Oh Darn

[Oldbillplod]

Originally posted by Scruit

(It's that kind of knee-jerk reaction that got guns banned in the UK in '97. Look where you are now. I still don't understand why defensive weapons are not allowed, even though your chances of being mugged in London are 6x that of New York. You can easily determine whether a screwdriver is being carried passively by someone who is going to use it as a legitimate tool or by some scroat as a burglary tool - so why can't you just as easily tell if a can of mace or a taser is being carried defensive or as a criminal tool?)

What guns were banned in 97?
You probably could determine whether someone was carrying something as self defence or not, however this still makes it a criminal offence in the UK. That is the long and short of it.

[Scruit]

What guns banned in the UK in August 97? Were you a cop in '97? All privately-held handguns except single-action .22s, from what I understand. All the pistol club members, basically. That's my understanding. I was about to start my application to join the local gun club and get my gun license from SYorks police, but then Dunblane happened. As a result of a failure of the police to follow it's own laws and policies of issuance of a gun license yon bugger (Micheal Hamilton?) was allowed to keep his guns even after being banned from being a scoutmaster after allegations of sexual abuse of the kids and ignoring a unfavourable psych eval which recommended revoking his gun license becaus eof his anger, demeanour etc. So he took it out on the local school in Dunblane.

Election year, wasn't it? Both the tories and the labor party promised to ban guns in exchange for votes. They got the votes. Approx 20k legally held guns were 'bought back' at post-ban value (ie nothing) and all the reloading presses/safes other equipment that a gun owner has but was not banned was rendered useless. Many gun owners sent their guns to friends in Holland or the US, hoping the kneejerk ban would not last.

Guns were not used for self defense in the streets in modern times before 97, so that shouldn't be the basis for the arguments, but in 98 and 99 there was a 42% rise in gun crime. Defenseive weapons have become increasingly punished. Even in cases where the victim used an illegal weapon to preserve his life (like the BP exec who used the cane-sword when he was getting mugged - didn't he get a harsher punishment than the mugger?)

I know it is still a criminal offence in the UK - that is the problem. And extension of "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns" only it counts for everything. You have a nation of law-abiding citizens who have no defense against the growing epidemic of violent crime and hot burglaries. IN the US the crimes are generally more towards property crimes. Hot burglaries are comparitively unheard of, because they know every other house has a 12ga in it with their name on a buckshot shell.

Until the police in the UK can control the violence, they should allow the citizens that one last line of defense. I don't know if I advocate legalising guns for self defense in the UK yet - I used to be against it but seeing the tidal wave of violent crime that has surged over the country (not related ot the 97 ban, but more related to the government's increasing theory of making it's peole into helpless lambs in a forest full of wolves) I don't know.

At least let people carry less-lethal defensive weapons like tasers (an M26 or X26 will do nicely) or pepper spray. You already said you could probably determine who does or does not carry in self-defense. I'm not saying the police should be allowing poeple to beak the law - I'm just sayin the law is out of touch with the will of the poeple and the conditions on the street, and it should be updated to account for what is really going on.

My GF was attacked by a guy as she walked home from university at night and was dragged into a bush. Guess what he wanted. She was on her way back from art class and had an exacto-knife (scalpel) in her pocket. She whipped it out and gouged his face with it over he shoulder. He ran off. My GF ran home un-raped. She spent hours trying to figure out of she should report an attempted rape becaus eof hte fear she woudl be arrested for using a knife against him. She finally did, and the found the guy having has face stitched back on at a nearby hospital. The police told her she was very lucky and could have been arrested for taking a knife to him and next time to just run away.

Another friend of mine was in a bar fight - he was punched unconcious and when he came around the guy was straddling his chest and started punching him again, as he lay on the floor. All he remeber from that point on is a broken glass he could see under a chair within reach of his left arm, he grabbed the glass and passed out again. When he came to he was still being punched, and the glass was in his hand - he pushed it up into the face of the attacker. He passe dout again. He woke in in a jail cell. The police, CPS and courts decided that because he used a weapon in a fistfight he was not reasonbly defending himself. Convicted of "GBH with intent" he was sentenced to 18 months, served 12. His attacked has a cut on his cheek. This guy had multiple facial fractures.

I'm rambling. This is a pet peeve, and probably the only thing I don't miss about the UK. I'll shut up now. :D

[Stump]

Ok, I have a few more minutes to explain my position.
Yes, the man commited a serious crime against an innocent child, but to beat him to death? I knew people would say "Well, if it were YOUR child" or "If you had children, you'd understand". I can look at this with more of a detachment then. I think I am more rational than parents.
Obviously, I don't believe in the death penalty, and to me this is the same thing. Prison justice is one thing, but it is not true justice.