Englands new bill

[Gorynel Desse]

"But in the overwhelming majority of cases, someone in his or her own property would not face any charge. When you are defending your wife and children in your own home, you should not be worrying about whether you are going to be prosecuted."-David Davis, Shadow Home Secretary

The conservative party of Britains parliment, the Torries, have introduced a new bill that would protect homeowners from prosecution for using force against an intruder, except for "grossly disapropriate" force. An example given was if a 12 year old is stealing carrots from your garden you can't kill him.

I say this is just what england needs. I am no expert on British law, although I try to keep up on their gun laws as best I can. I hate the bans that have been instituted there, and the law that those scum bag lawyers got passed a few years ago that said burglars are still protected members of society and so you can't use force against them. That was a case of justice being spun way out of control, in my opinion. But now it looks like this bill will pass into law protedting homeowners from stopping burglars by whatever means nessasarry and being immune from prosecution. Thank God. Apparently, even the liberal labour party has spoken support for the bill.

These things generally fall under conservative values in the United States, I wish that they didn't. There are clearly differences between myself and most liberals, as all of you know on this board know. There are certain lines on many issues that neither of us will cross into the others realm of thinking, and understandably so. I respect our right to disagree and still be civil and respectful of eachother, and most of you have shown that towards me, and I hope that I have done the same for most if not all of you. But this issue should not be a divisive one, and I don't understand why it is.

A person has a right to be safe, and to know their family is safe. A person has the right to have property that belongs to them and to protect that property. A person has the right to walk down the street at night and not be attaked and/or robbed. And woman and children have the right to not be assaulted, raped, and/or killed by sexual predators. People have the right, morally if not by law, to kill anyone who threatens these rights in any way.

Why is that fought against? Why is this right that is certainly a primal instinct not respected by the elitists in Washington, the United Nations, Canada, Britain, Australia, France, and everywhere else that has taken these rights out our hand? Why do gays have the "right" to marry and adopt children but you don't have the right to kill a man in your own home who you have no idea what might happen if you don't?

Liberals in the U.S. constantly scream the word "rights." It is spoken and thrown around constantly by the left. Everybody has a right to everything, it seems. Women have the right to abotions, gays have a right to marry, minorities have a right to affirmative action, mexicans have the right to cross the borders by any means nessasary, drug addicts have the right to rehab, poor people have a right to welfare. Some of these things are arguable, I will concede that, but why are they "inalienable" rights, when not one of them even come close to the right to protect your own home or person? I consider myself a fairly inteligent guy, so why don't I get it?

Oklahoma and a few other states have passed the "Make MY Day" law, which gives the homeowner the right to use deadly force against an intruder regardless of circumstance. Is it always nessacary, no. But I don't care either. Why should we take the right out of the victims hands and protect the criminal? The fact is, he shouldn't have been there. I don't care if all he was doing was stealing a t.v. I'm not saying a t.v. is more valuable then a mans life, I'm saying that man had no right to be there to take the t.v. And if he wasn't, then he wouldn't die! It seems the left just clearly hasn't got the message. If you don't commit the crime, then you won't die for it. It is that simple, it is that black and white, so why isn't protection passed for a person defending their home and families?

I don't feel that accidental death applies. It is terribly tragic to pick up the newspaper and read about a man who accidently shot his son because he thought he was an intruder. It is a terrible, tragic thing. But you cannot and should not use that as a defense for banning the use of guns or deadly force against intruders. One thing does not include the other. You should not use hypothetical scenarios to stop people from protecting themselves. I think if there is only one right in world that is truly inalienable, it is the right to use any force you feel is nessacary to protect yourself and anyone else in your home or on you property, even it means to kill someone. In those situations, you don't have the luxary of time to asses a threat and determine what is nessacary to handle it. What you do have is the right to recognize a threat, and do away with it.

[Feleron]

You have to understand that the basic liberal premise is that you can't be allowed to make choices for yourself. YOU can't decide whether or not to protect yourself, only the all knowing and all wise government can make that decision. The liberals real issue is one of control.

High crime rates also pay dividends to liberals. Crime means we need more (union) cops, more government spending on finding the "root cause" through research, more money for (union) teachers, more spending on "social services", etc. All this ends up with either more money for unions (which is more money and organization for the liberal parties) or more jobs for liberals. If you simply defend yourself and shoot dead the criminal, what's in that for them?

[Lissandra]

I think that any criminal that commits a grossly criminal act gives up his/her rights.

