The Firearms Statistics That Gun Control Advocates Don’t Want to See

Speaking to The Daily Telegraph on Monday night, Mr Grayling said that he wanted to “finally lay the issue to rest once and for all” following a series of high-profile cases where home owners who have confronted criminals have been arrested. In the future, only those using clearly excessive force, such as stabbing a burglar who was already unconscious, should face the prospect of criminal action, he said.

Last month, Andy Ferrie and his wife Tracey were held in police custody for almost three days after two burglars were shot in their house near Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire. Three years ago, Munir Hussain, a Buckinghamshire businessman, was sentenced to 30 months in jail after he chased a burglar down the road and beat him with a cricket bat and metal pole.

The burglar had tied up Hussain’s family and threatened them with a knife.

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said last month that householders had the right to use force “to get rid of the burglar”.

This article is interesting:

You can't bash a burglar after all: Government's tough rhetoric branded a farce as it's revealed homeowners are barred from fighting raiders in garden or chasing them outside

■Justice Minister had promised the use of 'maximum force' against burglars

■But it has been revealed the new laws are 'riddled with loopholes'

■The legislation only applies to homeowners if fight takes place inside

■Defence cannot be used if only trying to protect property

■Shopkeepers have no defence unless they live above their store

■Shop assistants cannot get involved unless their loved ones live in the store

Even more:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ec_1308853707

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/09/03/couple-arrested-for-using-legally-owned-gun-to-defend-home-from-burglars/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/6957682/Myleene-Klass-warned-by-police-after-scaring-off-intruders-with-knife.html

It would seem that there are no compiled numbers, regarding this; because after reading some of the comments, on the sites, it does appear that the English are finally finding their spine and speaking out against the laws that coddle the criminal and punish the law abiding citizens.
 
Yeah, ok.

Another interpretation is that some people are making an awful fuss about restating the current law in slightly bellicose language.
 
charver said:
Yeah, ok.

Another interpretation is that some people are making an awful fuss about restating the current law in slightly bellicose language.
Click to expand...

Translation:
Yeah; it sucks that the law abiding citizens of England can't defend themselves and their families, without being charged as criminals themselves.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And you seem to be more concerned with what occurs in the US, where you don't live, then you do with your own countries faults.
Click to expand...

Oh, i'm only too happy to criticise my own country for it's faults, and there's no shortage.

It's just this doesn't appear to be one of them.
 
charver said:
Oh, i'm only too happy to criticise my own country for it's faults, and there's no shortage.

It's just this doesn't appear to be one of them.
Click to expand...

Of course not; because you're so ingrained into allowing your government tell you what you should accept, that you go along like a good little sheep. :)
 
Chapel The Evergreen said:
There have been, I have some articles. However the recent trend for judges (that I've seen) is more...leniency towards self defense of the home.
Click to expand...

He was wanting arrest figures relating to defence of the home which i've never seen before.

The figures for actual prosecutions are less than one a year and they tend to be on the extremes, like capturing a burglar in the basement and setting him on fire.

What you do see a lot of is the same handful of cases regurgitated by the press at regular intervals, in the same way they focus on every incident of knife/gun crime in the weeks after a particularly spectacular stabbing/shooting. Followed by politicians saying "something must be done", which, essentially, means restating the current law of self defence and pretending they are now "on the side of the homeowner and not the side of the criminal". Basically, semantic bollocks.

You can kill an intruder if you reasonably believe there is a threat to your person. Several people have and haven't been charged. The law is fine as it is.
 
charver said:
He was wanting arrest figures relating to defence of the home which i've never seen before.

The figures for actual prosecutions are less than one a year and they tend to be on the extremes, like capturing a burglar in the basement and setting him on fire.

What you do see a lot of is the same handful of cases regurgitated by the press at regular intervals, in the same way they focus on every incident of knife/gun crime in the weeks after a particularly spectacular stabbing/shooting. Followed by politicians saying "something must be done", which, essentially, means restating the current law of self defence and pretending they are now "on the side of the homeowner and not the side of the criminal". Basically, semantic bollocks.

You can kill an intruder if you reasonably believe there is a threat to your person. Several people have and haven't been charged. The law is fine as it is.
Click to expand...

Kind of like putting a moron in charge of a space shuttle. That they fail with it doesn't mean the shuttle is poorly designed.
 
charver said:
He was wanting arrest figures relating to defence of the home which i've never seen before.

The figures for actual prosecutions are less than one a year and they tend to be on the extremes, like capturing a burglar in the basement and setting him on fire.

What you do see a lot of is the same handful of cases regurgitated by the press at regular intervals, in the same way they focus on every incident of knife/gun crime in the weeks after a particularly spectacular stabbing/shooting. Followed by politicians saying "something must be done", which, essentially, means restating the current law of self defence and pretending they are now "on the side of the homeowner and not the side of the criminal". Basically, semantic bollocks.

You can kill an intruder if you reasonably believe there is a threat to your person. Several people have and haven't been charged. The law is fine as it is.
Click to expand...

So it's OK and not to be paid any attention to a "victim" being arrested and held, as long as there's only a few of them prosecuted and they are EVENTUALLLY released.
 
WinterBorn said:
And their violent crime rate is rising and ours is falling. Plus (let me take a page from your book) we have better teeth.

So you were calling me the lawyer? Hmm, no. I'm not a lawyer....but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
Click to expand...
Morons think 11,000 and falling is better than 200 and rising on murders.
NRAZI's alive and well
Just not well educated
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So it's OK and not to be paid any attention to a "victim" being arrested and held, as long as there's only a few of them prosecuted and they are EVENTUALLLY released.
Click to expand...

Ok, there are essentially two options.

1. Allow anybody to do anything they like to an intruder on their property. No prosecutions for killing burglars but, you'd imagine, a handful of cases where people lured a chap onto their property and killed them.

2. Allow self-defence with some element of "reasonableness". That's what we've got. Even the proposed changes to the current wording rest on any action taken by a householder being "reasonable". There will be a few prosecutions of extreme cases of revenge, rather than genuine self-defence. There will also be some arrests while the police investigate the circumstances. This is unfortunate but sometimes unavoidable. In most cases no arrest will be made at all.

On balance, i prefer option 2.

If you don't, that's fine. As you're not living with it, it won't matter too much to you. Just as it doesn't matter much to me how you choose to implement your gun laws.

I don't think there's much else to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top