Gun Laws

[nigel d]

i thank you...

i shall leave my post as it is and see if anybody can remeber the song or the artist.....

[DeWinter]

"The Devil went down to c**t"? It's quite a funny song about a man versus spider contest, doesn't have a lot to do with this concrete scar on the face of North Linconshire, or it's gap-toothed workshy inhabitants. "Every day is like Sunday" would be more appropriate..

[stufarq]

Well, I don't make the mistake of considering Wiki as the font of all knowledge, but looking it up on there it claims it was never illegal to consume or purchase alcohol during prohibition. And I've never heard of anyone being arrested in Britain for being a smackhead. If so, Scunthorpe's town centre would be permanently empty and it's police cells perma-full. Dont we go for the clearly not working "harm reduction" policy instead?

Turns out you're right about Prohibition. I was thinking about people being arrested in speakeasies but they must have been charged with something associated with trading.

As for drugs, technically I don't think there's an offence of consumption, use or whatever but possession is an offence as is possession of drugs paraphernalia and, as you have to possess in order to use, that makes it impossible to use or consume drugs legally (apart from the usual caveats). There definitely isn't an offence of "being a smackhead" but if possession - now or in the past - can be proved along with intent then that's enough.

If you want something that is surprisingly legal even though other associated acts are illegal, try prostitution. You can be charged with soliciting, kerb crawling, pimping, running a brothel but not with prostitution.

[MadameButterfly]

Gun Laws?

We should destroy all guns cause they just lead to killing.
But to uphold the law we need guns. Or not?
In countries where guns are allowed people get killed.
Most countries where guns are allowed, deaths happen as accidents in own homes.
Or the defendant becomes the hunted down.
Against gunning down in nature, sorry still stand on the foot of allow nature to control nature.
In my eyes guns means killing and I'm against all killing & violence.
If I had to fight for my life I would do it with bear hands, feet, nails, teeth, just like nature indended it to be so..

If ever in my life I'm confronted with a gun, I sure hope that person pulls the trigger before I destroy them.

[moses]

Gun Laws?

We should destroy all guns cause they just lead to killing.
But to uphold the law we need guns. Or not?
In countries where guns are allowed people get killed.
Most countries where guns are allowed, deaths happen as accidents in own homes.
Or the defendant becomes the hunted down.
Against gunning down in nature, sorry still stand on the foot of allow nature to control nature.
In my eyes guns means killing and I'm against all killing & violence.
If I had to fight for my life I would do it with bear hands, feet, nails, teeth, just like nature indended it to be so..

If ever in my life I'm confronted with a gun, I sure hope that person pulls the trigger before I destroy them.

Enough said I think

[DeWinter]

As for drugs, technically I don't think there's an offence of consumption, use or whatever but possession is an offence as is possession of drugs paraphernalia and, as you have to possess in order to use, that makes it impossible to use or consume drugs legally (apart from the usual caveats). There definitely isn't an offence of "being a smackhead" but if possession - now or in the past - can be proved along with intent then that's enough.

If you want something that is surprisingly legal even though other associated acts are illegal, try prostitution. You can be charged with soliciting, kerb crawling, pimping, running a brothel but not with prostitution.

Well, accepted thinking is that a prostitute, or a drug addict isn't a criminal who should be punished, but a victim of circumstance who should be helped and it's the enablers who should feel the laws outraged majesty. So we end up with rather silly laws that make no sense. Make the drug and prostitution laws harsh as our gun laws, and you'd see those industries near decimated.

[markfiend]

Our drug laws are harsher than our gun laws IMO. You can get up to 10 years for supply of Class A IIRC. I doubt you'd get that much for illegally selling black-market firearms.

[stufarq]

Well, accepted thinking is that a prostitute, or a drug addict isn't a criminal who should be punished, but a victim of circumstance who should be helped and it's the enablers who should feel the laws outraged majesty. So we end up with rather silly laws that make no sense. Make the drug and prostitution laws harsh as our gun laws, and you'd see those industries near decimated.

That's not really how the law works. prostitution isn't illegal because it's unenforceable: if a married couple have sex and the man gives his wife a present, is that having sex for payment? So all the other laws are put into place to catch them instead. Most prostitutes have at least been arrested on some related charge and the law doesn't see them as victims.

Drug use isn't technically illegal because it's already covered by the laws on possession and paraphernalia. If you use drugs, you have to break one of those laws first and they're both easier to prove. A law against actual drug use is pretty much superflous. Again, the law doesn't see addicts as victims.

Some sectors of society might see both as victims although I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that this is prevalent accepted thinking. In many cases the police aren't interested in arresting prostitutes or users because they're more interested in getting bigger fish ie pimps or dealers - but that depends on their workload, local prioroties etc and the police certainly arrest both prostitutes and drug users on a frequent basis. And, of course, the police aren't the law. Once these people are in the legal system they'll be treated as criminals and not victims. The law doesn't discriminate.

Making the laws harsher hasn't decimated those industries but making them less harsh might clean them up. Making drugs legal in the same way as alcohol would bring costs down, increase quality and safety and reduce associated criminal activity. And experiments with designated prostitution zones in cities like Edinburgh have improved conditions for sex workers. Of course, the counter-argument is that you're only reducing crime by reducing the number of criminal offences and that the people best placed to monopolise the legal drugs and prostitution markets would be the organised criminals who were running them illegally in the first place. Plus there would be a huge amount of popular resistance.

[DeWinter]

That's not really how the law works. prostitution isn't illegal because it's unenforceable: if a married couple have sex and the man gives his wife a present, is that having sex for payment? So all the other laws are put into place to catch them instead. Most prostitutes have at least been arrested on some related charge and the law doesn't see them as victims.

Drug use isn't technically illegal because it's already covered by the laws on possession and paraphernalia. If you use drugs, you have to break one of those laws first and they're both easier to prove. A law against actual drug use is pretty much superflous. Again, the law doesn't see addicts as victims.

Some sectors of society might see both as victims although I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that this is prevalent accepted thinking. In many cases the police aren't interested in arresting prostitutes or users because they're more interested in getting bigger fish ie pimps or dealers - but that depends on their workload, local prioroties etc and the police certainly arrest both prostitutes and drug users on a frequent basis. And, of course, the police aren't the law. Once these people are in the legal system they'll be treated as criminals and not victims. The law doesn't discriminate.

Making the laws harsher hasn't decimated those industries but making them less harsh might clean them up. Making drugs legal in the same way as alcohol would bring costs down, increase quality and safety and reduce associated criminal activity. And experiments with designated prostitution zones in cities like Edinburgh have improved conditions for sex workers. Of course, the counter-argument is that you're only reducing crime by reducing the number of criminal offences and that the people best placed to monopolise the legal drugs and prostitution markets would be the organised criminals who were running them illegally in the first place. Plus there would be a huge amount of popular resistance.

A drug habit is considered a mitigating factor in criminal offences, usually burglary, mugging, shoplifting, etc, judging by my local paper. Everyone knows which street the prostitutes are on, and it's a stones throw from the police station.
I used to support legalising both prostitution and narcotics, but I'd have thought the most obvious argument against legalising narcotics would be the state of our towns and cities on a Friday/ Saturday night now the sale of alcohol is practically unregulated. It's one of those ideas that sounds good in theory but ignores human nature somewhat. Besides, most crime is committed by addicts who can't afford their next fix, so unless you're planning to provide them with a permanent supply of cash for their habit, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how it'll stop any of the social problems associated. As for prostitution, Amsterdam used to be held up as a shining example, but even they're now claiming it's a bad idea and has turned the city into Europe's centre for people trafficking and pedophile rings. Or closer to home, the trafficked Balkan women in London's red-light district, and I'm willing to bet Edinburgh's.
To loosely tie my rambles into the thread's point, no-one would suggest the best way to put those selling illegal firearms in Britain out of business would be to legalise them altogether. It'd arguably work, but the consequences would be a disaster.

[markfiend]

Part of the legalisation argument is that prohibition keeps prices high by restricting supply. So legalisation would mean that users would be able to get their fix more cheaply. There are surely far more problem drinkers in the UK than smack-heads, but I don't think that much crime is committed by alcoholics feeding their addiction. The fact is that drug prohibition is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

And while there are problems associated with alcohol use, and likely would be problems associated with legalised drug use, I don't see why a ban is justified based on the behaviour of some users.

It's like keeping the whole class back after school because one person was noisy. I don't know how anyone can justify punishing everyone for the transgressions of a minority.

[DerekR]

If I had to fight for my life I would do it with bear hands

Bet the bear's not too happy about that

[DeWinter]

Part of the legalisation argument is that prohibition keeps prices high by restricting supply. So legalisation would mean that users would be able to get their fix more cheaply. There are surely far more problem drinkers in the UK than smack-heads, but I don't think that much crime is committed by alcoholics feeding their addiction. The fact is that drug prohibition is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

And while there are problems associated with alcohol use, and likely would be problems associated with legalised drug use, I don't see why a ban is justified based on the behaviour of some users.

It's like keeping the whole class back after school because one person was noisy. I don't know how anyone can justify punishing everyone for the transgressions of a minority.

I'm not sure you can fix the price cheap enough. The high lasts in some cases 15 minutes for a down period of 8 hours. People I know unemployed can't afford legal cigarettes, so I don't see how a heroin user will be able to afford his fix and avoid withdrawal symptoms, which is why I assume they get so desperate and do some of the things they do for the money. Can't imagine anyone will be employing someone with such a destabilising habit for long. Besides legal drugs will soon be competing with cheaper illegal versions containing God knows what.
For me drug legalisation is a cause espoused by the middle-class who dabble in it, but don't have to live where it's being dealt and the social consequences. I'm willing to bet if you ask anyone who lives in an area with a strong drug presence if it should be legalised, they'll tell you no. Because they deal every day with a large number of the drug-addicted in their midst.

[stufarq]

A drug habit is considered a mitigating factor in criminal offences, usually burglary, mugging, shoplifting, etc, judging by my local paper.

Only when it comes to sentencing and if the judge is sympathetic and then it would usually involve a commitment to some form of rehab. But that's a far cry from saying that the law doesn't treat drug users as criminals.

Everyone knows which street the prostitutes are on, and it's a stones throw from the police station.

As I said before, whether or not the police choose to arrest is an entirely different matter to how the law treats them and how the judicial system will treat them if charged. On the whole, prostitutes don't stay in the cells very long but that's more down to practicality than sympathy.

Bearing in mind the original point of this discussion, regardless of individuals' or even society's feelings, both drug users and prostitutes are breaking several laws even if they're not necessarily the ones that people would expect.

[MadameButterfly]

If I had to fight for my life I would do it with bear hands

Bet the bear's not too happy about that

oh dear! no i promise no bears were hurt during my post!

[EvilBastard]

If I had to fight for my life I would do it with bear hands

Bet the bear's not too happy about that

oh dear! no i promise no bears were hurt during my post!

And what if the bears were armed? The 2nd Amendment enshrines the right to arm bears (or something). Never understood that one, but I figured that it was probably something framed by Teddy Roosevelt who wanted to give them a sporting chance.

We should destroy all guns cause they just lead to killing.
But to uphold the law we need guns. Or not?
In countries where guns are allowed people get killed.
Most countries where guns are allowed, deaths happen as accidents in own homes.
Or the defendant becomes the hunted down.
Against gunning down in nature, sorry still stand on the foot of allow nature to control nature.
In my eyes guns means killing and I'm against all killing & violence.
If I had to fight for my life I would do it with bear hands, feet, nails, teeth, just like nature indended it to be so..

If ever in my life I'm confronted with a gun, I sure hope that person pulls the trigger before I destroy them.

