@Cleric775 I can't remember. I think it's one of the ones Youtube deleted. I think I likened certain members of law enforcement to nazi stormtroopers, which some people evidently took offence at.
Last year 5,600 firearms offences were excluded from the official figures. It means that, whereas the Home Office said there were only 9,800 offences in 2007/8, the real total was around 15,400. The latest quarterly figures, due to be released on Thursday, will again exclude a significant number of incidents.
The explanation for the gulf is that the Government figures only include cases where guns are fired, used to "pistol whip" victims, or brandished as a threat.
Thousands of offences including gun-smuggling and illegal possession of a firearm - which normally carries a minimum five-year jail sentence - are omitted from the Home Office's headline count, raising questions about the reliability of Government crime data.
Of course there are differing levels of offensive if a person runs at you with a rubber mallet you would be less concerned for your life than you would be should that same person run at you with a huge scythe or a large sword. You get in front of a jury of your peers, they will have different views on the weapons its all about what the reasonable person would do!
And of course depending on what you pick up to defend yourself there will be different issues.
"Of course there are differing levels of offensive"
It's a binary system. Either an object is being used offensively or it isn't. You could murder someone with a pen- then the pen you used would righlty be regarded as an offensive weapon. A sword is not an offensive weapon unless it is being pointed at or swung at someone (or threats issued) without good reason. The only good reason being self-defence.
Your case doesnt necessarily mean we should all rush out and do away with our ornaments.
The laws arent open or poorly written they are actually quite definitive to prevent the law being misused by cynical defendants.
Your readin too literally the 'fear' of being attacked is used in part of the defence to mitigate ones actions. Although there is obviously a certain amount of emotional relief in defending oneself form attack.
"The laws arent open or poorly written they are actually quite definitive to prevent the law being misused by cynical defendants."
You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. I have, because I've been on the receiving end of it.
The laws are open-ended, poorly written and devoid of context; it treats those who used an imitation firearm for self-defence as equal to those who used them to rob banks. It is therefore open to abuse and will misused by a cynical prosecution.
Mob Justice is a group of people not an individual taking revenge for some perceived crime without the person having the full recourse of the justice system.
That in no way is a reflection of what the police do they are governed by quite strict guidelines on policies and procedures.
Of course there is photographic evidence of my display I went to Kenya and brought back a masai club spear and shield whats unusual in that?
Where was the gun when you were arrested and how did the police become aware that you had an imitation gun?
You see I have both a glock and an MP5 both airsoft weapons both realistic imitations and I have never been prosecuted for owning them and I have driven with them many times in the boot of my car to sites all over the country.
Of course the law protects you from feeling fear thats the whole ethos behind self defence you have a right to defend yourself if you are afraid for your person or that of someone in the immediate vicinity.
Of course theres levels of offensive for instance a samurai sword carries more of an offensive nature than a kitchen knife due to its potential for harm.
I think you'll find that the purpose of self defence is to preserve one's own life, not to provide one with emotional comfort.
"Of course theres levels of offensive"
No there aren't. What would they be, besides a completely arbitrary measure? I've already told you that there is no such thing as an intrinsically offensive weapon. The amount of harm they may or may not do is irrelevent to whether they're used to initiate the use of forc or not, which is the real determinant.
Your reading of the law is obviously tainted by your experience my club along with a spear and shield are I agree offensive weapons by nature however the general use currently is wholely ornamental and there is evidence to prove that and thats what a jury would be asked to look at its not just about the itme but the usage and intent.
That's the least of our problems. You'd only be doing what the police would do."
That sounds to me that your equating vigilantiism to what the police do.
I'd like to know more about the gun thing you saying you were prosecuted for waving an imitation gun about? where and how what where the circumstances?
Mob justice is exactly the same as being a vigilante.
Why is it a bad thing that politicians would have to be more careful!?
"That sounds to me that your equating vigilantiism to what the police do."
If some spineless freak hadn't had my non-rule breaking video removed that accompanied this one, you might have a better understanding of what my position was on the subject.
"I'd like to know more about the gun thing you saying you were prosecuted for waving an imitation gun about?"
That's not exactly what happened. Nothing was being waved around, only posessed and for a so-called illegal purpose (self defence).
"Mob justice is exactly the same as being a vigilante."
If I was to protect someone being attacked, or defend myself in a similar manner, that is neither mob justice or vigilantism. No more so than it would be if the police did it.
The term "offensive weapon" is a misnomer. A weapon does not become offensive until it's used in an offensive manner, regardless of what the law says. Weaponry does not carry any intrinsic "offensiveness". And how is a club protecting you from injury?
"The fact that the law protects you from 'feeling' fear etc."
The law isn't capable of protecting you from "feeling" anything. People become afraid for all kinds of irrational reasons. Feelings aren't grounds for prosecution.
According to the law, a club is an offensive weapon.
"and any prosecution would have to prove otherwise the pictures of it on my wall will prove my point to a jury of peers"
You have pictures of a club on your wall? Whatever a jury would make out of that would not be positive. Putting a sword on your wall and calling it an ornament doesn't work either. What's the difference?
If someone breaks into your house as long as you can prove you were in fear for your life or your families life then you have a right to defend yourself what clouds it is when eedjits have a huge sword in their room 'just in case'
thats called pre-meditated.
I have a masai war club on my wall that I will use but its there as a decoration not as a potential weapon! Thats called being sensible.
"If someone breaks into your house as long as you can prove you were in fear for your life or your families life then you have a right to defend yourself"
The law should be concerned with actual threats, not whether you "feel" threatened.
"what clouds it is when eedjits have a huge sword in their room 'just in case'"
It's no different from wearing a seatbelt in a car "just in case".
He didnt propose anything he simply told you what he felt was right the law is still the law you have a right to use reasonable force to defend yourself, your ascertion that you would get five years for pointing an imitation gun at an attacker comes from what evidence exactly?
And why would you want to remove the right of people to sue if they are given bad advice by someone?
Vigilantism is no where near what the police do its unstructured mob justice.
What do you mean 'spare me the bs about reasonable force'
the law of the land says that you can defend yourself with reasonable force so for instance if someone is clearly threatening your life and your in imminent danger you can take actions that will remove that imminent danger ie if you knock someone out they cant hurt you!
Where it gets clouded is when people then go on and cause major harm after the danger is removed!
Like the farmer who shot an intruder running away from his house!
"What do you mean 'spare me the bs about reasonable force' the law of the land says that you can defend yourself with reasonable force"
"Reasonable force" is an arbitrary and subjective measure, which gets coulded as a matter of course.
"someone is clearly threatening your life and your in imminent danger you can take actions that will remove that imminent danger ie if you knock someone out they cant hurt you!"
"Like the farmer who shot an intruder running away from his house!"
Tony Singh- attacked by a man with a knife and was lucky enought to stab his fatally attacker first; he was arrested and charged. Only when the CPS realised that there wasn't a chance of convicting him were the charges dropped. Nothing to do with reasonable force.
And as for burglars, anyone breaking into your house should be treated as if they were armed and intent on causing the occupants injury.
