People in the UK I have a question for you

[Snowman]

I am often presented with a very disgruntled opinion of the fact that I practice my Second Amendment rights by citizens of the United Kingdom. This is simply ones opinion and they have their right to it as do I mine, but often their opinion seems to be that they do not need it because the police are there to protect them. This morning I come across this little gem, "Police have told residents to stop putting wire mesh on their garden shed windows – because they could be sued if a burglar is injured," so it appears not only are the police not able to protect their citizenry they want to make sure a criminal is not injured during the commission of a crime. I am not saying America is perfect or that the UK is not but it seems that they want to make committing a crime easier and protecting your belongings harder.


source: The Telegraph

[dr.walrus]

In the USA, gun deaths are 20 - 30 times higher than in the UK

There is an obvious correlation between firearm ownership and shootings. That is statistical fact throughout the developed world.

I don't even see how an article about peoples garden sheds is relevant - because it is NOT an issue of personal protection and NOBODY should be killed for trying to steal a lawnmower.

[Snowman]

In the USA, gun deaths are 20 - 30 times higher than in the UK

There is an obvious correlation between firearm ownership and shootings. That is statistical fact throughout the developed world.

I don't even see how an article about peoples garden sheds is relevant - because it is NOT an issue of personal protection and NOBODY should be killed for trying to steal a lawnmower.

Apparently my point was not clear. THE POLICE WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR SOMEONE TO STEAL FROM YOU AND NOT BE INJURED. My point had nothing to do with personal protection or shooting anyone, but the protection of personal property, you are absolutely correct I would rather someone steal from me than to harm my family but that wasn't what the story was about. The story was they want people to lessen the security of their property for the benefit of criminals.

[dr.walrus]

THE POLICE WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR SOMEONE TO STEAL FROM YOU AND NOT BE INJURED.

Absolute rubbish.

[Snowman]

Then what do you take away from, "Police have told residents to stop putting wire mesh on their garden shed windows – because they could be sued if a burglar is injured." The lawsuit shouldn't matter, a criminal injured in the act of committing a crime should not even be able to file anything against the property owner. In short that means they want you to not have anything on your property to injure a criminal because you are then liable for someone else's actions. Why should a victim be held responsible for something that a criminal caused to happen?

[Munty]

Bearing in mind you're asking us Brits you really should include what the second amendment is to help us out :p

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

I think it's a 50/50 argument but the reasons you stated above have nothing to do with supporting or opposing it. I'm guessing the little gem there is from a US paper as in the UK people just don't sue. And the people who do, guess where they got that idea from? Yep, America! Who here has seen Liar Liar? There's a little skit in that about burglars being able to sue after being injured in commiting a crime but it doesn't happen in the uk. If you rob someone you get arrested and if you happen to cut yourself on the window you smashed to gain entry noone will cry for you.

The biggest headline I remember that pertains to this discussion is a farmer called 'Tony Martin' Read his full story here > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
Basically after numerous thefts from his home he illegally armed himself with a pump-action shotgun and killed one would-be burglar while wounding another. The wounded burglar received no compensation despite being shot in the leg and he was sent to jail for the full standard sentence for his crimes.

The farmer was sentenced for murder but this was later changed to manslaughter as it had not been a calculated attack but carried out in self defense.

English law permits one person to kill another in self defence only if the person defending him or herself uses no more than "reasonable force"; it is the responsibility of the jury to determine whether or not an unreasonable amount of force was used.

The wounded burglar attempted to sue the farmer but when a counter-lawsuit was raised by the farmer the criminal dropped all charges. Funnily enough he ended up back in jail soon after, shame he didn't shoot them both dead really...

Anyway there's lots more info in the wiki above but the point is, if he hadn't of killed either of the men in his home he quite probably would have avoided jail. It was dark, he was half-asleep and the guy had been robbed 10 times already. Who wouldn't be pissed? But the choice of weapon for self-defence was utterly ridiculous and in my opinion the surviving criminal is lucky he got out at all.

The farmer served 5 years, I wouldn't have given him anything more than standard punishment for owning a weapon illegally. A man's home is his castle and why the hell shouldn't he be able to defend it as such?

As far as the American parallel goes, I have no problem with you lot owning guns but I'm certainly more of the side that violence breeds violence and I'd guess well over 50% of Americans that carry weapons do so because 'other people are carrying weapons'. If you get mugged by a guy with a gun and you have no gun, what happens? He'll take your money right? If you get mugged by a guy with a gun and you have a gun too, then what? Chances are someone's going to get shot, probably killed.

It doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal and what country you live in, the only way to win is if noone has guns anywhere and that will never happen. My personal opinion is that all police forces should have the right to bear and use arms with the protection of the courts but noone else should.

That way when a copper catches an unarmed criminal you can bet he'll end up in jail and noone will get hurt. Unfortunately there will always be a way for that criminal to find a weapon somewhere so realistically it'll never be that simple.

As it is we each have to come to our own conclusions about the safe and sensible controlling of deadly weapons. If we give them to everyone without question then people WILL die, but if we only give them to some people how do we know we're not arming the wrong ones? You take weapons away from the police then pit them against a well armed gang of nutters and what do you think happens next?

If you want to carry a gun Snowman, other people will certainly have their opinions about it but I really don't. Just be sure you're ready to use it when the time comes or why bother having one? You may think that being armed is a deterrent but really it's only when people know you have a weapon that they'll think twice about messing with you, and if you already have a gun pointed at you... Do you really risk drawing your own?

[dr.walrus]

Why should a victim be held responsible for something that a criminal caused to happen?

There are several things at work here - I studied law and this was one of my tutors favourite misconceptions.

You can sue someone for injury if they have a right to be on your property, or an implied right, or potentially if you expect them to be there even if they don't have a right to be there.

I'll give you an example. My house has been burgled, so I set up a shotgun rigged to my internal kitchen door. A burglar sets it off and is injured. That burglar has a right to sue me.

Just because someone is committing a crime, it DOESN'T mean I have a right to injure them. If I am under threat, I have a right to protect myself using 'appropriate force'. This includes killing someone, if neccessary.

In reality, the burglar will NOT be successful in a civil action agains a homeowner unless there is clear intent to cause injury - this advice from the police is almost certainly taken out of context to make a news story of it.

“To properly secure your sheds, Surrey Police strongly advises people to invest in items such as good-quality locks and bolts, and not to resort to homemade devices, as this could cause injury.”

[dr.walrus]

The farmer was sentenced for murder but this was later changed to manslaughter as it had not been a calculated attack but carried out in self defense.

Acutally, the grounds were diminished responsibility, due to his poor mental state as a result of multiple break-ins.

Legal background:
Self-defence provides a 'complete' defence against murder (i.e., no charge), whilst diminished responsibility, provocation and suicide pact are the three 'partial defences' that reduce murder to manslaughter.

[Munty]

THE POLICE WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR SOMEONE TO STEAL FROM YOU AND NOT BE INJURED.

Do you seriously believe that the POLICE want that? You really think they want MORE crime to deal with? It's the messed up 'I'm sueing you for being ugly' attitude that's grown up in the states that's to blame for articles like the above.

In England, we can pretty much leave landmines in our garden if we're worried someone will steal our shovel in the night but we don't need to and we don't want to. Brit's do not WANT to own guns, there is no glamour in doing so. As the Doc said, deaths are much higher when guns are involved. The same is true in the UK and the people who DO have guns invariably end up dead, or in jail for killing someone else. Same as in the States but on a much smaller scale.

If you want to put barbed wire and a moat around your shed the police won't and can't stop you but thanks to the crazy laws that you have out there you'd better find a good lawyer because a burglar will make more money off cutting his hand and falling in the water than he ever would from stealing a few shovels...

[Snowman]

Bearing in mind you're asking us Brits you really should include what the second amendment is to help us out :p



I think it's a 50/50 argument but the reasons you stated above have nothing to do with supporting or opposing it. I'm guessing the little gem there is from a US paper as in the UK people just don't sue. And the people who do, guess where they got that idea from? Yep, America! Who here has seen Liar Liar? There's a little skit in that about burglars being able to sue after being injured in commiting a crime but it doesn't happen in the uk. If you rob someone you get arrested and if you happen to cut yourself on the window you smashed to gain entry noone will cry for you.

The biggest headline I remember that pertains to this discussion is a farmer called 'Tony Martin' Read his full story here > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)
Basically after numerous thefts from his home he illegally armed himself with a pump-action shotgun and killed one would-be burglar while wounding another. The wounded burglar received no compensation despite being shot in the leg and he was sent to jail for the full standard sentence for his crimes.

The farmer was sentenced for murder but this was later changed to manslaughter as it had not been a calculated attack but carried out in self defense.

The wounded burglar attempted to sue the farmer but when a counter-lawsuit was raised by the farmer the criminal dropped all charges. Funnily enough he ended up back in jail soon after, shame he didn't shoot them both dead really...

Anyway there's lots more info in the wiki above but the point is, if he hadn't of killed either of the men in his home he quite probably would have avoided jail. It was dark, he was half-asleep and the guy had been robbed 10 times already. Who wouldn't be pissed? But the choice of weapon for self-defence was utterly ridiculous and in my opinion the surviving criminal is lucky he got out at all.

The farmer served 5 years, I wouldn't have given him anything more than standard punishment for owning a weapon illegally. A man's home is his castle and why the hell shouldn't he be able to defend it as such?

As far as the American parallel goes, I have no problem with you lot owning guns but I'm certainly more of the side that violence breeds violence and I'd guess well over 50% of Americans that carry weapons do so because 'other people are carrying weapons'. If you get mugged by a guy with a gun and you have no gun, what happens? He'll take your money right? If you get mugged by a guy with a gun and you have a gun too, then what? Chances are someone's going to get shot, probably killed.

It doesn't matter if it's legal or illegal and what country you live in, the only way to win is if noone has guns anywhere and that will never happen. My personal opinion is that all police forces should have the right to bear and use arms with the protection of the courts but noone else should.

That way when a copper catches an unarmed criminal you can bet he'll end up in jail and noone will get hurt. Unfortunately there will always be a way for that criminal to find a weapon somewhere so realistically it'll never be that simple.

As it is we each have to come to our own conclusions about the safe and sensible controlling of deadly weapons. If we give them to everyone without question then people WILL die, but if we only give them to some people how do we know we're not arming the wrong ones? You take weapons away from the police then pit them against a well armed gang of nutters and what do you think happens next?

If you want to carry a gun Snowman, other people will certainly have their opinions about it but I really don't. Just be sure you're ready to use it when the time comes or why bother having one? You may think that being armed is a deterrent but really it's only when people know you have a weapon that they'll think twice about messing with you, and if you already have a gun pointed at you... Do you really risk drawing your own?

I appreciate the well thought out, well worded response and input you have put into the situation. I carry concealed as is my choice in my state of residence and would only use my firearm if it were absolutely called for. I would gladly give over my wallet, my car, pretty much anything but the safety of my wife and children. That is the only reason I carry is for the security of those I love and care about. As far as all this lawsuit nonsense I could care less if most of the immoral personal injury lawyers that take these kind of cases were thrown in jail for life or worse.

There are several things at work here - I studied law and this was one of my tutors favourite misconceptions.

You can sue someone for injury if they have a right to be on your property, or an implied right, or potentially if you expect them to be there even if they don't have a right to be there.

I'll give you an example. My house has been burgled, so I set up a shotgun rigged to my internal kitchen door. A burglar sets it off and is injured. That burglar has a right to sue me.

Just because someone is committing a crime, it DOESN'T mean I have a right to injure them. If I am under threat, I have a right to protect myself using 'appropriate force'. This includes killing someone, if neccessary.

In reality, the burglar will NOT be successful in a civil action agains a homeowner unless there is clear intent to cause injury - this advice from the police is almost certainly taken out of context to make a news story of it.

In maintaining with innocent until proven guilty it could be misconstrued that you can take no action against someone on your property unless you a) witness them committing a crime or b) ask them to leave and they don't in which they are committing criminal trespass. The booby trap you mentioned above is both immoral and illegal in almost every state of the union, and I for one would consider it IMMENSELY irresponsible.

My main concern honestly is that this problem has proliferated so much in the states that it seems to be spreading. By no means should there be any quarter so to speak for a person committing a crime on my property. I am not saying it would be okay to shoot them with a shotgun full of rat poison and rock salt but if they bleed out from cutting themselves on some wire mesh from breaking into my property that is one chalked up to stupidity.