Burglars beware!
Discussion
RtdRacer said:
daz3210 said:
How does the Human Rights Act sit with this? Always we hear of the offenders Human Rights, but seem to forget the rights of the person wronged.
How difficult would it be to make a law that said immediately you commit an offence your Human Rights are diminished, or removed totally? I guess what I am thinking is put the emphasis on the rights of the wronged person.
That's how the law is at the moment. You have a right not to have violence used against you.How difficult would it be to make a law that said immediately you commit an offence your Human Rights are diminished, or removed totally? I guess what I am thinking is put the emphasis on the rights of the wronged person.
WHen you break into someone's house, or attack someone else, that right is diminished.
Breadvan72 said:
In what instances? The law is clear and workable as it is.
The kind of instances where the home owner seems to be hauled over the coals more than the bloke who broke in.Maybe its just the sensational press, but take the recent instance where two burglars were shot by a home owner. I heard more about the way the homeowner was treated by Police than the scrotes he shot. The impression given was that the action of the homeowner were considered worse than those who were where they should not have been in the first place.
Of course, if you dig deep enough you will see that the sentence the burglars received was four years, but that was not quite so widely reported was it.
I'm not saying the law is not clear or workable, just that my perception is that the homeowner is often portrayed to be the bigger villain, just for defending what is rightfully theirs. I get the impression that I am not entirely alone in that perception.
That's not a good example of such an instance, Daz. The scrotes were quickly jailed and this was widely reported. The homeowner was not charged. He was held for too long, but the scrotes came off worse. You appear to be succumbing to a dose of Tabloiditis. Take two chunks of scepticism and call us in the morning!
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 10th October 17:10
So I think my first reply may have been missed, maybe it was the subtlety.
How does this new law help my 86 year old mum, can she now kick the s
t out of any intruders?
Edited.. I may be being too subtle again.. Guns people.. we all should have guns!!!
How does this new law help my 86 year old mum, can she now kick the s
t out of any intruders? Edited.. I may be being too subtle again.. Guns people.. we all should have guns!!!
Edited by smartphone hater on Thursday 11th October 01:13
smartphone hater said:
So I think my first reply may have been missed, maybe it was the subtlety.
How does this new law help my 86 year old mum, can she now kick the st out of any intruders?
Edited.. I may be being too subtle again.. Guns people.. we all should have guns!!!
Good idea - what we need is people with poor eye sight, coordination, hearing, balance and generally decrepit to have firearms.How does this new law help my 86 year old mum, can she now kick the s
t out of any intruders? Edited.. I may be being too subtle again.. Guns people.. we all should have guns!!!
Edited by smartphone hater on Thursday 11th October 01:13
Tiggsy said:
smartphone hater said:
So I think my first reply may have been missed, maybe it was the subtlety.
How does this new law help my 86 year old mum, can she now kick the st out of any intruders?
Edited.. I may be being too subtle again.. Guns people.. we all should have guns!!!
Good idea - what we need is people with poor eye sight, coordination, hearing, balance and generally decrepit to have firearms.How does this new law help my 86 year old mum, can she now kick the s
t out of any intruders? Edited.. I may be being too subtle again.. Guns people.. we all should have guns!!!
Edited by smartphone hater on Thursday 11th October 01:13
Lots more violent crime generally. Lots of gun homicides. Guns do not make society safer.
In the UK, most of the police aren't armed, but some are. Most of the crims aren't armed, but some are. Those crims with guns mostly use them to shoot other crims.
In the US, all of the police and some of the citizens are armed. Almost all of the crims are armed.
In the UK, most of the police aren't armed, but some are. Most of the crims aren't armed, but some are. Those crims with guns mostly use them to shoot other crims.
In the US, all of the police and some of the citizens are armed. Almost all of the crims are armed.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 11th October 09:52
Breadvan72 said:
Lots more violent crime generally. Lots of gun homicides. Guns do not make society safer.
In the UK, most of the police aren't armed, but some are. Most of the crims aren't armed, but some are. Those crims with guns mostly use them to shoot other crims.
In the US, all of the police and some of the citizens are armed. Almost all of the crims are armed.
Is there not a town or state in the US where it is law you must carry a gun though, and there they have one of the lowest violent crime rates?In the UK, most of the police aren't armed, but some are. Most of the crims aren't armed, but some are. Those crims with guns mostly use them to shoot other crims.
In the US, all of the police and some of the citizens are armed. Almost all of the crims are armed.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Thursday 11th October 09:52
One town in Nowhereseville USA tried that, but it was challenged on Constitutional grounds. It is a rural place which would have low crime anyway. Correlation is not cause. All of the evidence points to a gunned up society being a violent society.
Canada has a lot of guns in lawful ownership, but it is also a country of vast wilderness where guns are used mainly by people living in rural areas. There is no concentration of gun ownership in Canadian urban areas, save among those who have sport guns for use at their weekend cottages.
Toronto has been all in a flutter this year because of a series of shootings. These are rare in Canada. Pop across the border to the US and things change (compare Detroit to its neighbour, Windsor, Ontario).
Canada has a lot of guns in lawful ownership, but it is also a country of vast wilderness where guns are used mainly by people living in rural areas. There is no concentration of gun ownership in Canadian urban areas, save among those who have sport guns for use at their weekend cottages.
Toronto has been all in a flutter this year because of a series of shootings. These are rare in Canada. Pop across the border to the US and things change (compare Detroit to its neighbour, Windsor, Ontario).
Interesting.
I know a local gun dealer, and around the time of the 1997 pistol hand in, he did say to me there was another option. That option was to allow firearms for self defence.
He went on to say he would expect the murder rate to go through the roof for a number of years, but once all those who thought it 'hard' to use a gun had shot one another, we would have a wonderful polite society. He may have had a point in a way, although maybe not one that would be any sensible politician would endorse.
I know a local gun dealer, and around the time of the 1997 pistol hand in, he did say to me there was another option. That option was to allow firearms for self defence.
He went on to say he would expect the murder rate to go through the roof for a number of years, but once all those who thought it 'hard' to use a gun had shot one another, we would have a wonderful polite society. He may have had a point in a way, although maybe not one that would be any sensible politician would endorse.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff