Maybe it is OK to defend yourself....

TragicMonkey said:
Ah! A realist!
Click to expand...
Actually I don't think all people are evil, evil must be conscious and most of them aren't nowhere near intelligent enough to realize how selfishly they behave. :D
 
merphie said:
Maybe he is or isn't. The problem is he never does any research of his own or reads any sources listed.
Click to expand...

You talking about me? "Mr. Facts"?

I always check the sources. And I do research, you know...

So, please answer the question.
 
merphie said:
IMO having the ammunition seperate and the gun in a locked cabinet makes the gun useless for defense.
Click to expand...

The gun must be in a locked cabinet- the ammunition can be in the same cabinet but must then be sub-locked in a cabinet-within-the-cabinet.

It may make the firearm less effective but I wouldnt want to leave a firearm on the sofa for the burglar to find!

You cant have a pistol unless its a black-powder jobby- since it takes about 30 minutes to load a 'six shooter' they arent percieved as much of a threat to public safety. However you could carry spare cylinders but you need to have these on license too.
 
DavidJames said:
So why must everyone have guns?

Oh, and please answer CFLarsen's question.
Click to expand...

Because a single group having all the guns gives too much power to that group. I am not suggesting everyone should be required to have a firearm, but we must have the choice.

I don't know what question you are referring too.
 
Kerberos said:
Well you certainly don’t seem too bright. Here is what I said, I've emphasised the relevant part

"People can IMO mainly be trusted to know and be honest about what they're going to vote, whether they vote wisely is another and quite different question. People who use their guns on the other hand cannot necessarily be trusted in the same way. "

I'll even explain it to you: If people say they're going to vote Kerry, then it's almost certainly because they are going to vote Kerry. If they say they used their gun in self-defence that's not necessarily true, the concept of self-defence is much more ambiguous than whether you vote for Kerry or Bush, and people are likely to consciously or subconsciously portray the situation is such a way that it makes themselves look best. Do you understand what I'm saying now, or do you prefer to persist attacking that ridiculous straw man?
Click to expand...

It's not an attack on a strawman or being stupid. I don't draw your distinctions. Your personal attack on me is not wanted either.

I say I have guns for self defense and you suggest I can not be trusted with my guns. Self defense is clearly defined in Oklahoma Law. I know what is considered self defense under Oklahoma Law and I am very cautious about the use of my guns.

on the other hand, voting for Kerry or Bush is a very loaded question. There are many reasons for voting for one over the other and the distinctions are not always clear.
 
CFLarsen said:
You talking about me? "Mr. Facts"?

I always check the sources. And I do research, you know...

So, please answer the question.
Click to expand...

If you had read the link you wouldn't have asked such a question because the answer is in the article. Furthermore, you obvious didn't read it because you came back with some lame answer that was totally unrelated. I will not play these games.

When you ask a serious question I will be more than happy to answer.
 
Jon_in_london said:
The gun must be in a locked cabinet- the ammunition can be in the same cabinet but must then be sub-locked in a cabinet-within-the-cabinet.

It may make the firearm less effective but I wouldnt want to leave a firearm on the sofa for the burglar to find!

You cant have a pistol unless its a black-powder jobby- since it takes about 30 minutes to load a 'six shooter' they arent percieved as much of a threat to public safety. However you could carry spare cylinders but you need to have these on license too.
Click to expand...

On the other hand I could place my pistol and have it in the top of the closet ready to fire. When an intruder breaks in I can immediately deal with the threat.

Someone with locks like you would describe would take at least 5 minutes to get the weapon and get it ready. That assumes they have nerves of steel and the pressure doesn't get to them.

That makes it ineffective as a defense weapon.
 
Correct. Making it ineffective as a weapon is undoubtedly part of the reason for the regulations. It also greatly reduces the chance of accidental discharge , of the gun being accessible to minors or of it being fired by a half asleep person awakened by his five year old rushing into the bedroom.

Any system has advantages and disadvantages. In general, in this case, the British attitude is that safety is better served by making the gun hard to reach.

Attitudes vary in space and time. This one could change too.
 
Soapy Sam said:
Correct. Making it ineffective as a weapon is undoubtedly part of the reason for the regulations. It also greatly reduces the chance of accidental discharge , of the gun being accessible to minors or of it being fired by a half asleep person awakened by his five year old rushing into the bedroom.

Any system has advantages and disadvantages. In general, in this case, the British attitude is that safety is better served by making the gun hard to reach.

Attitudes vary in space and time. This one could change too.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I also believe in taking responsibility. I teach my kids about guns. They are not allowed to touch them.

The first lessons of gun safety is to know if the gun is loaded and to prove it (By checking the chamber). This helps in accidental discharge.

The second rule of gun safety is to know what your target is and what is beyond it. This helps prevent killing your 5 year old.

I would say the danger of is greater of not being able to defend yourself. In my opinion once the laws are on the books it is more difficult to remove them.

From my understanding the gun laws in the UK have not changed dramatically in some time anyway.
 
Any system has advantages and disadvantages. In general, in this case, the British attitude is that safety is better served by making the gun hard to reach.
Click to expand...

All the British system accomplishes is making victims out of law abiding gun owners.

The best, and safest place for a pistol is in a holster on your person, loaded of course. Thats where mine stays 12 hours/day, every day. That makes me 1000 times safer than 10 British gun owners.
 
Richard G said:
I do not believe anyone can avoid punishment in the UK for justly defending themselves, if the crook is killed. Heres proof:

Review of murder law ordered by Blunkett
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...urd28.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/28/ixhome.html
Click to expand...
Thats what you regard as "proof"? Did you see the bit that talks about the use of excessive force. I know that you don't believe there is any such thing as excessive force but some people do.....

If I catch an unarmed junkie climbing through a window looking for electrical goods to steal and I crash tackle, bind and gag them and then put a hand gun to thier head and pull the trigger....Is it likely I get off on self defence? No, the action was clearly use of excessive force.

If I smack someone over the head with a lump of wood because they are chasing me with a knife its a different matter.....anyway, whats the point of explaining this to you over and over again.
 
Richard G said:
All the British system accomplishes is making victims out of law abiding gun owners.

The best, and safest place for a pistol is in a holster on your person, loaded of course. Thats where mine stays 12 hours/day, every day. That makes me 1000 times safer than 10 British gun owners.
Click to expand...
oh come on Dickyboy....are you trying to tell me that you only own one handgun? I picture you as a compulsive obsessive gun buyer....
 
The Fool said:
Thats what you regard as "proof"? Did you see the bit that talks about the use of excessive force. I know that you don't believe there is any such thing as excessive force but some people do.....

If I catch an unarmed junkie climbing through a window looking for electrical goods to steal and I crash tackle, bind and gag them and then put a hand gun to thier head and pull the trigger....Is it likely I get off on self defence? No, the action was clearly use of excessive force.

If I smack someone over the head with a lump of wood because they are chasing me with a knife its a different matter.....anyway, whats the point of explaining this to you over and over again.
Click to expand...

If the junking is climbing through your window and you shoot him on the spot that is not considered excessive force (In Oklahoma) and you will get off for self defense.

If you shoot someone chasing you with a knife it would be self defense.

Why do we have to explain this over and over?
 
merphie said:
If the junking is climbing through your window and you shoot him on the spot that is not considered excessive force (In Oklahoma) and you will get off for self defense.

If you shoot someone chasing you with a knife it would be self defense.

Why do we have to explain this over and over?
Click to expand...

damn...are you trying to tell me that if you completely change the circumstances my conclusions may not apply? I'd have never guessed that.

wtf is your point?

Dickie is lamenting that people will get into trouble for using excessive force, are you upset about that too?
 
The Fool said:
damn...are you trying to tell me that if you completely change the circumstances my conclusions may not apply? I'd have never guessed that.

wtf is your point?

Dickie is lamenting that people will get into trouble for using excessive force, are you upset about that too?
Click to expand...

My point is that your example is clearly leaning one way and so it is flawed.

In Oklahoma it is not excessive force if I shoot an intruder on the spot. It would probably be excessive force if I were to do what you described.

Would my example be excessive force where you live?
 
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/...xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/10/31/ixopinion.html
"If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night you can presume he is not there to read the gas meter. But current British law insists that he have the freedom of the premises. When, last Christmas, thousands of Radio 4's Today listeners called for legislation authorising them to protect their homes by any means necessary, the proposal was immediately denounced as a 'ludicrous, brutal, unworkable, blood-stained piece of legislation'.

They [homeowners] are not to keep any weapon for protection or approach the intruder. Someone might get hurt. If that someone is the intruder the resident will be sued by the burglar and vigorously prosecuted by the state.
Click to expand...

"The sort of law Britain needs is the one passed by the state of Oklahoma in 1988 saying an occupant is justified in using any degree of physical force against an intruder. Lawyers and police predicted widespread mayhem and unavoidable killings. The result? It has proved to be a complete success. There has been no rash of accidental killings but, significantly, intrusion into homes has declined dramatically." ...
Click to expand...
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/10/31/dt3101.xml
 
merphie said:
My point is that your example is clearly leaning one way and so it is flawed.

In Oklahoma it is not excessive force if I shoot an intruder on the spot. It would probably be excessive force if I were to do what you described.

Would my example be excessive force where you live?
Click to expand...
Is it a flawed example of excessive force? I'd remind you that Dickie feels that once he has caught someone on his property he should have the right to do whatever he pleases. Do you agree?
 
The Fool said:
Is it a flawed example of excessive force? I'd remind you that Dickie feels that once he has caught someone on his property he should have the right to do whatever he pleases. Do you agree?
Click to expand...

If someone is trespassing on my property? No. I would call the police if they would not leaved when asked. I would probably not confront any intruder in my house either. I would retreat to where my kids are. Their protection is my ultimate goal. However, that also includes protecting my wife and I.

So what is your answer to my question? Do you believe my example is excessive force?
 
merphie said:
If someone is trespassing on my property? No. I would call the police if they would not leaved when asked. I would probably not confront any intruder in my house either. I would retreat to where my kids are. Their protection is my ultimate goal. However, that also includes protecting my wife and I.

So what is your answer to my question? Do you believe my example is excessive force?
Click to expand...

if you are asking if it is excessive force within an American legal juristiction, I don't know, Im not that familiar your laws. My personal view is that the phrase "shot on the spot" definitely implies excessive force, ie shooting before you know what the person is doing. For example..."you are on my property and may possibly intend me harm" is not , in my opinion, sufficient justification to start shooting. They may simply be your wifes lover...

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom