GUNS

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by gavman

so you rubbish stu's examples that show cases so recent they haven't been fully reported yet, in favour of a decades old case that became a cause celebre for the right wing media (dm especially) because a psychotic farmer shot dead (in the back, and then again 'execution style') a burgular who was trying to get away empty handed?

Since when was 5 years a decade? LOL. You make it sound as though the burglar was innocent. What's to say the burglar wouldn't come back with his friends? 'Make my Day Law.' Break into someone's house and they can shoot you, end of.

[stealth]

Originally Posted by psd1

I think I understand what your trying to say, but air guns are most definately counted in the offical annual report.

How did you get your firearms offense?

Belive it or not possesion of a stun gun ,used to be legal in the 90's over here ,now it is a firearm Police had a big operation going on just over 3 years ago and went through files on the net to see who had orderd one from the USA .Went to Court 4 times in 3 months got £200.00 fine .Even the Magistrate did not know the laws on Stun guns Got raided by armed plain clothes Police and was arrested under the firearms offence .Had a good brief too ,but they were making examples of most people .The whole thing was a waste of tax payers money and Police time . To be fair the coppers that arreseted me were ok ,there were a couple of uniform cnuts later on though at the station that had seen to many movies .

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by stu0x

Because it was decided that there were no real legitimate reasons to possess a handgun, compared to plenty of criminal reasons.

Except to defend your home and family, secure your country from totalitarian socialism and use for sport. Using your logic, why have baseball bats and hunting knives not been banned too? Nobody really needs them.

Originally Posted by stu0x

I know. Criminal law doesn't operate the same way in the UK and the US. Which I'll demonstrate when you answer this:


So how would you suggest it's investigated, without arresting the person? Remember, you don't have the benefit of hindsight. At that stage you don't have a 'bad guy' and you don't have a 'victim'.

If you end up bailing the person, which was inevitable in this case given his defence, what was the point in arresting them? You just don't look far enough ahead do you?

Originally Posted by stu0x

No, I don't really understand what you're getting at. The CPS made the right decision, he's not being charged. So what's the problem?

The problem is that they put the victim under considerable stress and discomfort and greatly inconvenienced them. He was a victim twice over.

Originally Posted by stu0x

The government doesn't convict anyone, that's done by a jury. If someone is convicted of an assault despite a self-defence claim, it's because they couldn't convince normal people that they were acting reasonably.

The 'normal people' are directed by the judge who is governed by the law. The law is made by the government. Jeez, it's like join the dots all over again.

[psd1]

Originally Posted by stu0x

Because it was decided that there were no real legitimate reasons to possess a handgun, compared to plenty of criminal reasons. Other than to protect yourself...obviously the cops arent doing a very good job of it, and they cant be everywhere...


So how would you suggest it's investigated, without arresting the person? Remember, you don't have the benefit of hindsight. At that stage you don't have a 'bad guy' and you don't have a 'victim'. Excuse me, no victim...all you have is a VICTIM! (the guy with the stab wounds...remember him?) Start the investigation with the preponderance of the evidence at hand perhaps? Start here, I get a call from a gent stating he was attacked, he has a car with a broken window, and stab marks that indicate he was attacked in his car. The LAST thing on earth I would do would be to arrest him. How about I take a statement, get a description of the attacker (cause I doubt the guy stabbed himself) and release him to the hospital, wouldnt that suffice? I have his info, I know where he lives. After that I would obtain witness statements and start the search for the CRIMINAL...who isnt the guy that I just released to the hospital. WHY on earth should this guy have been arrested???

If what you say is the truth obviously the laws are different in the UK. I have a degree in Criminal Justice, and 20 years in Law Enforcement and there is no way what you describe EVER happens, "legally" in the US.

Do they really teach you to arrest everyone in the UK when you come upon a crime? No wonder you get no respect...

...

[psd1]

Originally Posted by gavman

look who your allies are ffs
you have more intelligence than this

Are you talking about me Gav...how sweet! Ya know, next I see myself aligning with you and your liberal views on marijuana use. I do believe that you shouldnt be arrested for breaking the law when you grow and use an illegal substance...NOT!

PS, for the record I think this is the first time that R33_GTS-t and I have agreed on a subject.

[psd1]

Originally Posted by stealth

Belive it or not possesion of a stun gun ,used to be legal in the 90's over here ,now it is a firearm Police had a big operation going on just over 3 years ago and went through files on the net to see who had orderd one from the USA .Went to Court 4 times in 3 months got £200.00 fine .Even the Magistrate did not know the laws on Stun guns Got raided by armed plain clothes Police and was arrested under the firearms offence .Had a good brief too ,but they were making examples of most people .The whole thing was a waste of tax payers money and Police time . To be fair the coppers that arreseted me were ok ,there were a couple of uniform cnuts later on though at the station that had seen to many movies .

Sounds like complete CRAP to me, and like you said a monumental waste of your time and the Govt's...all to keep you, a normal, law abiding citizen from having a less than lethal weapon...isnt it great to live in a society that leaves you NO option to protect yourself, not even with a neat little device with a 9 volt battery attached.

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by stealth

Belive it or not possesion of a stun gun ,used to be legal in the 90's over here ,now it is a firearm Police had a big operation going on just over 3 years ago and went through files on the net to see who had orderd one from the USA .Went to Court 4 times in 3 months got £200.00 fine .Even the Magistrate did not know the laws on Stun guns Got raided by armed plain clothes Police and was arrested under the firearms offence .Had a good brief too ,but they were making examples of most people .The whole thing was a waste of tax payers money and Police time . To be fair the coppers that arreseted me were ok ,there were a couple of uniform cnuts later on though at the station that had seen to many movies .

Now you see, I'd have accidentally-on-purpose used it as I was handing it over just to make the offence worth it. You're getting a criminal record anyway, may as well see the funny side of it hey.

LOL at Magistrates Court. They always remind me of a Blackadder the Third repeat. The Magistrates collectively replace the Prince, and the Clerk is Blackadder. The Magistrate is in charge but they are infinitely dimmer than the Clerk, who guides them through the whole thing.

[psd1]

Originally Posted by gavman

so you rubbish stu's examples that show cases so recent they haven't been fully reported yet, in favour of a decades old case that became a cause celebre for the right wing media (dm especially) because a psychotic farmer shot dead (in the back, and then again 'execution style') a burgular who was trying to get away empty handed?

He was a burglar, a criminal. I'm sure the man feared for his life. Dont be a scumbag burglar and you wont get shot!



citizen's rights indeed...the only right that matters to me is the right not to be shot by and tom, dick or dirty harry

Well, its more likely that you will be stabbed...which to me isnt alot better. Dead is dead my stoned friend! Did you read the annual report posted a few pages back?

as for the blatant manipulation of stats, over ten years of course there will be an overall increase in gun crime as there has been a huge increase in population and an increase in crime generally, and as long as the arms suppliers are still making them they will end up on the streets.
just in a fraction of the numbers that would exist if they were legal and feely available to all

What? everyone else on here SWEARS that crime is going down...and you come on and say it's on the rise? Be careful, your muddying the argument. So tell me who has blatantly manipulated the stats? I hope your not talking to me, because I take it straight from the Govt stats! Well, we should ban knives as well, too many stabbings.

and to deny the fact that forearms were already banned has any reflection on the statistics is plain stupid

What are you trying to say man? Put down the bong and try posting something that makes sense.

guns were NOT widely available to all before 1997- the only change was to gun nerds who already had to have a license that involved a home visit from the police and was denied anyone with a criminal record or cautions for violence
Why is a guy with a gun a "gun" nerd? Alot of people here like cars, are they "car" nerds? Are you a "drug" nerd because you grow and smoke marijuana? Give me a break.

...

[moleman]

Originally Posted by psd1

97/98=54
98/99=49
99/00=62
00/01=73
01/02=97
02/03=81
03/04=68
04/05=78

That's a fair one mate, but we were talking firearm related crime not firearm related deaths.

The UK would have to see some 2800 firearms related deaths a year to match the US rate and whilst our rate is rising and yours is apparently falling, we both have a hell of a long way to go until we meet in the middle. lol

[moleman]

Originally Posted by psd1

PS, for the record I think this is the first time that R33_GTS-t and I have agreed on a subject.

Did it make you feel dirty?

[stu0x]

Originally Posted by psd1

Excuse me, no victim...all you have is a VICTIM! (the guy with the stab wounds...remember him?) Start the investigation with the preponderance of the evidence at hand perhaps? Start here, I get a call from a gent stating he was attacked, he has a car with a broken window, and stab marks that indicate he was attacked in his car. The LAST thing on earth I would do would be to arrest him. How about I take a statement, get a description of the attacker (cause I doubt the guy stabbed himself) and release him to the hospital, wouldnt that suffice? I have his info, I know where he lives. After that I would obtain witness statements and start the search for the CRIMINAL...who isnt the guy that I just released to the hospital. WHY on earth should this guy have been arrested???

If what you say is the truth obviously the laws are different in the UK. I have a degree in Criminal Justice, and 20 years in Law Enforcement and there is no way what you describe EVER happens, "legally" in the US.

Do they really teach you to arrest everyone in the UK when you come upon a crime? No wonder you get no respect...

Okay, during speaking to him and taking his account for this statement (I'd never take a statement from someone with stab wounds, but never mind) he tells you that he's stabbed the other man - albeit in self-defence. Are you sure you don't arrest him now?

Because if you don't, you're just about to breach PACE, and your entire investigation becomes inadmissable. Game Over. Press Start to play again.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know the ins and outs of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, just like I don't know the ins and outs of your criminal codes. I'll break it down.

As soon as you have reasonable grounds to suspect that someone has committed an offence, any further questioning of them in relation to that suspected offence becomes an interview. If someone tells you they've stabbed someone - even in self-defence - you have reasonable grounds to suspect they've committed a Wounding. Unless, that is, you actually believe what people tell you - which, with 20 years in Law Enforcement, I hope you don't.

So by continuing to talk to him and take his statement, you breach the Codes of Practice governing interviewing, which means that any evidence you gather as a result of that breach (ie the statement itself) becomes inadmissable.

In 20 years of Law Enforcement, I can't believe you've never dealt with a situation where the person you initially believe to be the victim is in fact the suspect, and/or vice versa? Of course you have. The fundamental principles of investigation - ABC. Assume nothing. Believe no-one. Check everything.

[Luckham]

Originally Posted by moleman

Did it make you feel dirty?

I agreed with him over a trivial matter about 6 months ago, I've spent that entire period in the bath frantically scrubbing..

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by Luckham

I agreed with him over a trivial matter about 6 months ago, I've spent that entire period in the bath frantically scrubbing..

How you earn a living has nothing to do with this thread.

Let's break down what happened in 1997. They found all the people with legal guns and permits, who were obviously not criminals given that they possessed such permits, and they took their guns. None of the guns taken as a result of the new law were held by criminals, nor had they been used in crime. Therefore net effect on crime was NIL.

[R33_GTS-t]

Originally Posted by stu0x

Okay, during speaking to him and taking his account for this statement (I'd never take a statement from someone with stab wounds, but never mind) he tells you that he's stabbed the other man - albeit in self-defence. Are you sure you don't arrest him now?

Because if you don't, you're just about to breach PACE, and your entire investigation becomes inadmissable. Game Over. Press Start to play again.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know the ins and outs of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, just like I don't know the ins and outs of your criminal codes. I'll break it down.

As soon as you have reasonable grounds to suspect that someone has committed an offence, any further questioning of them in relation to that suspected offence becomes an interview. If someone tells you they've stabbed someone - even in self-defence - you have reasonable grounds to suspect they've committed a Wounding. Unless, that is, you actually believe what people tell you - which, with 20 years in Law Enforcement, I hope you don't.

So by continuing to talk to him and take his statement, you breach the Codes of Practice governing interviewing, which means that any evidence you gather as a result of that breach (ie the statement itself) becomes inadmissable.

In 20 years of Law Enforcement, I can't believe you've never dealt with a situation where the person you initially believe to be the victim is in fact the suspect, and/or vice versa? Of course you have. The fundamental principles of investigation - ABC. Assume nothing. Believe no-one. Check everything.

Very good, PACE. And who said PACE was such a bright idea?

psd1 might also be interested to know that the UK police can now arrest a person for any offence whatsoever, regardless of how small it is. They can also stop and search at will. How could anyone disrespect such fine people?

[moleman]

Originally Posted by R33_GTS-t

None of the guns taken as a result of the new law were held by criminals, nor had they been used in crime.

You cannot possibly know that either way.

On 8th August 1987 a Mr Ryan purchased an M1 carbine and 50 rounds for £167 from a Mr Andrew White (a person that I have had the misfortune of working with) at the Tunnel Club, Devizes and took it home to Hungerford. That weapon was legally owned.

People with firearms certificates can be nutters too.