as a safeguard incase it ever does happen, regardless of how unlikely it might be. I would think when the Nazis were rounding up disarmed Jews in Germany every American thanked God for their founding father's foresight to include the second amendment.

 

I don't see how more people having guns to defend themselves will do anything but escalate things, especially in the current climate. As long as the world runs on the capitalistic "every man for himself" concept of freedom where the power follows the money and the money is in the hands of the few, a lot of people see no other way in life than to turn to crime. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and the times don't get much more desperate for the poor. Adding more guns to the mix will only make things worse - unless we actually want to see an armed revolution.

[pratty]

I don't want to get into a back and forth argument about this, I've said my piece. However I do want to touch on the points raised as I do understand where people are coming from.

 

You can make arguments for either side, you're either safer because you have more protection, or you're safer because there's potentially less threat. It's almost a "chicken or the egg?" style argument, so I understand both points of view.

 

However America was founded on the idea of a high degree of personal freedom and so it's no surprise that America choose the less restrictive option. Nobody said freedom would be easy and America is still learning about the responsibilities that come with freedoms such as the second amendment. Couple that with the fact that the second amendment is also as much to do with being a safeguard against both foreign and domestic opression, as it is about defence against armed criminals.

 

I understand that the pressence of guns potentially ups the ante, but even in Amercia not every violent crime is commited with a gun, and I don't think it's unreasonable for a person to use a gun to defend themselves against an unarmed attacker. Guns are a great equaliser for a smaller, weaker person, and as I said before if somebody is attacking you they don't deserve a fair fight.

 

I appreciate America has high gun deaths, but the issue should be America's violent deaths full stop, who cares if a gun was used or not? America wouldn't be any better off if it simply converted it's gun deaths to knife deaths instead.

 

I think it's better for America to tackle the causes of crime (eg povety as alluded to by The Great Dane), rather than take away arguably people's best defence against it. Even if we single out gun crime, I don't think the root causes of gun crime are the guns themselves.

 

I do see the logic that making guns less available would potentially make it more difficult for criminals to aquire guns, but criminals by definition don't obey the law. So outlawing guns puts the law abiding citizen at more of a disadvantage than the criminal, as you're totally taking away the victim's guns, while only inconveniencing the criminal who may still aquire one illegally, or just commit their crimes with anything else safe in the knowlege that their victim can't shoot back. So what might be more inconvenient to a criminal than the banning of legally owned guns, is a bullet coming the other way.

 

Ultimately though it's up to America to decide what to do. The founding farthers created the second amendment for a very good reason, so they need to carefully make their own minds up, and not worry about what the rest of the world thinks about them.

[Jonnas]

As far as I'm concerned, being able to quickly and easily injure or kill anybody in sight is not a right.

 

Also, gun ownership doesn't do much good against tyrannical governments. Said governments can ruin your life without the use of force, and even in Nazi Germany, the police and the army had better guns and training than the general populace. Shooting a government representative would make it worse, even.