No one has the right to tell you to intervene if you see a crime happening thats a decision you must make alone.
Pointing an imitation gun at someone is just stupid why you would think otherwise is beyond me!
As was commented on by the government minister just because you see people speaking with raised voices doesnt mean you know whats going on! one of them could be hard of hearing etc... its best not to just react to what you see and is always better to assess whats going on.
"Pointing an imitation gun at someone is just stupid why you would think otherwise is beyond me!"
And you call me naive. Pointing an imitation gun at someone could save your life.
"As was commented on by the government minister just because you see people speaking with raised voices doesnt mean you know whats going on!"
That wasn't what he said. He said that no action besides jumping up and down/honking horns and calling the police should be taken even if someone was being hit.
Are you really naieve enough to think that a government minister is going to go on national tv and tell people to intervene when they see a crime?
If so your more of a fool than you sound.
Apart from the obvious he would be sued by either the person or the families of those injured intervening.
Then there is a vigilantism aspect of this.
You are taking what was said literally but at no point does that say you cant defend yourself. You have a legal right to defend yourself with reasonable force.
That's the least of our problems. You'd only be doing what the police would do.
"You have a legal right to defend yourself with reasonable force."
Oh spare me the BS about "reasonable force". Pointing a replica firearm at a burglar can get you five years behind bars. The CPS will attempt to prosecute whenever they think they can get a conviction; "Right", "Wrong" and "Justice" do not appear in their vocabulary.
Hey there *armedcriminal*. I think you make some very valid point in your vids on violent crime in the UK. Anyone who looks at the facts and statistics and are not swayed by the misconseptions, assumptions and emotion connected to gun ownership will see that it is logical to have an armed populance.
Im sorry thingy but the facts say the opposite. You are 3 times more likely to be killed in the USA where most people do have guns. You are 30 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA than England. Even US cops are more likely to die than British police, most of whom dont even have guns.
Yeah that true. But it's down to the avalablity of firearms and peoples attitudes towards them rather that the number or type of guns that are held legaly. I mean look at Switzerland. They have very high ammonts of gun ownership yet they have the lowest crime in Europe. The problem with the US is that guns are to easy to get AND people have bad attitudes towards them, not because the ammont or type of guns is lax or the fact people have them for self-defence which is proven to lower crime.
Guns are easily available in the USA, they are not as easily available here in the UK and we do have far less of a problem with firearms. On Switzerland they have very low overall crime yes, however taking into account population sizes you are still more likely to be shot dead in Switzerland than in the UK. Another thing to remember is Switzerland has compulsary military service, this actually educates young men about guns.
America and Britain did away with national service decades ago.
The UK's murder rate has increased since their all out handgun and semiauto ban, and their violent crime rate has exceeded that of the US. And if you look at the US crime stats, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegal weapons by those who are not allowed to possess weapons. IF you look at Hispanic and African American gang crime in the US, the murder numbers are staggering, the UK does not have such ubiquitous gang activity; greatly fueled by illegal immigration.
The United States has a huge problem with gang culture in certain major cities such as London and Liverpool. I accept the murder rate in the UK has gone up however this has been a general trend and can not just be blamed on gun bans.
There was NOT a huge spike in murders after gun bans were introduced. Murder rates like violent crime has been rising for decades as this country has become too soft, and has many social problems.
1 firearm murder per MILLION people, is not a bad record.
The UK has a far better record when it comes to gun crime and any attempts to undo gun bans in this country will be STRONGLY opposed and prevented.
The UK and United States are two different countries. I do not suggest a gun ban will solve Americas gun problems, i agree limited bans just make matters worse. But please understand 90% of our police force dont even carrying firearms, there is no justification for civilians having them.
If we let more have guns, firearm murders would go up.
The violent crime rate in the UK is much higher than that in the US. According to the CIAWFB, in 2006, the UK had a population of 60,609,153,this gives a rate of violent crime per 100,000 inhabitants as 3992.8. The BCS gives total violent crime rate at 2300 per 100,000 inhabitants. (BCS has been accused of inaccurate stats). FBIUCR gives the US violent crime rate at violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants was 469.2. IT seems that you are the ones with the crime problem, not us.
The British Crime survey is very unreliable and is more like a poll done than based on any figures. I agree that violent crime has risen in this country and it may be higher than the United States. However murder is more important than violent crime and Britain has the better record.
You are 30 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA, 3 times more likely to be murdered. Despite the fact the US locks up more people for longer. To claim the UK has worse problems than America is laughable
You see guns have nothing to do with our problems. The real problem is the failure of the courts to punish people for their crimes. Peoplea are allowed to commit offence and offence and when they are sent to prison its for a short period of time.
American sentences are far far tougher than the UKs as are their jails. We are just too soft in Britain and thats one of the many reasons why violent crime has risen. Remembering we didnt have the huge numbers of guns before recent gun bans anyway
In the past 50 years Britains society has radically changed. We have done away with God (Most here dont believe in god, where as its still very high in the USA)
We have taken away powers from parents (hitting children with objects is a criminal offense here unlike the USA) We have taken away corporal punishment in School (still legal in many US states)
we have totally banned the death penalty (still legal in some US states) police here have more red tape and must comply with more rules than US
I totally agree, there are a multiplicity of factors dictating crime rates, to point out one and represent it as the main proprietor of crime stats between too very different cultures and governmental systems, is unscientific and foolish.
Also I would like to add that while I think *armedcriminal* does make some valid points, he has also been brainwashed by the pesemistic British media who has lead him to belive that there are armed crackheads around every corner, which their are not, the UK is a relitivaly safe place to live but it could be safer. Concealed carry and allowing firearms for self-defence has been proven in many studies (mainly in the US) to lower crime while gun bans have never reduced crime.
I accept that every home having a firearm would lower the number of house break ins, but the same could be said if we all had burglar alarms.
I agree the Uk is a reasonably safe place to live but that is EXACTLY why i do not want us to make a mistake we will live to regret by relaxing our gun laws. So few people have guns in this country, we dont need things like concealed carry like the armericans do
Violent crime in the UK has risen radically over the past few years, gun murder is still low
Well I think so. You must understand that the media is not interested in publishing the truth, they only select the very worst stories they can find and play on public fears so they can shock people and make them buy their newspaper or watch their news channel so they can make bigger profits. A good example is the so-called upsurge in knife crime, anyone who looks at the statistics will see that knife crime has always stayed at a constant but the media reports it as though there is an upserge.
I think you've missed the point of this channel; it's to prevent the demonisation of defensive weaponry. I'm fully aware that crime has not increased to the degree reported by the media (although it has increased, by the government's own admission). However, true or not, weapons are still being outlawed and that's something I intend to "fight". If I had been brainwashed by the media, I'd probably be posting the same rubbish as BritishWatcher. My views are too unconventional for that to be true.
Well if you put it like that I suppose I have missed the point, I to disagree with the constant barrage of "weapons are inherinly bad, they should be banned" and "if you have a weapon you must be a murderer" crap that is constantly spewing from the media.
Thats the one thing thats good about America, when i joined the police explorers (a junior law enforcement training club/camp) they always asked you, what would you do in this situation. what i'm saying here is yes there are flaws, but you need to balance the pros and cons.
america: public ran by a republican/conservative midea, a government that lies to get in a war for oil, crime increasing law enforcement decreasing.....the list could go on and on,
I don't agree. What is or isn't excessive is poorly defined and open to interpretation- I don't want subjective laws. You say shooting an intruder who is running at you is ok. Not according to the 1947 firearms act it isn't- "Self-defence is not an acceptable excuse for acquiring a firearms licence". I doubt the police would see it that way either. Expect to be charged with murder/manslaughter and thrown in front of court.
"That farmer" (Tony Martin) who did shoot the burglar in the back was given life for murder, but later had his conviction removed in the court of appeal. The prison sentence he was given was for posession of an illegal firearm. I'm not calling for shooting people in the back (although I'd make an exception for armed intruders). Perhaps it's time to post another video to clarify this.
Look BritishWatcher, you don't know anything about the US so stop trying to act like you do.
Fact is CWP and OWP, allowing law abiding citizens the right to carry and defend oneself reduces crime significantly. Florida managed to reduce its crime by some 36%.
You can't get one of these permits unless you pass a series of background checks, tests, courses, and police authorization. Not something a criminal is likely to do.
Murder rate in the USA 16,000 + a year. number of murders in the UK around 1000+ a year.
USA has 5 times the population of the UK but this still shows a huge difference in murder rates. Some areas in the UK have high rates of violence, however we are FAR safer in the UK than in the United States.
Allow people guns in the home then see a shooting in a school and they demand to be able to take firearms into work and school to "defend themselves" Its a bad idea and doesnt solve the problem
"Allow people guns in the home then see a shooting in a school and they demand to be able to take firearms into work and school to "defend themselves" "
Slippery slope fallacy. Compare:
"If we allow people to shoot burglars then the we will be allowing people to shoot children who accidently kick balls into our gardens next."
Big difference is thats one guy making a stupid comment, after university shootings in the USA the American media talks to people who often say what if one of those students had a gun and could of taken him out.
The D.C ban on hand guns has been overruled, Flordia allows 10000s to have carry around concealed weapons.. I dunno how anyone feels safe around all those guns. The facts speak for themselves.
I don't know what statistics you're reading, but crime has fallen dramatically in florida (30% I think) since the concealed carry laws were passed, whereas every new set of gun restrictions in our country sends the crime rate upwards and ends up with innocent people getting jailed.
And as I've pointed out in my other video *feeling* safe is not the same as being safe.
and yet the number of people killed with a firearm in 07/08 is 4 less than the previous year so certain firearm statistics are failing here aswell. Also overall crime is down, u mention feeling safe is not the same as being safe and ur right.
People here dont feel safe because they think crime is out of control and yet people are less likely to be victims of serious crime here than in America. If having a gun in ur home makes u feel safer, thats great doesnt mean it makes u safer though.
I dont see how it leads to innocent people getting sent to jail, the laws of the land are very clear about use of knives and guns. If you dont have a right to own a gun or a good excuse (not self defense) for carrying round a knife in public then you are going to prison.. rightfuly so
Ah no- the idea that armed self-defence is allowed in this country is a myth. Even if the weapon you defend yourself with happens to be taken from the person attacking you. The case of Tony Singh sealed that one- he was arrested, charged and later released - because the CPS didn't think they would achieve a conviction - not because they thought his actions were justified.
Most British police dont even carry firearms, so it would be crazy for us to think the rest of the population needs a gun to defend themselves
Despite our police not having guns unlike in the united states. Guess which country has by far the higher number of cop deaths, even after taking into account population differences
The only way forward in this country is continue to ban and outlaw such weapons. Why change a policy that works. In the US because of their constitution they cant change
Sorry but only 52 murders with a firearm last year, down from 56 progress is being made. If we see a huge rise in murders with guns then yes the policy clearly isnt working and changes would have to be made.
A lot more of your Police are getting body armor too. A few years ago they were getting vests sent to them by American Police because your politicians wouldn't provide them with it.
lol indeed stab vests are used alot more these days than they use to be which is a sad state of affairs, but its why this country is finally getting tough on those carrying knives in public.
lmao ofcourse it will, i dont know the number of deaths by stabbing in the united states but again whilst taking into account population differences the situation ibn the USA is probably worse. :)
There is no reason for people to be walking around with a weapon. Self defense is not an acceptable excuse for such things.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Thats not true, some dont just carry weapons in self defense they carry it for acts of aggression. Does an armed robber take a gun to the bank to defend himself or to scare others into complying with his demands?
Having a gun or knife on you for "self defense" is no excuse and the police / government have made this very clear. If you carry a knife, saying you wanted to defend yourself will not stop u from being arrested and perhaps even getting a prison sentence.
"Thats not true, some dont just carry weapons in self defense they carry it for acts of aggression."
All the more reason to carry for self defence. Acts of aggression are already crimes
"Having a gun or knife on you for "self defense" is no excuse and the police / government have made this very clear."
Now those are legal consequences, not physical consequences. When the choice boils down to jail sentence vs being stabbed to death, anyone with a functioning brain will choose the former.
Self defense is no excuse in the united kingdom for carrying a gun or knife, this has been made very clear. If they are caught and sent to prison it is their own fault. Many people today dont feel safe when being on the streets the majority of people in this country DONT carry knives.
Being put into prison where you lose certain human rights is a physical consequence.
There are arguments about many laws, people have their own views on many of them however people are not allowed to pick and choose which laws they choose to obey.. EVERYONE must obey the laws of the land.
At this present time it is illegal to carry a knife or gun around in public claiming its for self defense. If you break the law you should be punished.
Sorry, but the UK and the US differ on what the Police tally as a Homicide. In the US "Every" death even those done in self defense or justifiable are counted. Even suicides. The huge proportion of murders in the US are commited by drug dealers and street gangs as well as illegal aliens. Statistics show that people in the UK are more than twice as likely to become a victim of violent crime than in the US. The UK also has a lot more Police per capita than in the US. 2 per 1000. Police State?
Perhaps i didnt word my previous comments correctly. When i said the number of murders in the UK are around 1000+ the figure includes that of manslaughter. Its also far harder to justify killing someone in self defense in this country, some American states give people alot of protection when defending their homes or property.
A recent case where a Texas man shot two criminals in the back who were running away from a crime scene is the perfect example, he was found innocent. Here it wouldnt be
The "victims" in that shooting were illegal aliens and career criminals. The shooting was judged as justified in a court of law. The way the courts in the UK jail honest people for defending home, life and livelihood is just another sign of how backward and closer to sharia law your country is headed.
lol the fact they were illegal aliens should have no impact on the case. Yes they were criminals, yes the person had a right to defend his own property and protect his life but the tape recording of his conversation to the 911 operator makes it quite clear he intends to stop them.
He was in no danger, he took the law into his own hands and purposely killed two people. Yes thats illegal here, and rightfully so
The figures from both the UK and the USA that i have said certainly do not include suicides. In the USA according to The World Health Organization there were just over 31,000 suicides in 2002. In the UK there were over 4100 suicides. So Suicide rates are also clearly higher in the USA, i wonder how many of those suicides were with a firearm? :\
As for having more police, sadly alot of their time is filled completing paper work which keeps them off the streets. More police is a good thing though
If a person is bent on suicide the availability of a firearm has no bearing on the matter. When Canada enacted their firearms bans the number of suicides with firearms went down. But the number of suicides by hanging went UP by a larger number.
I'm sure your Police ARE spending more time doing the reports on the increased number of crimes in the UK since the gun bans.
Too bad you have not learned anything from history. It's sad really.
Far easier for someone to kill themselves with a firearm than certain other methods but yes ofcourse some will always do something else to end their life. However the fact some people have guns legally and would become so unstable they are prepared to kill themselves is of deep concern. The more guns civilians have the more civilians there are to turn suicidal or criminal.
Some crime is rising, other crimes are failing. Theres far more paper work today than 10 years ago which takes more time
Sure there are computers, but it still takes time for a police officer to go to the station and complete a dozen reports on the computer. This is slowly changing as police get hand held computers so they dont have to return to station and the government is reducing the paperwork levels
Unfortunatly cars are an essential way of life in the 21st century, guns are not in most civilized countries :) Everybody starts out as innocent civilians b4 they turn to crime, so id rather most not have guns
lol well theres valid reasons for restricting the right to vote for people who are mature / stable enough to make that vote wisely but i also believe in democracy so we cant exlude 100,000s on those grounds
Ofcourse theres a big difference between giving someone a gun and them being unstable and using that weapon compared to them voting a stupid way. Because of our electorial system the majority wins and smaller parties get no power at all with a few exceptions. Otherwise i would be concerned
Its far better to prevent crime by having more police on the streets and people labelling the country a "police state" than having less police who lack resources and funding which leads to having to send more and more people to prison.
If you look at the numbers im sure u will find more American police have killed people than British police, most of whom do not have guns. A country where police act above the law is more of a "police state" in my opinion :)
Police cannot "prevent crime". They can only attempt to catch the perpetrators after the fact. Are you trying to fault the American Police for protecting themselves or others because they killed a criminal?
Lmao, police cannot prevent crime? Ofcourse they can, their mere presence on the streets acts as a deterrence. No in a country where everyone is allowed guns OFCOURSE American police need to be armed. My only point was more American police die each year on duty than here in the UK despite the fact they have weapons and most of ours dont.
It doesn't say and the statistics are most likely to be fudged anyway, given the government's track record.
As for gun deaths, are you referring to suicides, accidents, murder or justifiable homicide? Why have all these been rolled into one as if they were all equally as objectionable?
true brother, the only time anybody shud conflict, is to defend your life, as your freewill is being violated. forget what the police say they are tax revenue agents, and the law is designed to benefit rich bankers and politicians not the people. every being has the right to defend their space of existance, peace.
Our country is in need of help. Thugs own our streets. The government hear our cries but respond with deafening silence. Is it time to for the people of this great country to rise up? Is it time to realise that we are alone? Is it time to realise that our government will not help? Is it time to take back our streets?
This has been flagged as spam show
80% of crime is down to foreign cunts its a fact enoch powell said this would happen
MrFishman113 1 month ago
Comment removed
MrFishman113 1 month ago
Where's part 2?
Cleric775 10 months ago
@Cleric775 I can't remember. I think it's one of the ones Youtube deleted. I think I likened certain members of law enforcement to nazi stormtroopers, which some people evidently took offence at.
Guncriminal 10 months ago
Last year 5,600 firearms offences were excluded from the official figures. It means that, whereas the Home Office said there were only 9,800 offences in 2007/8, the real total was around 15,400. The latest quarterly figures, due to be released on Thursday, will again exclude a significant number of incidents.
The explanation for the gulf is that the Government figures only include cases where guns are fired, used to "pistol whip" victims, or brandished as a threat.
MIT1369 2 years ago
Thousands of offences including gun-smuggling and illegal possession of a firearm - which normally carries a minimum five-year jail sentence - are omitted from the Home Office's headline count, raising questions about the reliability of Government crime data.
MIT1369 2 years ago
Of course there are differing levels of offensive if a person runs at you with a rubber mallet you would be less concerned for your life than you would be should that same person run at you with a huge scythe or a large sword. You get in front of a jury of your peers, they will have different views on the weapons its all about what the reasonable person would do!
And of course depending on what you pick up to defend yourself there will be different issues.
McDuff73 3 years ago
"Of course there are differing levels of offensive"
It's a binary system. Either an object is being used offensively or it isn't. You could murder someone with a pen- then the pen you used would righlty be regarded as an offensive weapon. A sword is not an offensive weapon unless it is being pointed at or swung at someone (or threats issued) without good reason. The only good reason being self-defence.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Your case doesnt necessarily mean we should all rush out and do away with our ornaments.
The laws arent open or poorly written they are actually quite definitive to prevent the law being misused by cynical defendants.
Your readin too literally the 'fear' of being attacked is used in part of the defence to mitigate ones actions. Although there is obviously a certain amount of emotional relief in defending oneself form attack.
McDuff73 3 years ago
"The laws arent open or poorly written they are actually quite definitive to prevent the law being misused by cynical defendants."
You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. I have, because I've been on the receiving end of it.
The laws are open-ended, poorly written and devoid of context; it treats those who used an imitation firearm for self-defence as equal to those who used them to rob banks. It is therefore open to abuse and will misused by a cynical prosecution.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Mob Justice is a group of people not an individual taking revenge for some perceived crime without the person having the full recourse of the justice system.
That in no way is a reflection of what the police do they are governed by quite strict guidelines on policies and procedures.
McDuff73 3 years ago
That's not what I was arguing for.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Of course there is photographic evidence of my display I went to Kenya and brought back a masai club spear and shield whats unusual in that?
Where was the gun when you were arrested and how did the police become aware that you had an imitation gun?
You see I have both a glock and an MP5 both airsoft weapons both realistic imitations and I have never been prosecuted for owning them and I have driven with them many times in the boot of my car to sites all over the country.
McDuff73 3 years ago
You would be wise to remove them.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Of course the law protects you from feeling fear thats the whole ethos behind self defence you have a right to defend yourself if you are afraid for your person or that of someone in the immediate vicinity.
Of course theres levels of offensive for instance a samurai sword carries more of an offensive nature than a kitchen knife due to its potential for harm.
McDuff73 3 years ago
I think you'll find that the purpose of self defence is to preserve one's own life, not to provide one with emotional comfort.
"Of course theres levels of offensive"
No there aren't. What would they be, besides a completely arbitrary measure? I've already told you that there is no such thing as an intrinsically offensive weapon. The amount of harm they may or may not do is irrelevent to whether they're used to initiate the use of forc or not, which is the real determinant.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Your reading of the law is obviously tainted by your experience my club along with a spear and shield are I agree offensive weapons by nature however the general use currently is wholely ornamental and there is evidence to prove that and thats what a jury would be asked to look at its not just about the itme but the usage and intent.
McDuff73 3 years ago
"Your reading of the law is obviously tainted by your experience"
Actions speak louder than reading and my reading of it is backed up by the actions of the CPS.
The laws governing this were poorly written and (deliberately?) open ended.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
"Then there is a vigilantism aspect of this.
That's the least of our problems. You'd only be doing what the police would do."
That sounds to me that your equating vigilantiism to what the police do.
I'd like to know more about the gun thing you saying you were prosecuted for waving an imitation gun about? where and how what where the circumstances?
Mob justice is exactly the same as being a vigilante.
Why is it a bad thing that politicians would have to be more careful!?
McDuff73 3 years ago
"That sounds to me that your equating vigilantiism to what the police do."
If some spineless freak hadn't had my non-rule breaking video removed that accompanied this one, you might have a better understanding of what my position was on the subject.
"I'd like to know more about the gun thing you saying you were prosecuted for waving an imitation gun about?"
That's not exactly what happened. Nothing was being waved around, only posessed and for a so-called illegal purpose (self defence).
Guncriminal 3 years ago
"Mob justice is exactly the same as being a vigilante."
If I was to protect someone being attacked, or defend myself in a similar manner, that is neither mob justice or vigilantism. No more so than it would be if the police did it.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
equating a device to protect yourself from injury with an offensive weapon is a little bizarre.
The fact that the law protects you from 'feeling' fear is better than having to wait till your in physical danger,
My masai club is an ornament and any prosecution would have to prove otherwise the pictures of it on my wall will prove my point to a jury of peers.
Of course its right that you can defend yourself and no more you cant just kill someone for threatening you.
McDuff73 3 years ago
The term "offensive weapon" is a misnomer. A weapon does not become offensive until it's used in an offensive manner, regardless of what the law says. Weaponry does not carry any intrinsic "offensiveness". And how is a club protecting you from injury?
"The fact that the law protects you from 'feeling' fear etc."
The law isn't capable of protecting you from "feeling" anything. People become afraid for all kinds of irrational reasons. Feelings aren't grounds for prosecution.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
"My masai club is an ornament"
According to the law, a club is an offensive weapon.
"and any prosecution would have to prove otherwise the pictures of it on my wall will prove my point to a jury of peers"
You have pictures of a club on your wall? Whatever a jury would make out of that would not be positive. Putting a sword on your wall and calling it an ornament doesn't work either. What's the difference?
"you cant just kill someone for threatening you."
Nobody said you could.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
If someone breaks into your house as long as you can prove you were in fear for your life or your families life then you have a right to defend yourself what clouds it is when eedjits have a huge sword in their room 'just in case'
thats called pre-meditated.
I have a masai war club on my wall that I will use but its there as a decoration not as a potential weapon! Thats called being sensible.
McDuff73 3 years ago
"If someone breaks into your house as long as you can prove you were in fear for your life or your families life then you have a right to defend yourself"
The law should be concerned with actual threats, not whether you "feel" threatened.
"what clouds it is when eedjits have a huge sword in their room 'just in case'"
It's no different from wearing a seatbelt in a car "just in case".
"thats called pre-meditated."
Yes, pre-meditated self-defence.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
"I have a masai war club on my wall that I will use but its there as a decoration not as a potential weapon! Thats called being sensible."
That's called pre-meditated. You have a weapon on your wall which was intended only to kill.
Or at least that's the prosecution will say shortly before your sentencing.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
He didnt propose anything he simply told you what he felt was right the law is still the law you have a right to use reasonable force to defend yourself, your ascertion that you would get five years for pointing an imitation gun at an attacker comes from what evidence exactly?
And why would you want to remove the right of people to sue if they are given bad advice by someone?
Vigilantism is no where near what the police do its unstructured mob justice.
McDuff73 3 years ago
"the law is still the law you have a right to use reasonable force to defend yourself,"
Not good enough. The law needs changing. Should I say changing *back*.
"your ascertion that you would get five years for pointing an imitation gun at an attacker comes from what evidence exactly?"
Personal experience.
"Posession of an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear." What a joke.
Are you not aware of the mandatory sentencing for gun-related crime?
Guncriminal 3 years ago
"And why would you want to remove the right of people to sue if they are given bad advice by someone?"
Because every member of parliament would be dressed in rags and living a carboard box.
"Vigilantism is no where near what the police do its unstructured mob justice."
That's not what I said. Protecting someone from being attacked isn't vigilantism. Self-defence isn't vigilantism either. Neither is it mob justice.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
my comment about how you sound was not literally about how you sound but the message itself feel free to chill out!
McDuff73 3 years ago
What do you mean 'spare me the bs about reasonable force'
the law of the land says that you can defend yourself with reasonable force so for instance if someone is clearly threatening your life and your in imminent danger you can take actions that will remove that imminent danger ie if you knock someone out they cant hurt you!
Where it gets clouded is when people then go on and cause major harm after the danger is removed!
Like the farmer who shot an intruder running away from his house!
McDuff73 3 years ago
"What do you mean 'spare me the bs about reasonable force' the law of the land says that you can defend yourself with reasonable force"
"Reasonable force" is an arbitrary and subjective measure, which gets coulded as a matter of course.
"someone is clearly threatening your life and your in imminent danger you can take actions that will remove that imminent danger ie if you knock someone out they cant hurt you!"
A quite rightly so, but that's not how it works.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
"Like the farmer who shot an intruder running away from his house!"
Tony Singh- attacked by a man with a knife and was lucky enought to stab his fatally attacker first; he was arrested and charged. Only when the CPS realised that there wasn't a chance of convicting him were the charges dropped. Nothing to do with reasonable force.
And as for burglars, anyone breaking into your house should be treated as if they were armed and intent on causing the occupants injury.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
No one has the right to tell you to intervene if you see a crime happening thats a decision you must make alone.
Pointing an imitation gun at someone is just stupid why you would think otherwise is beyond me!
As was commented on by the government minister just because you see people speaking with raised voices doesnt mean you know whats going on! one of them could be hard of hearing etc... its best not to just react to what you see and is always better to assess whats going on.
McDuff73 3 years ago
"Pointing an imitation gun at someone is just stupid why you would think otherwise is beyond me!"
And you call me naive. Pointing an imitation gun at someone could save your life.
"As was commented on by the government minister just because you see people speaking with raised voices doesnt mean you know whats going on!"
That wasn't what he said. He said that no action besides jumping up and down/honking horns and calling the police should be taken even if someone was being hit.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Are you really naieve enough to think that a government minister is going to go on national tv and tell people to intervene when they see a crime?
If so your more of a fool than you sound.
Apart from the obvious he would be sued by either the person or the families of those injured intervening.
Then there is a vigilantism aspect of this.
You are taking what was said literally but at no point does that say you cant defend yourself. You have a legal right to defend yourself with reasonable force.
McDuff73 3 years ago
Why shouldn't they intervene? I never thought I'd encounter anyone stupid enough to defend this clown, but nothing surprises me nowadays.
"If so your more of a fool than you sound."
Bitching about how I sound will get you banned from posting, as others have
"Apart from the obvious he would be sued by either the person or the families of those injured intervening."
A problem that can be removed with a change of government and legislation.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
"Then there is a vigilantism aspect of this."
That's the least of our problems. You'd only be doing what the police would do.
"You have a legal right to defend yourself with reasonable force."
Oh spare me the BS about "reasonable force". Pointing a replica firearm at a burglar can get you five years behind bars. The CPS will attempt to prosecute whenever they think they can get a conviction; "Right", "Wrong" and "Justice" do not appear in their vocabulary.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Hey there *armedcriminal*. I think you make some very valid point in your vids on violent crime in the UK. Anyone who looks at the facts and statistics and are not swayed by the misconseptions, assumptions and emotion connected to gun ownership will see that it is logical to have an armed populance.
thingy186 3 years ago
Im sorry thingy but the facts say the opposite. You are 3 times more likely to be killed in the USA where most people do have guns. You are 30 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA than England. Even US cops are more likely to die than British police, most of whom dont even have guns.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
Yeah that true. But it's down to the avalablity of firearms and peoples attitudes towards them rather that the number or type of guns that are held legaly. I mean look at Switzerland. They have very high ammonts of gun ownership yet they have the lowest crime in Europe. The problem with the US is that guns are to easy to get AND people have bad attitudes towards them, not because the ammont or type of guns is lax or the fact people have them for self-defence which is proven to lower crime.
thingy186 3 years ago
Guns are easily available in the USA, they are not as easily available here in the UK and we do have far less of a problem with firearms. On Switzerland they have very low overall crime yes, however taking into account population sizes you are still more likely to be shot dead in Switzerland than in the UK. Another thing to remember is Switzerland has compulsary military service, this actually educates young men about guns.
America and Britain did away with national service decades ago.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
The UK's murder rate has increased since their all out handgun and semiauto ban, and their violent crime rate has exceeded that of the US. And if you look at the US crime stats, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed with illegal weapons by those who are not allowed to possess weapons. IF you look at Hispanic and African American gang crime in the US, the murder numbers are staggering, the UK does not have such ubiquitous gang activity; greatly fueled by illegal immigration.
RebelWrestler45 3 years ago
The United States has a huge problem with gang culture in certain major cities such as London and Liverpool. I accept the murder rate in the UK has gone up however this has been a general trend and can not just be blamed on gun bans.
There was NOT a huge spike in murders after gun bans were introduced. Murder rates like violent crime has been rising for decades as this country has become too soft, and has many social problems.
1 firearm murder per MILLION people, is not a bad record.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
The UK has a far better record when it comes to gun crime and any attempts to undo gun bans in this country will be STRONGLY opposed and prevented.
The UK and United States are two different countries. I do not suggest a gun ban will solve Americas gun problems, i agree limited bans just make matters worse. But please understand 90% of our police force dont even carrying firearms, there is no justification for civilians having them.
If we let more have guns, firearm murders would go up.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
The violent crime rate in the UK is much higher than that in the US. According to the CIAWFB, in 2006, the UK had a population of 60,609,153,this gives a rate of violent crime per 100,000 inhabitants as 3992.8. The BCS gives total violent crime rate at 2300 per 100,000 inhabitants. (BCS has been accused of inaccurate stats). FBIUCR gives the US violent crime rate at violent crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants was 469.2. IT seems that you are the ones with the crime problem, not us.
RebelWrestler45 3 years ago
The British Crime survey is very unreliable and is more like a poll done than based on any figures. I agree that violent crime has risen in this country and it may be higher than the United States. However murder is more important than violent crime and Britain has the better record.
You are 30 times more likely to be shot dead in the USA, 3 times more likely to be murdered. Despite the fact the US locks up more people for longer. To claim the UK has worse problems than America is laughable
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
US has 5 times the population of England + Wales.
England and Wales homocides - 1000
USA homocides - 15,000+
England and Wales Firearm murders - around 50
USA Firearm murders - 10,000+
USA has 2 million people in its prisons and jails.
England and Wales have less than 100,000
If we put in prison 100,000 scum then our crime rates would radically fall.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
You see guns have nothing to do with our problems. The real problem is the failure of the courts to punish people for their crimes. Peoplea are allowed to commit offence and offence and when they are sent to prison its for a short period of time.
American sentences are far far tougher than the UKs as are their jails. We are just too soft in Britain and thats one of the many reasons why violent crime has risen. Remembering we didnt have the huge numbers of guns before recent gun bans anyway
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
In the past 50 years Britains society has radically changed. We have done away with God (Most here dont believe in god, where as its still very high in the USA)
We have taken away powers from parents (hitting children with objects is a criminal offense here unlike the USA) We have taken away corporal punishment in School (still legal in many US states)
we have totally banned the death penalty (still legal in some US states) police here have more red tape and must comply with more rules than US
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
I totally agree, there are a multiplicity of factors dictating crime rates, to point out one and represent it as the main proprietor of crime stats between too very different cultures and governmental systems, is unscientific and foolish.
RebelWrestler45 3 years ago
Also I would like to add that while I think *armedcriminal* does make some valid points, he has also been brainwashed by the pesemistic British media who has lead him to belive that there are armed crackheads around every corner, which their are not, the UK is a relitivaly safe place to live but it could be safer. Concealed carry and allowing firearms for self-defence has been proven in many studies (mainly in the US) to lower crime while gun bans have never reduced crime.
thingy186 3 years ago
I accept that every home having a firearm would lower the number of house break ins, but the same could be said if we all had burglar alarms.
I agree the Uk is a reasonably safe place to live but that is EXACTLY why i do not want us to make a mistake we will live to regret by relaxing our gun laws. So few people have guns in this country, we dont need things like concealed carry like the armericans do
Violent crime in the UK has risen radically over the past few years, gun murder is still low
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
Brainwashed? I hardly think so.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Well I think so. You must understand that the media is not interested in publishing the truth, they only select the very worst stories they can find and play on public fears so they can shock people and make them buy their newspaper or watch their news channel so they can make bigger profits. A good example is the so-called upsurge in knife crime, anyone who looks at the statistics will see that knife crime has always stayed at a constant but the media reports it as though there is an upserge.
thingy186 3 years ago
I think you've missed the point of this channel; it's to prevent the demonisation of defensive weaponry. I'm fully aware that crime has not increased to the degree reported by the media (although it has increased, by the government's own admission). However, true or not, weapons are still being outlawed and that's something I intend to "fight". If I had been brainwashed by the media, I'd probably be posting the same rubbish as BritishWatcher. My views are too unconventional for that to be true.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Well if you put it like that I suppose I have missed the point, I to disagree with the constant barrage of "weapons are inherinly bad, they should be banned" and "if you have a weapon you must be a murderer" crap that is constantly spewing from the media.
thingy186 3 years ago
stop the pointless violence and give back peoples rights!
VinylProductions 3 years ago 3
i totally agree
VinylProductions 3 years ago
Thats the one thing thats good about America, when i joined the police explorers (a junior law enforcement training club/camp) they always asked you, what would you do in this situation. what i'm saying here is yes there are flaws, but you need to balance the pros and cons.
america: public ran by a republican/conservative midea, a government that lies to get in a war for oil, crime increasing law enforcement decreasing.....the list could go on and on,
UK: you fill in the blank please...
Donovancs1 3 years ago
I don't agree. What is or isn't excessive is poorly defined and open to interpretation- I don't want subjective laws. You say shooting an intruder who is running at you is ok. Not according to the 1947 firearms act it isn't- "Self-defence is not an acceptable excuse for acquiring a firearms licence". I doubt the police would see it that way either. Expect to be charged with murder/manslaughter and thrown in front of court.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
"That farmer" (Tony Martin) who did shoot the burglar in the back was given life for murder, but later had his conviction removed in the court of appeal. The prison sentence he was given was for posession of an illegal firearm. I'm not calling for shooting people in the back (although I'd make an exception for armed intruders). Perhaps it's time to post another video to clarify this.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Which part is inaccurate, exactly?
Or are you another one of these "jump up and down/honk your horn" people?
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Look BritishWatcher, you don't know anything about the US so stop trying to act like you do.
Fact is CWP and OWP, allowing law abiding citizens the right to carry and defend oneself reduces crime significantly. Florida managed to reduce its crime by some 36%.
You can't get one of these permits unless you pass a series of background checks, tests, courses, and police authorization. Not something a criminal is likely to do.
thunderflash82 3 years ago
Oh, for crying out loud! I'll bet you don't consider a blow job as being sex either do you?
MIT1369 3 years ago
Your reply fills me with pity for your country.
MIT1369 3 years ago
MIT1369 3 years ago
Murder rate in the USA 16,000 + a year. number of murders in the UK around 1000+ a year.
USA has 5 times the population of the UK but this still shows a huge difference in murder rates. Some areas in the UK have high rates of violence, however we are FAR safer in the UK than in the United States.
Allow people guns in the home then see a shooting in a school and they demand to be able to take firearms into work and school to "defend themselves" Its a bad idea and doesnt solve the problem
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
"Allow people guns in the home then see a shooting in a school and they demand to be able to take firearms into work and school to "defend themselves" "
Slippery slope fallacy. Compare:
"If we allow people to shoot burglars then the we will be allowing people to shoot children who accidently kick balls into our gardens next."
- Some moron on Radio 5 a few months ago.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Big difference is thats one guy making a stupid comment, after university shootings in the USA the American media talks to people who often say what if one of those students had a gun and could of taken him out.
The D.C ban on hand guns has been overruled, Flordia allows 10000s to have carry around concealed weapons.. I dunno how anyone feels safe around all those guns. The facts speak for themselves.
Tough gun restrictions through out a country work
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
I don't know what statistics you're reading, but crime has fallen dramatically in florida (30% I think) since the concealed carry laws were passed, whereas every new set of gun restrictions in our country sends the crime rate upwards and ends up with innocent people getting jailed.
And as I've pointed out in my other video *feeling* safe is not the same as being safe.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
and yet the number of people killed with a firearm in 07/08 is 4 less than the previous year so certain firearm statistics are failing here aswell. Also overall crime is down, u mention feeling safe is not the same as being safe and ur right.
People here dont feel safe because they think crime is out of control and yet people are less likely to be victims of serious crime here than in America. If having a gun in ur home makes u feel safer, thats great doesnt mean it makes u safer though.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
I dont see how it leads to innocent people getting sent to jail, the laws of the land are very clear about use of knives and guns. If you dont have a right to own a gun or a good excuse (not self defense) for carrying round a knife in public then you are going to prison.. rightfuly so
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
Ah no- the idea that armed self-defence is allowed in this country is a myth. Even if the weapon you defend yourself with happens to be taken from the person attacking you. The case of Tony Singh sealed that one- he was arrested, charged and later released - because the CPS didn't think they would achieve a conviction - not because they thought his actions were justified.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Most British police dont even carry firearms, so it would be crazy for us to think the rest of the population needs a gun to defend themselves
Despite our police not having guns unlike in the united states. Guess which country has by far the higher number of cop deaths, even after taking into account population differences
The only way forward in this country is continue to ban and outlaw such weapons. Why change a policy that works. In the US because of their constitution they cant change
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
"The only way forward in this country is continue to ban and outlaw such weapons. Why change a policy that works."
That why I want to changing- It doesn't work.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Sorry but only 52 murders with a firearm last year, down from 56 progress is being made. If we see a huge rise in murders with guns then yes the policy clearly isnt working and changes would have to be made.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
A lot more of your Police are getting body armor too. A few years ago they were getting vests sent to them by American Police because your politicians wouldn't provide them with it.
MIT1369 3 years ago
lol indeed stab vests are used alot more these days than they use to be which is a sad state of affairs, but its why this country is finally getting tough on those carrying knives in public.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
Yea, your politicians ideas about making the streets safer by banning kitchen knives will surely break teh back of street crime. LOL
MIT1369 3 years ago
lmao ofcourse it will, i dont know the number of deaths by stabbing in the united states but again whilst taking into account population differences the situation ibn the USA is probably worse. :)
There is no reason for people to be walking around with a weapon. Self defense is not an acceptable excuse for such things.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
"There is no reason for people to be walking around with a weapon. Self defense is not an acceptable excuse for such things."
Self defence is the only rational reason for carrying. I'm sorry to hear that you don't consider that "acceptable".
Guncriminal 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Thats not true, some dont just carry weapons in self defense they carry it for acts of aggression. Does an armed robber take a gun to the bank to defend himself or to scare others into complying with his demands?
Having a gun or knife on you for "self defense" is no excuse and the police / government have made this very clear. If you carry a knife, saying you wanted to defend yourself will not stop u from being arrested and perhaps even getting a prison sentence.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
"Thats not true, some dont just carry weapons in self defense they carry it for acts of aggression."
All the more reason to carry for self defence. Acts of aggression are already crimes
"Having a gun or knife on you for "self defense" is no excuse and the police / government have made this very clear."
Now those are legal consequences, not physical consequences. When the choice boils down to jail sentence vs being stabbed to death, anyone with a functioning brain will choose the former.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Self defense is no excuse in the united kingdom for carrying a gun or knife, this has been made very clear. If they are caught and sent to prison it is their own fault. Many people today dont feel safe when being on the streets the majority of people in this country DONT carry knives.
Being put into prison where you lose certain human rights is a physical consequence.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
"Self defense is no excuse in the united kingdom for carrying a gun or knife, this has been made very clear."
It's very good excuse, whether the government cares to acknowledge it or not.
"If they are caught and sent to prison it is their own fault."
A jail cell is a form of punishment, not an argument.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
"Many people today dont feel safe when being on the streets the majority of people in this country DONT carry knives."
The popularity, or lack of, does not validate or invalidate one's viewpoint.
"Being put into prison where you lose certain human rights is a physical consequence."
Throwing someone in prison is not a very good method of asserting the rightness or wrongness of one's views, is it?
Guncriminal 3 years ago
There are arguments about many laws, people have their own views on many of them however people are not allowed to pick and choose which laws they choose to obey.. EVERYONE must obey the laws of the land.
At this present time it is illegal to carry a knife or gun around in public claiming its for self defense. If you break the law you should be punished.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
Sorry, but the UK and the US differ on what the Police tally as a Homicide. In the US "Every" death even those done in self defense or justifiable are counted. Even suicides. The huge proportion of murders in the US are commited by drug dealers and street gangs as well as illegal aliens. Statistics show that people in the UK are more than twice as likely to become a victim of violent crime than in the US. The UK also has a lot more Police per capita than in the US. 2 per 1000. Police State?
MIT1369 3 years ago
Perhaps i didnt word my previous comments correctly. When i said the number of murders in the UK are around 1000+ the figure includes that of manslaughter. Its also far harder to justify killing someone in self defense in this country, some American states give people alot of protection when defending their homes or property.
A recent case where a Texas man shot two criminals in the back who were running away from a crime scene is the perfect example, he was found innocent. Here it wouldnt be
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
The "victims" in that shooting were illegal aliens and career criminals. The shooting was judged as justified in a court of law. The way the courts in the UK jail honest people for defending home, life and livelihood is just another sign of how backward and closer to sharia law your country is headed.
MIT1369 3 years ago
lol the fact they were illegal aliens should have no impact on the case. Yes they were criminals, yes the person had a right to defend his own property and protect his life but the tape recording of his conversation to the 911 operator makes it quite clear he intends to stop them.
He was in no danger, he took the law into his own hands and purposely killed two people. Yes thats illegal here, and rightfully so
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
But i accept that did happen in Texas, the worst state of the union where many people still think they are living in the wild west.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
The figures from both the UK and the USA that i have said certainly do not include suicides. In the USA according to The World Health Organization there were just over 31,000 suicides in 2002. In the UK there were over 4100 suicides. So Suicide rates are also clearly higher in the USA, i wonder how many of those suicides were with a firearm? :\
As for having more police, sadly alot of their time is filled completing paper work which keeps them off the streets. More police is a good thing though
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
If a person is bent on suicide the availability of a firearm has no bearing on the matter. When Canada enacted their firearms bans the number of suicides with firearms went down. But the number of suicides by hanging went UP by a larger number.
I'm sure your Police ARE spending more time doing the reports on the increased number of crimes in the UK since the gun bans.
Too bad you have not learned anything from history. It's sad really.
MIT1369 3 years ago
Far easier for someone to kill themselves with a firearm than certain other methods but yes ofcourse some will always do something else to end their life. However the fact some people have guns legally and would become so unstable they are prepared to kill themselves is of deep concern. The more guns civilians have the more civilians there are to turn suicidal or criminal.
Some crime is rising, other crimes are failing. Theres far more paper work today than 10 years ago which takes more time
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
"The more guns civilians have the more civilians there are to turn suicidal or criminal."
That's idiotic. Are you for banning vehicles as well? That'd put a stop to speeding, traffic fatalities and drunk driving.
"Theres far more paper work today than 10 years ago which takes more time"
There are also more computers now so paperwork can be done much faster. Your analogy is flawed.
MIT1369 3 years ago
Sure there are computers, but it still takes time for a police officer to go to the station and complete a dozen reports on the computer. This is slowly changing as police get hand held computers so they dont have to return to station and the government is reducing the paperwork levels
Unfortunatly cars are an essential way of life in the 21st century, guns are not in most civilized countries :) Everybody starts out as innocent civilians b4 they turn to crime, so id rather most not have guns
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
"However the fact some people have guns legally and would become so unstable they are prepared to kill themselves is of deep concern."
Does it concern you that they're allowed to vote, too?
Guncriminal 3 years ago
lol well theres valid reasons for restricting the right to vote for people who are mature / stable enough to make that vote wisely but i also believe in democracy so we cant exlude 100,000s on those grounds
Ofcourse theres a big difference between giving someone a gun and them being unstable and using that weapon compared to them voting a stupid way. Because of our electorial system the majority wins and smaller parties get no power at all with a few exceptions. Otherwise i would be concerned
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
Not only did suicides by hanging go up by suicides as a whole went up. These gun laws are retarded!
thunderflash82 3 years ago 4
Its far better to prevent crime by having more police on the streets and people labelling the country a "police state" than having less police who lack resources and funding which leads to having to send more and more people to prison.
If you look at the numbers im sure u will find more American police have killed people than British police, most of whom do not have guns. A country where police act above the law is more of a "police state" in my opinion :)
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
Police cannot "prevent crime". They can only attempt to catch the perpetrators after the fact. Are you trying to fault the American Police for protecting themselves or others because they killed a criminal?
MIT1369 3 years ago
Lmao, police cannot prevent crime? Ofcourse they can, their mere presence on the streets acts as a deterrence. No in a country where everyone is allowed guns OFCOURSE American police need to be armed. My only point was more American police die each year on duty than here in the UK despite the fact they have weapons and most of ours dont.
TheBritishWatcher 3 years ago
MIT1369 3 years ago
Very thick cockney accent.
snuffydoug 3 years ago
Fail. I'm from Birmingham.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
um maybe coz america is 8 times bigger than the uk
s45w 3 years ago
How are you doing on assaults, robbery, rape and home invasion?
MIT1369 3 years ago
If it's true, it certainly is low- now trace the statistics back a century or so, before there were any gun laws and tell me what trend you see.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
It doesn't say and the statistics are most likely to be fudged anyway, given the government's track record.
As for gun deaths, are you referring to suicides, accidents, murder or justifiable homicide? Why have all these been rolled into one as if they were all equally as objectionable?
Guncriminal 3 years ago
"Britain has the lowest gun deaths in europe."
Good luck in finding statistics to prove it. And not all "gun deaths" are equal anyway.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
i hate the uk law!!! fuck the UK LAW ! if you defend urself u get a crime record but der will always be gun cime so fuck the uk gun WEAPON law
JoeyWildstyle 3 years ago
Excellent points. I pray for the lawful people in the UK who were made helpless by thier elected officials.
MIT1369 3 years ago
true brother, the only time anybody shud conflict, is to defend your life, as your freewill is being violated. forget what the police say they are tax revenue agents, and the law is designed to benefit rich bankers and politicians not the people. every being has the right to defend their space of existance, peace.
resolveitall 4 years ago
Our country is in need of help. Thugs own our streets. The government hear our cries but respond with deafening silence. Is it time to for the people of this great country to rise up? Is it time to realise that we are alone? Is it time to realise that our government will not help? Is it time to take back our streets?
mascall87 4 years ago
very well said guncriminal good vid
leg363 4 years ago
unbelievable, excellent video
uberpirox 4 years ago