Man jailed for dead girl 'trolling' insults on FB,Youtube

[mistermack]

I would rather live next to a child rapist than live next to someone who owned a firearm

I would like to see them sharing the same prison cell.
They could entertain each other promoting their loony obsessions.

[MrJonno]

I assumed you meant all firearms, not just handguns. Your post was more than a little confusing because of that.

Well shotguns are legal for farmers and while I wouldnt make any assumptions about them it would be another reason among many to avoid the countryside

Anyone can apply for a licence to use and own a rifle too.

True but you won't get one unless you have some sort of rural activity that doesnt involve shooting people. I've got no problems with farmers having them to shoot foxes but I still wouldnt want to live next to one

[Pappa]

I assumed you meant all firearms, not just handguns. Your post was more than a little confusing because of that.

Well shotguns are legal for farmers and while I wouldnt make any assumptions about them it would be another reason among many to avoid the countryside

Anyone can apply for a licence to use and own a rifle too.

True but you won't get one unless you have some sort of rural activity that doesnt involve shooting people. I've got no problems with farmers having them to shoot foxes but I still wouldnt want to live next to one

You can apply for a firearms license for a rifle in the UK if you are a member of a shooting club (and other reasons).

[MrJonno]

Well licensing for them is a little more relaxed but I would be surprised if you could get one in an urban area (too much chance of them getting nicked)

[Pappa]

Well licensing for them is a little more relaxed but I would be surprised if you could get one in an urban area (too much chance of them getting nicked)

As long as you're member of a gun club and show you have a secure way of keeping them (plus no criminal record or whatever) you'll get a license. Legally you don't even need to be a member of a club, you just need to show some valid reason why you should have a license.

[Gallstones]

This thread and that other one are essentially the same topic in parallel.

[JimC]

Seraph wrote:

...it is all hat and no cattle...

Haven't heard that expression for ages, very country Oz...

Well licensing for them is a little more relaxed but I would be surprised if you could get one in an urban area (too much chance of them getting nicked)

As long as you're member of a gun club and show you have a secure way of keeping them (plus no criminal record or whatever) you'll get a license. Legally you don't even need to be a member of a club, you just need to show some valid reason why you should have a license.

Similar in Oz, plus each rifle or shotgun must be registered, and semi-automatics are banned except for farmers, and then only in .22 c alibre. Hand guns are the real issue, in any case...

[Seth]

The term in Oz for burglary with violence is "aggravated burglary"... Just to complete the semantics..

Is that definitely right as its different to the UK, the aggravated bit is going armed for violence even if no violence takes place. If there is violence that would just be charged as a seperate offence (with being in someone house an aggravating factor for sentencing)

You're wrong. Aggravated burglary is indeed "going armed to a burglary," but if ANY violence takes place, it's not a burglary anymore at all, it's classified as a single act of robbery. This is true whether or not a weapon is used, which makes it aggravated robbery.

But it's not a "separate offense" in that the perp gets charged with TWO crimes, burglary and robbery, it's a single offense of robbery, according to the Home Office links I cited.

How the UK "counts up" charges is exceedingly complex, as shown by the various examples given in the documents cited.

In one weird setup, if a burglar breaks into a garden shed to steal a tool to use to break in to the house, it's not a "burglary" because the perp "did not intend to permanently deprive the owner of the tool." What a fucking farce. Over here, burglary is the same offense but varies in degree according to whether the perp is armed:

18-4-202. First degree burglary.

(1) A person commits first degree burglary if the person knowingly enters unlawfully, or remains unlawfully after a lawful or unlawful entry, in a building or occupied structure with intent to commit therein a crime, other than trespass as defined in this article, against another person or property, and if in effecting entry or while in the building or occupied structure or in immediate flight therefrom, the person or another participant in the crime assaults or menaces any person, or the person or another participant is armed with explosives or a deadly weapon.

(2) First degree burglary is a class 3 felony.

18-4-203. Second degree burglary.

(1) A person commits second degree burglary, if the person knowingly breaks an entrance into, enters unlawfully in, or remains unlawfully after a lawful or unlawful entry in a building or occupied structure with intent to commit therein a crime against another person or property.

(2) Second degree burglary is a class 4 felony, but it is a class 3 felony if:

(a) It is a burglary of a dwelling; or

(b) It is a burglary, the objective of which is the theft of a controlled substance, as defined in section 12-22-303 (7), C.R.S., lawfully kept within any building or occupied structure.

18-4-204. Third degree burglary.

(1) A person commits third degree burglary if with intent to commit a crime he enters or breaks into any vault, safe, cash register, coin vending machine, product dispenser, money depository, safety deposit box, coin telephone, coin box, or other apparatus or equipment whether or not coin operated.

(2) Third degree burglary is a class 5 felony, but it is a class 4 felony if it is a burglary, the objective of which is the theft of a controlled substance, as defined in section 12-22-303 (7), C.R.S., lawfully kept in or upon the property burglarized.

It doesn't matter exactly why the perp trespassed, only that they entered unlawfully with the intent to commit ANY other crime therein, whether that's theft or assault or even just peeping.

Robbery, on the other hand, is simply using force against a person to take something from them.

18-4-301. Robbery.

(1) A person who knowingly takes anything of value from the person or presence of another by the use of force, threats, or intimidation commits ro

(2) Robbery is a class 4 felony.

18-4-302. Aggravated robbery.

(1) A person who commits robbery is guilty of aggravated robbery if during the act of robbery or immediate flight therefrom:

(a) He is armed with a deadly weapon with intent, if resisted, to kill, maim, or wound the person robbed or any other person; or

(b) He knowingly wounds or strikes the person robbed or any other person with a deadly weapon or by the use of force, threats, or intimidation with a deadly weapon knowingly puts the person robbed or any other person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; or

(c) He has present a confederate, aiding or abetting the perpetration of the robbery, armed with a deadly weapon, with the intent, either on the part of the defendant or confederate, if resistance is offered, to kill, maim, or wound the person robbed or any other person, or by the use of force, threats, or intimidation puts the person robbed or any other person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; or

(d) He possesses any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead any person who is present reasonably to believe it to be a deadly weapon or represents verbally or otherwise that he is then and there so armed.

(2) Repealed.

(3) Aggravated robbery is a class 3 felony and is an extraordinary risk crime that is subject to the modified presumptive sentencing range specified in section 18-1.3-401 (10).

(4) If a defendant is convicted of aggravated robbery pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section, the court shall sentence the defendant in accordance with the provisions of section 18-1.3-406.

And, it is possible for a person to be convicted of BOTH aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery for the same act.

[Seth]

In the UK, a person is permitted to use "reasonable force" to defend themselves. "Reasonable" is defined as what a normal person would consider reasonable at the time. If your life is in imminent danger, reasonable force can include killing your assailant. If somebody comes into your house armed, and you had reasonable grounds to suspect they would attack you, a court would acquit you unless you continued to use force that was no longer reasonable (by say, stabbing a burglar 10 times in the chest). This applies to any situation where a person finds themself in threat of physical harm, out in the street or anywhere else. It's simply incorrect to say that people here can't defend themselves.

No it's not, because what's "reasonable" in the UK is what the police say is reasonable, and they officially discourage people from using violence in self-defense if they are being burgled or robbed, saying that using force, particularly lethal force, to defend your PROPERTY is improper.

But the failure of reason there is that when someone attacks you IN ANY WAY, including by violence or mere threat of violence, in order to take your property, they are committing (here in the US) TWO SEPARATE CRIMES. They are committing robbery AND theft. Or assault and robbery and theft. In other words, they are committing a crime against THE PERSON by using a weapon to threaten, intimidate or injure a person, AND they are committing a theft of property.

So using lethal force against an armed robber, or an armed burglar, here in the US, is a use of proper lethal force because the crime being defended against is the assault ON THE PERSON that places the person in "reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury." The motive of theft, and the loss of property is utterly irrelevant to the justification for using lethal force to defend a person that is occasioned by a robber or burglar's intent to take your goods.

This is what UK law and practice fail to understand when they tell people to capitulate to robbery and burglary. It's not the offense against the property that is of supreme importance, it's the crime against the unalienable right of the individual to be free from the unlawful threat of the use of physical force against them NO MATTER WHAT THE REASON for the use of that force.

Over here, in Colorado, an unwanted, uninvited entry into one's residence, combined with the intent to commit ANY crime therein, which includes assault, battery, theft, or, for that matter, littering, combined with the homeowner's reasonable belief that the intrude MIGHT (not "is going to" or "does,") use ANY degree of physical force, NO MATTER HOW SLIGHT (which includes trying to push past the homeowner to escape) triggers the Castle Doctrine law that permits the homeowner to use ANY degree of force, including lethal force, against the intruder and be totally immune from both criminal and civil prosecution for doing so.

This means that if you break and enter a home to steal something, and you are confronted by the homeowner, doing ANYTHING other than instantly surrendering that leads the homeowner to believe you might so much as TOUCH any occupant of the house can get you lawfully killed by the homeowner, who will be immune from prosecution.

And that's the way it SHOULD be in the UK. Break into someone's house to steal their telly and offer any force to resist your arrest, and you can get killed and the homeowner will face NO charges for doing so. It's a proven benefit to society for burglars to be afraid of getting their head smashed in, or be knifed to death, or shot for breaking into people's homes.

[Seth]

So, legally in the UK there is no difference between assaulting someone on the street and forcing your way into their homes and assaulting them?

With attitudes like those, I'm surprised you don't get thuggish effing yobs burning down major portions of your cities.

Don't know what the sentencing guidelines are, which could make a difference, but yeah, once someone uses force in the taking of something, it's "robbery," whether it's from a home or on the street.

[Seth]

In the UK, a person is permitted to use "reasonable force" to defend themselves. "Reasonable" is defined as what a normal person would consider reasonable at the time. If your life is in imminent danger, reasonable force can include killing your assailant. If somebody comes into your house armed, and you had reasonable grounds to suspect they would attack you, a court would acquit you unless you continued to use force that was no longer reasonable (by say, stabbing a burglar 10 times in the chest). This applies to any situation where a person finds themself in threat of physical harm, out in the street or anywhere else. It's simply incorrect to say that people here can't defend themselves.

And actually here in Illinois I believe you are entitled to shoot at an invader all day long , but you have to stop after the first bullet hits.

Here in Colorado they have to be INSIDE the residence, and you don't have to stop until your magazine is empty, because if you have legal justification to use lethal force, you are not required to shoot once, stop and see if it did the trick, and then shoot again. You are allowed to go ahead and kill the person if you have legal justification to do so, and it's in your best interests to always give them two to the chest and one to the head, which is why you train that way.

"No, I did not intend to kill your client, counselor. I intended to render him incapable of continuing the activity that justified my using lethal force against him in the first place, and my training has always been 'two to the chest and one to the head,' so I just followed my training."

[Seth]

The UK, unfortunately, is no longer a civilized society, it's a society of moral cowards that has surrendered it's liberty to the thugs and thievesand no longer deserves any sympathy when its people are victimized, injured or killed by their masters...the armed criminals of their society.

The no longer civilised society you refer to has a homicide rate of 1.28 per 100,000. The homicide rate of an equally uncivilised society I live in, Australia, is 1.3 per 100,000. You are right to be proud to live in the civilised USA where the homicide rate has dropped (yes, it has dropped) to 5.0 per 100,000. I feel so ashamed of our moral cowardice.

I would say the very definition of a civilized country is one where people don't need to carry around deadly force, in fact if people feel the need to its probably closer to failed state

By that asinine definition, there is not, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be a "civilized" country on planet earth. This is true of course because every society has criminals in it, and therefore there has been, is, and will always be a necessity for people to carry around the tools of self-defense. Now, when someone invents the Star Trek "phaser" that is 100 percent effective in instantaneously rendering an attacker unconscious from any distance, regardless of what clothing they are wearing or what degree of drug-induced mania they are under, rain or shine, then, and only then will I give up my defensive handgun. Until then, the handgun is the most effective, and most certainly effective defensive tool in the continuum of force available to citizens for their personal defense, and the only thing that's better in a deadly-force situation than a handgun is a large-caliber semi-automatic (or fully automatic) battle rifle.

Since no absolutely effective non-lethal defensive weapon has yet been invented, the handgun is the best balance between non-lethal force (by mere display of a deadly weapon) and lethal force that has ever been invented, so I'll continue to pack, thanks.

[Seth]

I would rather live next to a child rapist than live next to someone who owned a firearm

I feel the same way about people who own Macs. It's a single criteria for evaluating another person that can be handled viscerally, no thinking required. Just say, "You own a Mac? You're an evil person!". Easy peasy.

I would rather live next to a child raping gun owner than live next to MrJonno. If someone can get criteria that spectacularly wrong, there is no telling what disastrous antics he may get up to.

Which is irrelevant as I wouldnt have a gun to do any disastrous antics

You can do way more damage with a glass jar full of gasoline and Tide washing-machine detergent (poor man's napalm) and a match than I can do with my handgun.

When do you propose to start advocating for a ban on gasoline and washing-machine detergent.

And then there's lawn fertilizer and diesel fuel...

[Hermit]

The UK, unfortunately, is no longer a civilized society, it's a society of moral cowards that has surrendered it's liberty to the thugs and thievesand no longer deserves any sympathy when its people are victimized, injured or killed by their masters...the armed criminals of their society.

The no longer civilised society you refer to has a homicide rate of 1.28 per 100,000. The homicide rate of an equally uncivilised society I live in, Australia, is 1.3 per 100,000. You are right to be proud to live in the civilised USA where the homicide rate has dropped (yes, it has dropped) to 5.0 per 100,000. I feel so ashamed of our moral cowardice.

I would say the very definition of a civilized country is one where people don't need to carry around deadly force, in fact if people feel the need to its probably closer to failed state

For the time being I am content to merely point out the threadbareness of Seth's post. He has provided no data at all to back any of it up, and what data are available seem to fly in the face of the crap he is spouting. As far as the hyperbole is concerned, it is all hat and no cattle. It's not the first time either. A few months ago he asked me for figures on crime. I provided them. His reply, and I quote it in full, went like this:

O look. He's skipped clean past it again.

[Cunt]

Just curious, but what is the rate in Canada? There are plenty of guns in plenty of hands here...


Oh, and what is 'homocide'? Does it include killing in self-defense? Suicide?