As for defense of your own property.... I don't see why that should be a problem.. that person SHOULD NOT BE there.. Hell I think everyone should get a digital camera.. .... OHHHHH I got an idea... guns with digital cameras on them so that they take pictures of what you shoot... yes.. that's a fine idea.. burglers generally wear some sort of concealment.. if they are attempting to break into your property.. or have their grimey hands on an object.. you have the proof that who you shot was commiting a crime.. Granted that doesn't help if you use a bat... and more people would turn to guns ... but.. well what's a better deterrent.. death or a beating? (Yes this is farfetched and it's an idea.. not something I believe 100% in (or even 50%).. so don't go all human rights on me )

Society (well maybe not society.. but the way it's set up) is very screwed up.. Criminals can do things and barely get a slap on the wrist.. if they are sent to jail, they are wasting OUR tax dollars.. *sighs* I think the first settlement on the moon (should we get there) is going to be a penial colony.

[ladyfantasy]

Y'know what'd be interesting? If traquilizers were used to protect the home versus a gun.

[Dan]

Tranquilizers aren't a great idea. Too slow. Great way to get yourself killed, that would be. If you're going to pull a weapon, you better use it, and use it in a way that the other person cannot respond. It should not be incumbant upon you, as the victim, to guess just how far the person in your house is willing to go in victimizing you.

In the UK, there has in fact been civil suits, won, by criminals wounded during break-ins. Laws vary in the US, but in Texas, if a criminal comes in to your home, he forfeits his right to live.

I always liked Texans.

[Montreal]

No, gays currently do NOT have the "right" to marry by the way, but I see nothing wrong with gay marriage; you can't compare that to KILLING someone.

Actually, I think we should get rid of guns entirely. I know that's a little extreme and unrealistic, but it could slowly but surely happen. I think guns should only be rented out to people, so everyone would know who had what kind of gun when. And, of course, there could be shooting ranges and things with guns already supplied, but every person wanting to rent out a gun should have to have a liscence for it, and have there record checked. Someone doesn't deserve to be killed just because they're making a big mistake, but if someone comes into your house, you should think about how to knock them out or get them out if you're a normal person, not how you're going to KILL them.

Of course, law inforcement and military units would be able to have these kind of weapons, but only for reasons of outside forces, i.e. terrorists.

Now, I know technological advancement in this area is enivitable, considering the first guns we ever had were bows and arrows, but I think these items should be left with people who have good intensions, and who aren't going to be trigger happy whenever they get a little pissed off. If people want to fire a gun so bad, they surely will be willing to pay money for doing it, and if they have good intensions, they won't mind going through all these processes. I mean, there is one soul purpose why the gun was made: to kill/harm something/someone more efficiantly. I don't know about you, but I don't feel so safe knowing that just anyone can walk around with these things.

[Aladra]

I don't have the intention to kill anyone who breaks into my house, but if that's the only way to stop them, I wouldn't break a sweat. I sleep with a knife within reach so if I ever have to use it, (god-forbid) I can. I think it's barbaric to prosecute victims of break-ins for self defense. That bill should definitely be passed. I don't even know how the law got put into place to begin with.

But slightly off topic... can we leave the politics out of it? If I wanted to talk about who doesn't let us choose, why don't we talk about the conservatives who want to tell us with whom, when, and how to have sex, what to believe, how to act, how to dress, etc. I'd rather have the government ban guns, in a misguided attempt to protect it's citizens, than the government taking away rights to appease small-minded prudes.

Look at some of the people who are against gun laws. Not all are saints, but there are parents who have lost a child due to gunshots. You might not agree with their point of view, but to generalize everyone as looking for more money is insulting.

As for unions/social services. I think what you have are people who start a program intending to help a problem, but either they are sidetracked and end up so skewed, or there are others who come in later only looking out for themselves. I'm not sure if you were saying it's only the union leaders, or the members of unions themselves who were trying to gain more money, but I have yet to see the cop, teacher, or social worker who went into it for the money.

::breaths:: Rant over. Back to topic.

This kind of situation ticks me off to no end. Did you guys hear about the one where a guy somewhere in the northeast US went crazy, came to work and shot a bunch of people, them himself, and then his mother had the gall to sue the company for not giving her compensation because he died at work? There's gotta be a special level of hell for people who sue over things like this, the lawyers who take the case, and the judges who agree with them. IMO anyone who sides with the criminals in this case, conservative, liberal, or whig, is a piece of s&1t excuse for a human being.

[Lissandra]

Mmm yeah to clarify what i may have said.. I don't support the killing of people.. however if it's the only way to protect themselves.. then well I can't blame them... just aim for something that isn't quite vital.. like the hand they have their gun/weapon in.. or a leg... something to incapacitate them. It would prolly give the same amount of damage as blugeoning someone with a bat.. or stabbing them with a knife.. and you don't even have to get close to the person.

As for the complete ban on guns... Sorry it wouldn't work... there is no way that you could get rid of all the guns on the planet.. there will always be criminals with guns... look at pot and even when they had probhibition.. there were sources of illegal substances.. As long as someone knows how to make a gun.. they will be available for criminals to get ahold of.. at least now we are on semi-equal footing..

*sighs* and yes Aladra.. is those freaking idiots that screw the legal system that make it worse for the rest of us...

Montreal, I don't feel safe mentally or physically in this world.. but.. well you have to live with it.. Or go find a private island to live on.. yes.. that's a nice idea... (in the caribbean.. so I don't have to wear clothes if I don't wanna.. )

Oh and I liked the tranq idea.. but yeah.. too slow.. and who knows if someone will have an allergic reaction and die.. then they'd sue you.. "You should have used a gun.. then my client MAY have been saved.. even though he was breaking into your house and stealling your stuff.. and violating your sense of safety.. He still could have lived.. "

[Gorynel Desse]

Originally posted by Aladra
If I wanted to talk about who doesn't let us choose, why don't we talk about the conservatives who want to tell us with whom, when, and how to have sex, what to believe, how to act, how to dress, etc. I'd rather have the government ban guns, in a misguided attempt to protect it's citizens, than the government taking away rights to appease small-minded prudes.

uh huh....ok, where the hell do you live? Why don't you list an example for each one of those things that the evil conservatives are making you do. Because sain people think it's wrong to have abortions, which I THINK you were alluding to there, doesn't mean whom, when, and how to have sex. Last I checked, most states force public schools to shove evolution down the throats of students throughout elementary, middle, and high school. I'm sorry, it's the conservatives who tell, no I mean force others what to believe, right? Or how about affirmative action? The liberal government has forced universities, cities, counties, and PRIVATELY owned companies to accept minorites and promote them over whites for the simple fact of color, because the government believes that they deserve it more, esspecially when it comes to blacks. Isn't that forcing a beliefe on people? What if a person owns a company and is a racist, wanting no blacks or any color other than whites to be employed with his company but the government says you can't discriminate and can revoke your business liscense and you can be sued. I'm certainly not supporting this as something I believe is right nor is it something I would do, and yes it's not fair to anybody that's not white, but doesn't a man have the right to believe what he wants? Or is it that people have the right to believe only in the things you and your side agree with? I have never once heard of a black business owner being sued or shut down for not hiring a white man because he's white. Either it has never happened, which I find hard to believe, or nobody cares, because for some reason no race is considered racist except for whites, regardless of facts. As far as your comment about how to dress, uh, were you just really searching for some propaganda and that was the best you could come up with or what? Out of everything you said, this is the one I really want an example of.

Montreal, maybe the name explains it all. I don't really know if I can even respond to ANYTHING in your post without it coming out as insulting and mean, so I probably won't respond to anything directly at all. All I'm going to say is I hope your joking. If you're not, well, you need to really grow up and look at the world around you. Everything you said was so childish...ok, I won't go any further. I don't want to be insulting to you or what you believe, I just cannot understand your mindset at all.

Let's not forget a great line from a great movie: "the english won't let us train with weapons, so we train with stones." That's from Braveheart for those that don't remember or have never seen it. You don't even have to see it to understand the meaning of that line. If you took all the guns away, after the left stopped chearing and throwing parties, they'd realize that criminals don't need guns to commit crimes. They will improvise. Remeber, "necessity is the mother of all invention." If you didn't have guns to protect yourself, you'd only be more vulnerable to some other lethal mehtod of crime that would replace the gun. And the idea, Montreal, that we should turn over our guns to the government but let them keep there's is NOT a good idea. You see, tyranny is created much quicker and is much more brutal when all you see is an unarmed populance standing in the way of what government views is "in the best interest of the people." Perhaps even when we learn history, we are doomed to repeat it.

One quick point: Just because you outlaw and confiscate every single gun out there, which is impossible, but for the sake of argument lets say it was succesful. Do you truly think nobody would build there own guns anyways? Then everybody is unarmed but the criminal who can get his hands on an underground firearm. I mean, guns are not THAT hard to make, if you have the right equipment. All you would do is create another criminal underground organization, one that would be far more rich and powerful than any we have ever seen, including drugs and th mophia.

[Saint Kiy]

Originally posted by Dan
Tranquilizers aren't a great idea. Too slow. Great way to get yourself killed, that would be. If you're going to pull a weapon, you better use it, and use it in a way that the other person cannot respond. It should not be incumbant upon you, as the victim, to guess just how far the person in your house is willing to go in victimizing you.

In the UK, there has in fact been civil suits, won, by criminals wounded during break-ins. Laws vary in the US, but in Texas, if a criminal comes in to your home, he forfeits his right to live.

I always liked Texans.

Yea, Texas! That is one law I have always liked...and have used. I have shot at, and wounded an intruder in my home. He fled immediately, not realizing anyone was home. When the cops found him, he had a ten inch long knife on him, his only weapon. And I'm not willing to bet he wouldnt have slit my throat in my sleep or used it to threaten and rape me. When its my life, or that of a criminal, I choose MY life.

You can talk about human rights all you want, but what about my right to sleep safely and soundly in my own home? My right to be safe? This is a good law, in my opinion.

And none of this was to offend anyone, so please dont take it badly, its just my personal experience.

[Montreal]

Gorynel- Please understand the thoughts that I expressed in my post were indeed just thoughts, and I know that that could never be reality. It's sort of like anarchy is a nice idea, but with all of the different types of people, it would never be possible: there are some people that are just going to be violent, and going to break rules, and we have to accept that, therefore government is manditory. I apologize if you felt my post was childish, but it isn't like I had the idea that it could actually happen, and I am indeed a younger member of this bored, so excuse my wishful thinking. Once again, I did not mean for my views to be taken literal, of course I know that they aren't realistic, it's just something I like to think on.

Now, true, if someone is under the threat of dying when an intruder comes into their home, and they have a gun, and if killing someone is the only way to stop the intruder, I see the logic in that. However, how can you determine if the person with the gun didn't just have the intent of killing a stranger? Also, what if that person (the intruder) had no weapon, and thought the home was empty and was just trying to steal a few things? Do they actually deserve DEATH just for picking up a TV? Most of the time, for home robberies such as that, the robbers are teenagers- Death?

[Aldiara]

"the english won't let us train with weapons, so we train with stones."

Great, let's all go back to the 14th century and slaughter each other, shall we ::rolls eyes:: Extremism can go both ways. That's all I'm going to say on this one cause frankly it sickens me.

[Gorynel Desse]

Originally posted by Montreal
Gorynel- Please understand the thoughts that I expressed in my post were indeed just thoughts, and I know that that could never be reality.......Once again, I did not mean for my views to be taken literal, of course I know that they aren't realistic, it's just something I like to think on.

On a message board it's hard to convey exactly what you're thinking and trying to say as well as you would like, we all have that problem. I wasn't trying to offend you with my response either, and on reading it again it does sound degrading. So, thank you for clarifying your post, and I apologize for mine.

But to the second part of your post, about somebody deserving to die, the answer in my opinion is yes. It's not that they're coming into what they think is an empty house to steal a few things that is the great crime, it's the fact that they're breaking into somebody's home. That's what some people don't understand. Another person has no right to break into somebody's home, and they forfeit their right to live if they do. If for no better reason, because you have no idea what that person might do. You don't know if it's just somebody stealing a tv, or going to rape your wife or children, or murder you out of cold blood. It is not the responsibility of the victim to find out the intent of the criminal. In fact, it's my opinion that few other things are as sacred as being able to live in safety in your home, and if that's violated, I don't care what the cirmcumstances are I say kill the bastard and be immune from any type of prosecution, civil or criminal.

[Gorynel Desse]

Originally posted by Aldiara
"the english won't let us train with weapons, so we train with stones."

Great, let's all go back to the 14th century and slaughter each other, shall we ::rolls eyes:: Extremism can go both ways. That's all I'm going to say on this one cause frankly it sickens me.

You know what, why don't you read the whole post before responding to one thing in it. And if you did read the whole post, then you shouldn't be responding to anything I say cause you aren't smart enough to understand the simple refrence I was making. Here, let me make it simple for you; I made no refrence to the 14th century, and I wasn't talking about slaughtering anybody, I was making a refrence to history of banning weapons and that it doesn't work. I was saying that the Scots didn't need swords to start a rebellion, they improvised. I was saying that because you confiscate guns from the people, crime will still continue and the government would become tyrannical. ::rolls eyes:: Frankly, when you don't put in more than two minutes into a post and attack me on what you've skimmed over, that sickens me.

You know, I don't mind disagreement, not at all. I just don't like being attacked. Some of you guys have known me awhile, and are fair. And I have pretty thick skin; it doesn't bother me to fight with somebody over this stuff, it bothers me that liberals on this board get away with it and I don't. If I write a post that even comes off slightly offensive to somebody, I get slammed for it. So maybe it's time I just took off for another year like I did the last time. I thought things had changed when I came back, but obviously they haven't, so I dunno. I hate double standards, and most of you don't want another point of view to burst your liberal bubbles anyways, no matter what you say to the contrary.

[Montreal]

Good reasonning, but I've a question.

What if the home owner takes advantage of this? i.e. They bring someone into their home just to kill them, but stage a break in? (Yes, I know that scene investigators could probably figure out the truth, but let's just say this guy's really good)