Intruders shoot dead homeowner in St Ives.
Discussion
Alucidnation said:
Surely only one of them can be actually found guilty of murder, as all three wouldn't have pulled the trigger?
Law changed a while back. I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I forget the term, but it's something like accessory to murder and it carries the same penalty. So all three may well be locked up. Which is nice.FurtiveFreddy said:
La Liga said:
espite the common misconception, the law isn't looking to prosecute home owners if they shoot and kill burglars (Tony Martin was revenge before anyone mentions it).
Especially since the law was (unnecessarily) strengthened.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/ho...
Well, that guidance specifically fails to mention what might happen if a legally held shotgun or firearm were used in self defence.Especially since the law was (unnecessarily) strengthened.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/ho...
It is very rare for a burglars to come equipped with guns, as we've already said, so if I were to wait until I was sure the burglar was armed before going to my gun cabinet, retrieving a gun, loading it and defending myself, I fear I would already be dead.
If I happened to have a loaded gun ready, just in case, and used it against a burglar (armed or not) I'm sure I would then be punished for not keeping it locked up safe and sound.
Whatever happens, you can be sure that if I discharged a firearm in my house for any reason, the Police would take them all away and there would be a long period of time before I would get them back, if ever.
Why do so few burglars in the UK come armed?
And why do so many in the US go in with guns?
FurtiveFreddy said:
oyster said:
Have a bit of a think of the bit you wrote which I've highlighted in bold.
Why do so few burglars in the UK come armed?
And why do so many in the US go in with guns?
How many go in with guns in the U.S.? You obviously have the figures, so do tell.Why do so few burglars in the UK come armed?
And why do so many in the US go in with guns?
In any case, you'd have to have rocks in your head to argue against whether the US has more armed intruders than the UK (per burglary).
Even more importantly, the sheer number is irrelevant. The nub of this argument of gun ownership for home-owners is whether there is actual increased safety for innocent people or less safety?
You say that home-owners would be safer if they were allowed to be armed? My view is that some would (the stronger, younger ones perhaps), but that the vast majority would be less safe. They would be less safe because more burglars would be armed. And more of those guns would be used for other non-burglary shootings.
oyster said:
Why do the exact figures matter? Why does my argument rely on figures yet all your arguments should just be taken at face value?
In any case, you'd have to have rocks in your head to argue against whether the US has more armed intruders than the UK (per burglary).
Even more importantly, the sheer number is irrelevant. The nub of this argument of gun ownership for home-owners is whether there is actual increased safety for innocent people or less safety?
You say that home-owners would be safer if they were allowed to be armed? My view is that some would (the stronger, younger ones perhaps), but that the vast majority would be less safe. They would be less safe because more burglars would be armed. And more of those guns would be used for other non-burglary shootings.
The figures matter because you're using the premise that more guns per capita means more likelihood of a homeowner being shot during a burglary. In any case, you'd have to have rocks in your head to argue against whether the US has more armed intruders than the UK (per burglary).
Even more importantly, the sheer number is irrelevant. The nub of this argument of gun ownership for home-owners is whether there is actual increased safety for innocent people or less safety?
You say that home-owners would be safer if they were allowed to be armed? My view is that some would (the stronger, younger ones perhaps), but that the vast majority would be less safe. They would be less safe because more burglars would be armed. And more of those guns would be used for other non-burglary shootings.
In fact, you might be surprised if you look at the figures rather than making an assumption. Burglary statistics do not necessarily follow other crime statistics when it comes to use of firearms and who is in possession of them when the crime is committed. But leaving that aside, where did I say that more UK home-owners should be armed?
What I am saying is that if someone does legally own a firearm and justifiably uses it to defend themselves, they shouldn't expect to automatically be arrested and their guns taken away from them possibly never to be returned. That is the distinct probability in the event of a gun owner even just waving it around to scare an intruder off.
FurtiveFreddy said:
oyster said:
Why do the exact figures matter? Why does my argument rely on figures yet all your arguments should just be taken at face value?
In any case, you'd have to have rocks in your head to argue against whether the US has more armed intruders than the UK (per burglary).
Even more importantly, the sheer number is irrelevant. The nub of this argument of gun ownership for home-owners is whether there is actual increased safety for innocent people or less safety?
You say that home-owners would be safer if they were allowed to be armed? My view is that some would (the stronger, younger ones perhaps), but that the vast majority would be less safe. They would be less safe because more burglars would be armed. And more of those guns would be used for other non-burglary shootings.
The figures matter because you're using the premise that more guns per capita means more likelihood of a homeowner being shot during a burglary. In any case, you'd have to have rocks in your head to argue against whether the US has more armed intruders than the UK (per burglary).
Even more importantly, the sheer number is irrelevant. The nub of this argument of gun ownership for home-owners is whether there is actual increased safety for innocent people or less safety?
You say that home-owners would be safer if they were allowed to be armed? My view is that some would (the stronger, younger ones perhaps), but that the vast majority would be less safe. They would be less safe because more burglars would be armed. And more of those guns would be used for other non-burglary shootings.
In fact, you might be surprised if you look at the figures rather than making an assumption. Burglary statistics do not necessarily follow other crime statistics when it comes to use of firearms and who is in possession of them when the crime is committed. But leaving that aside, where did I say that more UK home-owners should be armed?
What I am saying is that if someone does legally own a firearm and justifiably uses it to defend themselves, they shouldn't expect to automatically be arrested and their guns taken away from them possibly never to be returned. That is the distinct probability in the event of a gun owner even just waving it around to scare an intruder off.
Plainly you don't believe them.
So, as you asked me, are there any examples of anybody being convicted since that government clarification was issued? (I genuinely don't know the answer).
Digga said:
Alucidnation said:
Surely only one of them can be actually found guilty of murder, as all three wouldn't have pulled the trigger?
Law changed a while back. I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I forget the term, but it's something like accessory to murder and it carries the same penalty. So all three may well be locked up. Which is nice.It will be interesting to see what paltry sentence is handed out to the murderers.
Digga said:
It will be interesting to see what paltry sentence is handed out to the murderers.
Life is mandatory for murder.The only thing that'll vary is the tariff - the minimum before they can apply for parole. The photo caption in that article says minimum 34yrs. 42 and 40, so they'll be well into their 70s by the time they can even think of freedom. Hey-ho.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Monday 22 January 18:32
TooMany2cvs said:
Digga said:
It will be interesting to see what paltry sentence is handed out to the murderers.
Life is mandatory for murder.The only thing that'll vary is the tariff - the minimum before they can apply for parole. The photo caption in that article says minimum 34yrs. 42 and 40, so they'll be well into their 70s by the time they can even think of freedom. Hey-ho.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Monday 22 January 18:32
BlackLabel said:
Every time an old thread is updated with a new article/etc, it's normally you. Just wanted to say thanks for the updates 
oyster said:
I am not sure what you're so worried about. I thought this was all discussed a few years back and the government issued some clarification on the law, to say that those who used force as self defence would not be prosecuted.
Plainly you don't believe them.
So, as you asked me, are there any examples of anybody being convicted since that government clarification was issued? (I genuinely don't know the answer).
Back to this May 2017 post:Plainly you don't believe them.
So, as you asked me, are there any examples of anybody being convicted since that government clarification was issued? (I genuinely don't know the answer).
Not being prosecuted for self-defence and keeping a shotgun or firearms certificate, are two entirely separate things.
If you use a legally held gun to defend yourself if you are in fear of your life, one of the first things that will happen when the police arrive is that all your guns plus all the guns belonging to anyone else in the house will be seized. Your shotgun/firearms certificate will be revoked. I doubt you will ever get them back. This is even when you are not prosecuted.
DurianIceCream said:
oyster said:
I am not sure what you're so worried about. I thought this was all discussed a few years back and the government issued some clarification on the law, to say that those who used force as self defence would not be prosecuted.
Plainly you don't believe them.
So, as you asked me, are there any examples of anybody being convicted since that government clarification was issued? (I genuinely don't know the answer).
Back to this May 2017 post:Plainly you don't believe them.
So, as you asked me, are there any examples of anybody being convicted since that government clarification was issued? (I genuinely don't know the answer).
Not being prosecuted for self-defence and keeping a shotgun or firearms certificate, are two entirely separate things.
If you use a legally held gun to defend yourself if you are in fear of your life, one of the first things that will happen when the police arrive is that all your guns plus all the guns belonging to anyone else in the house will be seized. Your shotgun/firearms certificate will be revoked. I doubt you will ever get them back. This is even when you are not prosecuted.
You have no evidence or previous cases to suggest anything otherwise have you?
oyster said:
I don't get this response. If you did nothing illegal then you'd be able to get your gun(s) back surely?
You have no evidence or previous cases to suggest anything otherwise have you?
No, if you are asking this question you do not understand how shotgun or firearm licencing works. You have no evidence or previous cases to suggest anything otherwise have you?
Your guns would be seized immediately. Your certificate would be revoked immediately, so that you could not replace them by purchasing new guns. It is unlikely you would get your guns back, even if you are not prosecuted and had done nothing illegal.
DurianIceCream said:
oyster said:
I don't get this response. If you did nothing illegal then you'd be able to get your gun(s) back surely?
You have no evidence or previous cases to suggest anything otherwise have you?
No, if you are asking this question you do not understand how shotgun or firearm licencing works. You have no evidence or previous cases to suggest anything otherwise have you?
Your guns would be seized immediately. Your certificate would be revoked immediately, so that you could not replace them by purchasing new guns. It is unlikely you would get your guns back, even if you are not prosecuted and had done nothing illegal.
Which suggests you know no more than I do.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff