Now Legal to kill & Maim Burglars

[TimberWolf]

You're reacting in exactly the way the media wants you to. You might like to look at the other 5,473 photos of the guy that the journos sifted through in order to find the most 'evil looking' one.

Fair enough, let's see one.

[TimberWolf]

Clearly that is a load of rubbish, but then again they are both vermin.

Why do you think it is rubbish?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

If you don't want to get shot, don't break into someone's home.

A fair, but simplistic point - to which I might add, "if you don't want to get shot, don't be Tony Martin's brother" since one of his previous acts was firing a gun through his brother's window after (or probably during) an argument.

I am not in any way defending the useless police or the scum burglars, but whatever else he may be, Tony Martin is not a hero.

[Xenophon]

Why do you think it is rubbish?

Whilst I am a city chap, all of my family on my mother's side are farmers. We have all shot a variety of vermin, but never a person.

[Diver]

Whilst I am a city chap, all of my family on my mother's side are farmers. We have all shot a variety of vermin, but never a person.

Slackers

[Xenophon]

A fair, but simplistic point - to which I might add, "if you don't want to get shot, don't be Tony Martin's brother" since one of his previous acts was firing a gun through his brother's window after (or probably during) an argument.

I am not in any way defending the useless police or the scum burglars, but whatever else he may be, Tony Martin is not a hero.

You say 'simplistic' - I say black and white. There is no grey area for me. Break in = your tough doo-doo if you get hurt.

I never said Tony Martin was a hero, but I would do the same as he did.

[Xenophon]

Slackers

[TimberWolf]

Whilst I am a city chap, all of my family on my mother's side are farmers. We have all shot a variety of vermin, but never a person.

By 'vermin' do you mean a from of life not dissimilar to your own and with whom you share a distant ancestor?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

You say 'simplistic' - I say black and white. There is no grey area for me. Break in = your tough doo-doo if you get hurt.

I never said Tony Martin was a hero, but I would do the same as he did.

Hmm interesting - I was watching "police camera you're a chav" on tv the other night and one job was to break in to a woman's house because no-one had seen her for ages and they were worried and there flies buzzing around and so on.

It was dark. The woman was very much alive and very shocked when PC plod broke in. Under your rules, (and assuming like dear old Mr Martin she had managed to get hold of an illegal pump-action shotgun) she could have blasted the police and asked questions later.

[expat]

Are you sure about that?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

The 1920 Firearms Act was the first serious British restriction on guns. Although crime was low in England in 1920, the government feared massive labor disruption and a Bolshevik revolution. In the circumstances, permitting the people to remain armed must have seemed an unnecessary risk. And so the new policy of disarming the public began. The Firearms Act required a would-be gun owner to obtain a certificate from the local chief of police, who was charged with determining whether the applicant had a good reason for possessing a weapon and was fit to do so. All very sensible. Parliament was assured that the intention was to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous persons. Yet from the start the law's enforcement was far more restrictive, and Home Office instructions to police -- classified until 1989 -- periodically narrowed the criteria.

At first police were instructed that it would be a good reason to have a revolver if a person "lives in a solitary house, where protection against thieves and burglars is essential, or has been exposed to definite threats to life on account of his performance of some public duty." By 1937 police were to discourage applications to possess firearms for house or personal protection. In 1964 they were told "it should hardly ever be necessary to anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person" and that "this principle should hold good even in the case of banks and firms who desire to protect valuables or large quantities of money."

In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected.

Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent.

During the debate over the Prevention of Crime Act in the House of Commons, a member from Northern Ireland told his colleagues of a woman employed by Parliament who had to cross a lonely heath on her route home and had armed herself with a knitting needle. A month earlier, she had driven off a youth who tried to snatch her handbag by jabbing him "on a tender part of his body." Was it to be an offense to carry a knitting needle? The attorney general assured the M.P. that the woman might be found to have a reasonable excuse but added that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to protect them."