We don't need guns to uphold the law, per se - for many years Britain's police force was unarmed (except under the most extreme circumstances) - there is an argument to support the view that Britain did not have the same level of armed crime that other countries suffered because criminals knew that it was very unlikely that they would encounter an armed policeman. Even now regular coppers in the UK don't carry, but are able to call on the services of an armed response unit when it is necessary.
True, where guns are permitted, people are killed. But people are also killed where guns aren't permitted. What we don't seem to be able to get our heads around is the notion that criminals who carry guns with the intent of taking life don't give a damn that the guns are illegal - if anything it plays into their hands: they know that decent law-abiding citizens aren't likely to be armed, so the criminal has an immiediate advantage.
I am reminded of an interview with a Swiss man, shortly after Dunblane. Switzerland has the highest per capita rate of civilian gun ownership, on account of the way in which their military is organised. Every man of serving age must, by law, keep a service weapon and ammunition in his home. The man was asked why, with so many guns so accessible to so many people, Switzerland had one of the lowest rates of armed violence. He looked at the interviewer aghast: "But, if we were being irresponsible with our guns, our neighbours would call the police!" He seemed surprised that anyone would ask the question - "what kind of country do you live in where people wouldn't call the cops if they saw something bad happening?"
People often point to the US as a gun culture, but they fail to differentiate between the laws that different states have on the books. New York City has a horrendous level of armed violence - truly dreadful. Yet it is just about impossible to get a handgun legally there. If you've ever had so much as a traffic ticket you can forget about it. from this we can conclude that the violent crime in NYC is the result of illegal handguns - banning them altogether won't make any difference.
Compare with Arizona where anyone who is a legal resident of the state, is over 21, and doesn't have a criminal conviction can walk into any gun store, show a state-issued ID, and buy any weapon they choose. We're not just talking handguns here - anything up to and including .50 calibre machine guns. Moreover, you can walk down the street carrying it (so long as it's in plain sight), and if you do an 8-hour CCW course you can carry it concealed. Sure, there are places where you're not allowed to be carrying (post offices, schools, polling stations, places that serve alcohol), but owning and carrying is no problem. It is estimated that 85% of vehicles in the Phoenix metro area are carrying a gun - cab drivers, delivery drivers, soccer moms - in spite of this, or perhaps because of it, there is almost no road-rage and the incidence of violent crime is lower there than in NYC.
This may also be the result of the state's "21-foot law" - if an assailant is within 21' of you, and you are in fear for your life, you are entitled to shoot him. And so long as you shoot to kill (why would you shoot to maim if your life was threatened?) then the courts generally come down on your side. Would you break into someone's home or vehicle if you knew that there was a better than average chance that you'll come face to face with someone with a gun, and who knows how to use it?
Different states have different laws - the one that comes into play here is the Castle Doctrine. This says that you have the legal right to remain in and defend your home when an intruder enters, and includes the option to use deadly force. Contrast this with NYC's Duty-to-Retreat law, which says that if an assailant enters your home you have the duty to find any means possible to leave the premises.
Do guns kill people? Absolutely they do. So do cars, cigarettes, and alcohol. None of them, however, kill of their own volition - they all require human intervention. Will banning guns (or cars, cigarettes, or alcohol) prevent criminals from employing them to commit crime? No.
Instead of knee-jerk legislation we need to have a measured, sensible, reasoned debate about the problem.

[moses]

We don't need guns to uphold the law, per se - for many years Britain's police force was unarmed (except under the most extreme circumstances) - there is an argument to support the view that Britain did not have the same level of armed crime that other countries suffered because criminals knew that it was very unlikely that they would encounter an armed policeman. Even now regular coppers in the UK don't carry, but are able to call on the services of an armed response unit when it is necessary.
True, where guns are permitted, people are killed. But people are also killed where guns aren't permitted. What we don't seem to be able to get our heads around is the notion that criminals who carry guns with the intent of taking life don't give a damn that the guns are illegal - if anything it plays into their hands: they know that decent law-abiding citizens aren't likely to be armed, so the criminal has an immiediate advantage.
I am reminded of an interview with a Swiss man, shortly after Dunblane. Switzerland has the highest per capita rate of civilian gun ownership, on account of the way in which their military is organised. Every man of serving age must, by law, keep a service weapon and ammunition in his home. The man was asked why, with so many guns so accessible to so many people, Switzerland had one of the lowest rates of armed violence. He looked at the interviewer aghast: "But, if we were being irresponsible with our guns, our neighbours would call the police!" He seemed surprised that anyone would ask the question - "what kind of country do you live in where people wouldn't call the cops if they saw something bad happening?"
People often point to the US as a gun culture, but they fail to differentiate between the laws that different states have on the books. New York City has a horrendous level of armed violence - truly dreadful. Yet it is just about impossible to get a handgun legally there. If you've ever had so much as a traffic ticket you can forget about it. from this we can conclude that the violent crime in NYC is the result of illegal handguns - banning them altogether won't make any difference.
Compare with Arizona where anyone who is a legal resident of the state, is over 21, and doesn't have a criminal conviction can walk into any gun store, show a state-issued ID, and buy any weapon they choose. We're not just talking handguns here - anything up to and including .50 calibre machine guns. Moreover, you can walk down the street carrying it (so long as it's in plain sight), and if you do an 8-hour CCW course you can carry it concealed. Sure, there are places where you're not allowed to be carrying (post offices, schools, polling stations, places that serve alcohol), but owning and carrying is no problem. It is estimated that 85% of vehicles in the Phoenix metro area are carrying a gun - cab drivers, delivery drivers, soccer moms - in spite of this, or perhaps because of it, there is almost no road-rage and the incidence of violent crime is lower there than in NYC.
This may also be the result of the state's "21-foot law" - if an assailant is within 21' of you, and you are in fear for your life, you are entitled to shoot him. And so long as you shoot to kill (why would you shoot to maim if your life was threatened?) then the courts generally come down on your side. Would you break into someone's home or vehicle if you knew that there was a better than average chance that you'll come face to face with someone with a gun, and who knows how to use it?
Different states have different laws - the one that comes into play here is the Castle Doctrine. This says that you have the legal right to remain in and defend your home when an intruder enters, and includes the option to use deadly force. Contrast this with NYC's Duty-to-Retreat law, which says that if an assailant enters your home you have the duty to find any means possible to leave the premises.
Do guns kill people? Absolutely they do. So do cars, cigarettes, and alcohol. None of them, however, kill of their own volition - they all require human intervention. Will banning guns (or cars, cigarettes, or alcohol) prevent criminals from employing them to commit crime? No.
Instead of knee-jerk legislation we need to have a measured, sensible, reasoned debate about the problem.

Be quiet you fool.

[markfiend]

Be quiet you fool.

Was that really called for?

[streamline]

Contrast this with NYC's Duty-to-Retreat law, which says that if an assailant enters your home you have the duty to find any means possible to leave the premises.

For real??

So a burglar in NYC has carte blanche to go into any house and the occupants have to leave?

[moses]

Be quiet you fool.

Was that really called for?

I was being flippant. Sorry

[markfiend]

Oh. My bad, I didn't realise.

No harm done.

[EvilBastard]

Contrast this with NYC's Duty-to-Retreat law, which says that if an assailant enters your home you have the duty to find any means possible to leave the premises.

For real??

So a burglar in NYC has carte blanche to go into any house and the occupants have to leave?

For real - there have been recent cases where the burglar sued after the homeowner battered the crap out of him, and he won.
Some other oddness: a burglar climbs over your back fence in the middle of the night, falls into your swimming pool in the dark, and drowns. His family will sue you - and win. You are responsible for making sure that your pool is fenced off.
He trips over your patio chairs (in the dark) and breaks his leg. He will sue you - and win. As a homeowner or renter you need liability coverage in the event that someone injures themselves on your property. Whether they were there at your invitation or in the commission of a crime makes no difference.
You wake up to discover a burglar in your house. He runs. You chase him into the back yard, rugby tackle him, he goes to the ground and breaks his wrist as he puts his hands out to break his fall. He sues you - and wins. Once he was outside your home (the physical building, not off your property) you had no legal right to pursue him. His injury is the result of your pursuit - you're liable.
The one I really like is this: a couple of months ago someone discovered a burglar in their home. The homeowner grabbed the intruder, put a pillow-case over his head, grabbed his dressing-gown cord and tied his hands behind his back. Left him sitting on the floor while he called the cops. Cops came, charged the intruder, who then pressed charges for unlawful imprisonment against the homeowner. The cops gave the intruder a desk ticket (you need to show up to court at a specified date and time to answer the charge), but took the homeowner into custody to await trial.
Why? Because the intruder didn't have stolen property in his possession, so at the time the cops came his only offence was trespass. The homeowner was clearly in commission of the crime of unlawful imprisonment - the cops found the intruder restrained, and had the recording of the homeowner on the phone call saying "I've tied him up."
Result - homeowner gets 12 months suspended (and a criminal record to boot), intruder gets $100 fine.

[EvilBastard]

Contrast this with Castle Doctrine - if the intruder is inside your home (not just on your property) you are entitled to use deadly force. And every lawyer in Arizona will tell you this: if the intruder falls in such a way that he has any part of his person outside your home, then you should move the offending body part so that his entire person is in the building before you call the cops. So wait until he's about 10' through the front door before you pull the trigger - the force of the round hitting him is going to push him back a couple of feet.

If you only wing him, and he limps out of your front door, you pursue him and while he's still on your property you blow his head off, you're in the wrong.

[stufarq]

For real - there have been recent cases where the burglar sued after the homeowner battered the crap out of him, and he won.

There have been similar cases in the UK.

[MadameButterfly]

EB ~ I've got a debate for your answer that I'll give tomorrow, today is short day and too tipsy to answer in orderly manner, but got one or two for ya!

[EvilBastard]

For real - there have been recent cases where the burglar sued after the homeowner battered the crap out of him, and he won.

There have been similar cases in the UK.

Wasn't there a case recently? But the battering in question happened off the premises - they chased the villain down the street and tw@tted the cr@p out of him?