It happened in England, could it happen here?

[celtic_crippler]

Checked it on snopes....all good. I recieved this tid-bit from a gun-totin' buddy of mine. Enjoy the read and please feel free to add your $0.02 (or equivilant in pounds if it applies LOL)



You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.


Sound familiar?

I'm not a big gun buff....but I like the ones I have and wouldn't tolerate anyone trying to take them ....or anyone breaking into my house for that matter. I'd probably had done the same thing....unless I just wanted a good kenpo work-out. LOL

[Bob Hubbard]

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70670

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Anyone entering my home unauthorized will be met with force, be it gun, axe, blade, stick, or the pro wraslers favorite, the folded chair. Any state that makes it a crime for it's citizens to defend themselves and their property and rewards the criminals is, well, pretty screwed up in my opinion.

[myusername]

Sorry Celtic Crippler but being born and bred in Norwich, Norfolk, England I know full well that there is more to this story than meets the eye. The Sun, News of the World and Daily Telegraph all backed his cause so not all of the press were criticising his actions and there was much national debate on the rights and wrongs of this case.

Tony Martin shot a 16 year old burglar in the back as he was fleeing through a window. He then went and shot the other burglar in the leg as he was running from the property. Tony Martin is far from a hero, Tony Martin left his property with the dying teenager bleeding to death. Tony Martin did not call an ambulance and did not call the police until the following day. Mr Martin has admitted all of this himself and has shown no remorse.

I would say that Tony Martin is a victim but more a victim of the mental health services. There were numerous incidents in Tony Martins life that should have raised alarm bells. He had shot out the windows of his brother's house in a dispute over property. He had also been involved in another incident with a shotgun with a neighbour. Mr Martin had also shot at a previous trespasser who was scrumping for apples on his property who was again fleeing in the opposite direction when the shot was fired. It was this incident that led to his shotgun licence being revoked.

Mr Martin had a habit of behaving bizarrely in local meetings making threats and racist remarks about the travelling community and making it known that he would like to round them all up in a field surrounded by barbed wire and machine gun them. His self care was poor and he had limited skills for daily living. He attended every day of his court case with a different cuddly teddy bear. He was later diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder with the mental age of 10 years old. This diagnosis was crucial in getting his conviction of murder reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. If Tony Martin had been helped earlier by the mental health services may be this awful event need not have happened.

Whether the theives should have been there or not is not the issue. The issue is were his actions self defence or murder? At the end of the day it was not some heroic action of self defence he just shot a boy in the back who was climbing out his window and as such was no threat to his life and then left him for dead. Nobody has ever claimed that the thieves were choir boys or defended their actions. All the court ruled on was did Tony Martin act in self defence. I believe they ruled correctly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2283167.stm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/tony-martin-the-harmless-eccentric-whose-obsession-made-him-a-killer-721200.html

[Deaf Smith]

Castle Doctrine in Texas....

You break into someones house they can turn their shotgun, AK-47, M60, flame thrower, etc... on you and not only cause your dismiss, without being charged with a crime, but your family can't sue.

Home invasions do happen in Texas. Most of them go for eldery people that from casing the place they know won't fight back. But now and then they make a mistake and hit a home owner who can and does fight back. Usually with the result the invaders have to be taken out feet first.

I love the 'Don't Mess With Texas' bumper sticker!

Deaf

[Bob Hubbard]

Thanks for the additional background. It fleshes things out more.

I still though, think anyone breaking into a home deserves nothing but a face full of buckshot and the "cold steel" as they say. Easy way to avoid it. Don't break in to houses.

[MA-Caver]

Sometimes I go out at night to have a "last cigarette before going to bed" and sometimes just plain forget to lock the door. Next day my (step) mum is in my face saying how dangerous it was for me to do that how someone could just walk in and kill every one... I hang my head appropriately and sigh and say I'm sorry and try to do better..

Thing is I know that now-a-days a very large percentage of home break ins occur during the daylight hours (everyone is supposed to be at work... especially the neighbors who won't hear anything). The elderly are by and large the easiest targets... but they (my parents) are NOT alone and I've taken pains to make sure this is known by being visable at various hours of the day outside. True, this won't help if I'm gone looking for a job or working or whatever but they won't know that will they... unless they see my Jeep is missing from the back.

I will do whatever it takes to repel any invaders into this home. I hope I never have to but I am prepared mentally to do so. Whatever the consequences will be afterwards I'm not wholly sure or even caring at this point. There's going to be some hurting or dead burglars when the police show up.

[Empty Hands]

I still though, think anyone breaking into a home deserves nothing but a face full of buckshot and the "cold steel" as they say. Easy way to avoid it. Don't break in to houses.

Even if they are fleeing? No lives are in danger at that point, at worst, only property is.

[Bob Hubbard]

If they are fleeing, then they wouldn't get a face full of buckshot. An ass full maybe.... ;)

In parts of the US, if the criminal breaking into your home injures himself, he can sue you for damages, and can win the case. I read of a case where the jacknape fell through a skylight and won his suit against the home owner.

Part of why moving to Texas appeals to me over staying in New York is Texas's Castle Doctrine policy. NY doesn't feel I have a right to protect myself or my property against criminals, and should be punished if I make it hard on the poor buggers.

[Deaf Smith]

Empty Hands,

Neither Bob nor I said anything about fleeing. The Castle Doctrine applies ONLY to the 'Castle', not outside. The nice thing about the Castle Doctrine is the cops and court HAVE to presume you were in fear of your life when the attackers broke in.

As for fleeing, well they have better say, "Excuse me, I'm fleeing" as they run. One does not know if, while they are in your house, weither they are 'fleeing' or running to cover, or running to take a house member hostage...

Now outside there are other laws that apply in Texas (if you wonder how I know I teach CHL classes (Concealed Handgun License) for the State of Texas. Part of the 10 hours of lecture is on the laws.)

Outside the house we have a 'Stand Your Ground' law (again in Texas, NOT every state.) If you are a place were it is legal for you to be, and you did not provoke the fight, then you can use force or deadly force (if attacked with deadly force) to stop the attack.

A) that does not mean you can run after them once they break contact.
B) you can still be sued (does not mean sucessfuly, just sued) by the person you had the fight with or their relatives (wrongfull death.)
C) you can still bug out if you want!

Also as part of the Castle Doctrine you can repeal carjackers. But civil remedies (like B above) can still be pressed in the case of carjackers.

Oh, and one more thing. Here in Texas you can keep a illegal knife, club, or handgun in your car WITHOUT a permit to carry (CHL). The weapon has to be concealed. That 'illegal knife' includes spear, sword, bowie knife, dagger, dirk, and any knife with a blade more than 5.5 inches.! Yes you can keep a Hattori Hanzo sword in your car!

Deaf

[Tez3]

Sorry Celtic Crippler but being born and bred in Norwich, Norfolk, England I know full well that there is more to this story than meets the eye. The Sun, News of the World and Daily Telegraph all backed his cause so not all of the press were criticising his actions and there was much national debate on the rights and wrongs of this case.

Tony Martin shot a 16 year old burglar in the back as he was fleeing through a window. He then went and shot the other burglar in the leg as he was running from the property. Tony Martin is far from a hero, Tony Martin left his property with the dying teenager bleeding to death. Tony Martin did not call an ambulance and did not call the police until the following day. Mr Martin has admitted all of this himself and has shown no remorse.

I would say that Tony Martin is a victim but more a victim of the mental health services. There were numerous incidents in Tony Martins life that should have raised alarm bells. He had shot out the windows of his brother's house in a dispute over property. He had also been involved in another incident with a shotgun with a neighbour. Mr Martin had also shot at a previous trespasser who was scrumping for apples on his property who was again fleeing in the opposite direction when the shot was fired. It was this incident that led to his shotgun licence being revoked.

Mr Martin had a habit of behaving bizarrely in local meetings making threats and racist remarks about the travelling community and making it known that he would like to round them all up in a field surrounded by barbed wire and machine gun them. His self care was poor and he had limited skills for daily living. He attended every day of his court case with a different cuddly teddy bear. He was later diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder with the mental age of 10 years old. This diagnosis was crucial in getting his conviction of murder reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. If Tony Martin had been helped earlier by the mental health services may be this awful event need not have happened.

Whether the theives should have been there or not is not the issue. The issue is were his actions self defence or murder? At the end of the day it was not some heroic action of self defence he just shot a boy in the back who was climbing out his window and as such was no threat to his life and then left him for dead. Nobody has ever claimed that the thieves were choir boys or defended their actions. All the court ruled on was did Tony Martin act in self defence. I believe they ruled correctly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2283167.stm

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/tony-martin-the-harmless-eccentric-whose-obsession-made-him-a-killer-721200.html


This is correct! I'm rather tired of people quoting this case to say we should be armed. It's also the only case where someone has been tried for 'defending' himself as all other cases have rightly not been prosecuted.
The original OP here I'm afraid is well off in the truth of the matter.

[myusername]

This is correct! I'm rather tired of people quoting this case to say we should be armed. It's also the only case where someone has been tried for 'defending' himself as all other cases have rightly not been prosecuted.
The original OP here I'm afraid is well off in the truth of the matter.

Quite so! I find it particularly irritating as our gun laws are pretty much irrelevant to this case any way. Most farmers and people in rural areas of the UK actually have a gun licence for shooting and hunting. The fact that Tony Martin had his licence revoked and the shotgun was unlicenced was a minor issue, though a charge was obviously added. It is a minor issue because even if he still had his gun licence he would still have been charged with murder for shooting somebody in the back whilst they were attempting to escape out of the window and then not calling an ambulance or even the police until the following morning. As far as I am concerned gun control has no relevance to this tragic case.

As for the notion that the theives were somehow portrayed by our media as folk hero's similar to Robin Hood! That is complete nonsense. In fact it is the opposite, Tony Martin became a bit of folk hero in some sections of the media and had a tremendous amount of support from a large proportion of the British public. Mostly from people not aware of the full facts I may add. Seeing this story I know fairly well so skillfully manipulated by the pro-gun lobby forces me to doubt any of their "facts."

[Tez3]

Quite so! I find it particularly irritating as our gun laws are pretty much irrelevant to this case any way. Most farmers and people in rural areas of the UK actually have a gun licence for shooting and hunting. The fact that Tony Martin had his licence revoked and the shotgun was unlicenced was a minor issue, though a charge was obviously added. It is a minor issue because even if he still had his gun licence he would still have been charged with murder for shooting somebody in the back whilst they were attempting to escape out of the window and then not calling an ambulance or even the police until the following morning. As far as I am concerned gun control has no relevance to this tragic case.

As for the notion that the theives were somehow portrayed by our media as folk hero's similar to Robin Hood! That is complete nonsense. In fact it is the opposite, Tony Martin became a bit of folk hero in some sections of the media and had a tremendous amount of support from a large proportion of the British public. Mostly from people not aware of the full facts I may add. Seeing this story I know fairly well so skillfully manipulated by the pro-gun lobby forces me to doubt any of their "facts."


I odn't know anyone that had any sympathy for the thieves and most who were unaware of the facts and abetted by the media thought Martin was the hero, it wasn't until after the trial that the facts became known. Even then the sympathy was for Martin.
As Myusername said and I've said before most of us in the country have shotguns. However Martin used a pump action shotgun to kill the 16 year old intruder, not a weapon commonly used for shooting game! The surviving thieves were convicted and imprisoned, the fact they were gypsies complicates the case as Martin hated gypsies.

From The Scotsman newspaper on Tony Martin
He is a would-be vigilante who lived in isolation and squalor in Bleak House, a farm he had inherited from his uncle, Andrew Fountaine, a founder of the National Front.

This Martin is a paranoid figure who harbours a hatred of gypsies, contempt for the police and an illegal pump-action shotgun. He is a man who drove around at night with his headlights off looking for intruders. He had fired a gun in anger on several occasions before, once through his brother’s window. After a previous burglary, Martin had booby-trapped his house, removing stairs from the staircase, and had constructed barricades.

He discharged his illegal weapon from a range of ten feet. No warning shot was fired, and the teenager was hit three times, once in the back. Martin did not telephone police, has expressed no remorse for the killing and now plans to write a book.


National Front.
http://www.natfront.com/

I've pointed this out before on MT and it's been reiterated here by Myusername, this has nothing to do with gun control or gun rights. People should acquaint themselves with the facts before telling us we all need guns to defend ourselves. We don't have our heads in the sand, we know whats going on in our country but misinformation, propaganda and bias does nothing but make us distrust those who tell us we need to be armed.

[Grenadier]

However Martin used a pump action shotgun to kill the 16 year old intruder, not a weapon commonly used for shooting game!

That doesn't have much impact when discussing things in the USA. Slide action shotguns are commonly used for shooting game over here. The Remington 870 is the most popular shotgun in the USA, and there are many folks who use it for hunting a wide variety of game, from birds to deer.




We don't have our heads in the sand, we know whats going on in our country but misinformation, propaganda and bias does nothing but make us distrust those who tell us we need to be armed.

Misinformation, propaganda, and bias occur in all areas of the world. For that matter, the spreading of distrust also occurs all over the world. Too many people will simply believe that which is presented to them by the media.

The media in the US is especially guilty of this. I can still remember the commercials airing in Missouri, when the concealed handgun carry permit bill (Prop B) was put forth for a public vote. The sheer amount of garbage spewed by the anti-gun side was ludicrous.

They would air commercials showing some gangbanger firing a fully automatic UZI submachine gun (not allowed), showing mentally unstable people firing full auto AK-47 rifles, etc., even though the bill had absolutely nothing to do with fully automatic weaponry, Class III or not, and especially had nothing to do with criminals having firearms. Under that proposed bill, those seeking permits would have to jump through a silly number of hoops to obtain a permit.

With all of those commercials airing, and the media essentially refusing to run any pro-gun commercials, it's no wonder that Prop B was narrowly defeated. People were fed misinformation, and believed what they were told.

I find it funny, though, because in the end, the minor success that the anti-gunners had in defeating Proposition B of 1998, ended up backfiring on them. A few years later, the Missouri congress put forth a much more friendly concealed carry bill, and passed it into law, overriding the veto of the corrupt governor, Robert Holden.

[Bob Hubbard]

There's 3 issues here at least to me.

1- Gun laws. Your country, your laws, your problems, your solutions. Not mine. I may disagree with them, but I don't have the full story, don't live there, and unfortunately have never visited even (something I hope to do before I'm 50).

2- The particulars of this case. Getting more intel is much appreciated.

3- The basics of this case and gun laws and criminal laws in the US. My reply was to that mostly.

[Tez3]

We have small game here, grouse, pheasant, pigeon, rabbit, hares so use over and under or side by side shotguns. Deer is only shot by rich people in Scotland and rifles are used.
(A Purdey shotgun is the dream weapon here, only costs thousands of pounds and has a long waiting list. do look and drool lol, note the history as well they first opened in 1814.
http://www.purdey.com/ )

Each country has it's own problems and these have to bee sorted out by the citizens, the solutions are going to be different in every case.
I don't think it's so much we are anti gun over here, it's just not a major subject for discussion. It certainly doesn't come up as an election issue but then neither does abortion or capital punishment. It seems to bother others more than it does us. Theres plenty of people pro guns here but again no one makes a big issue of it.

[myusername]

Misinformation, propaganda, and bias occur in all areas of the world. For that matter, the spreading of distrust also occurs all over the world. Too many people will simply believe that which is presented to them by the media.

The media in the US is especially guilty of this. I can still remember the commercials airing in Missouri, when the concealed handgun carry permit bill (Prop B) was put forth for a public vote. The sheer amount of garbage spewed by the anti-gun side was ludicrous.

They would air commercials showing some gangbanger firing a fully automatic UZI submachine gun (not allowed), showing mentally unstable people firing full auto AK-47 rifles, etc., even though the bill had absolutely nothing to do with fully automatic weaponry, Class III or not, and especially had nothing to do with criminals having firearms. Under that proposed bill, those seeking permits would have to jump through a silly number of hoops to obtain a permit.

With all of those commercials airing, and the media essentially refusing to run any pro-gun commercials, it's no wonder that Prop B was narrowly defeated. People were fed misinformation, and believed what they were told.

It appears from what you are saying that there is a hell of a lot of dishonesty and manipulation of the facts on both sides then. The problem is that when campaigners are presenting an argument if they surround their genuine facts with absolute crap it tends to backfire in the end because no one knows what or who to believe. Therefore, the anti-gun movement or pro-gun lobby ends up not changing anyones mind at all but just reinforcing the minds of those who would have supported them anyway. Nothing gets sorted out and everyone just looks like a bunch of liars.

Someone sent the OP that mis-information for the purposes of spreading a message. Unfortunately, as the story bears no relation to the actual facts and the only message that has got through to me is "Pro-gunners know how to twist a story don't they!" I honestly did not recognise the case until the name Tony Martin was mentioned as it had so little truth in it. If the anti-gun brigade are spreading mis-information and lies then the most effective way to combat this is by sticking to the facts. Don't start lying as well or it massively clouds the issue and no one is any the wiser.

[Tez3]

It appears from what you are saying that there is a hell of a lot of dishonesty and manipulation of the facts on both sides then. The problem is that when campaigners are presenting an argument if they surround their genuine facts with absolute crap it tends to backfire in the end because no one knows what or who to believe. Therefore, the anti-gun movement or pro-gun lobby ends up not changing anyones mind at all but just reinforcing the minds of those who would have supported them anyway. Nothing gets sorted out and everyone just looks like a bunch of liars.

Someone sent the OP that mis-information for the purposes of spreading a message. Unfortunately, as the story bears no relation to the actual facts and the only message that has got through to me is "Pro-gunners know how to twist a story don't they!" I honestly did not recognise the case until the name Tony Martin was mentioned as it had so little truth in it. If the anti-gun brigade are spreading mis-information and lies then the most effective way to combat this is by sticking to the facts. Don't start lying as well or it massively clouds the issue and no one is any the wiser.


Hurrah! The truth! this is the latest in a line of posts by non British people determined to show us the error of our ways, I do understand that it's not the view held by most on MT but it's getting monotonous and insulting. I've lost track of how many now I've posted corrections to.
I'm not saying we should ban the subject of guns or weapons here but I would ask that they are posted with out bias or an agenda. All the posts are going the same way.



I asked my other half about using a pump action shot gun out hunting, he looked at me appalled. Dear god he said, there no sport in that, it's no bloody weapon for a gentleman! that's what he said I swear.

[Bob Hubbard]

So.....you're saying that my desire to squirrel hunt with an M-60 loaded with explosive rounds might really tweak the noses of the boys at the Oxford Squirrel and Duck society? ;)

[myusername]

So.....you're saying that my desire to squirrel hunt with an M-60 loaded with explosive rounds might really tweak the noses of the boys at the Oxford Squirrel and Duck society? ;)

LOL! Don't wait until you are 50! Come and visit England now and do the above!

[Grenadier]

It appears from what you are saying that there is a hell of a lot of dishonesty and manipulation of the facts on both sides then.

In the USA? More so on the anti-gun side.

If you look at the anti-gun crowd's arguments, they're usually based on one of the following:

1) Arthur Kellerman's laugher of a study.

2) Michael Bellisilles sham of a study, where he falsifies data.

3) Emotional arguments (if it saves one child's life...)

4) Attempting to associate law-abiding firearms owners in the same crowd as criminals.


If you look at advertisements put forth by the Brady Campaign, you'll see that virtually all of them that aren't solely for the purpose of endorsing a political candidate, are going to use one or more of the above methods. For example, the Prop B advertisements, the slew of ads they ran in Ohio a few years ago, the New Mexico campaign, etc.

Each of those ads showed criminals using firearms, and also using firearms that weren't even relevant to the matters at hand. They would claim that there would be bloodbaths in the streets when law-abiding civilians carry firearms, even though the characters portrayed in the ads were hardly of the law-abiding type.

To make things worse, the media is mostly anti-gun, and is quite guilty in spreading such misinformation.


On the other hand...

If you look at the pro-gun arguments, you will find that most of them are backed up by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, whose authenticity isn't nearly as much in question as the anti-gun sources.

Sure, there are several pro-gunners who are horribly flawed, use items that were proven wrong (the Hitler quote is probably the worst of them all), but in the end, the majority of pro-gun arguments have factual backing from a much more reliable source than those two characters at Emory University.




The problem is that when campaigners are presenting an argument if they surround their genuine facts with absolute crap it tends to backfire in the end because no one knows what or who to believe.

This is where I whole-heartedly agree. The problem, though, is when a lie is believable, and repeated enough, that people begin to adopt it as the truth.




Therefore, the anti-gun movement or pro-gun lobby ends up not changing anyones mind at all but just reinforcing the minds of those who would have supported them anyway. Nothing gets sorted out and everyone just looks like a bunch of liars.


You'd be surprised at how many people leave the anti-gun cause, once they open their minds, and take a look at the FBI UCR.

Even more of them leave once I've introduced them to recreational shooting. :)

[Bob Hubbard]

LOL! Don't wait until you are 50! Come and visit England now and do the above!
Soon as I can afford it. I want to do a photo tour of the whole country. :)


Now, far be it for me to tell the people of a soverign nation what to do. (Unless it's California, but that's another discussion, lol).

I will ask though, what is your and Tez's reply to this statement? The data's a bit older from the late 90's, and I don't have any data to support/negate it. Site I'm pulling from I've no idea of it's credibility at the moment. Came up on a Google search.


The Rise in British Crime and Violence

Despite the talking heads on the evening news implying otherwise, violent crime is steadily coming down in American cities, despite the fact there are more guns in America than ever before (i.e., refuting the simplistic public health view of "more guns, more crime"[5]) and record numbers of citizens carrying permits for concealed firearms. Only Switzerland, where virtually every home houses a fully automatic firearm and every adult male citizen is armed and expected to participate in the national polity as well as local self-government, can boost a longer-lived but just as stable a republic as ours. To make matters worse for British citizen disarmament, despite their draconian gun control laws and their loss of civil liberties, crime has steadily increased in Britain in the last several years: "Britons are chagrined by the findings of a U.S. Department of Justice study that says a person is nearly twice as likely to be robbed, assaulted or have a vehicle stolen in Britain as in the United States. The Trans-Atlantic cousins can take comfort in the fact that the United States remains far ahead of Britain in violent crimes, including murder and rape, although the gap is narrowing there as well."(6)

Additionally, the study revealed, "In 1995, the last year for which complete statistics were available for both countries, there were 20 assaults per 1,000 people or households in England and Wales but only 8.8 in the United States."(4) While the U.S. still leads in the most violent crimes, rates for serious crimes such as murder are coming down relative to Great Britain. In fact, the Associated Press recently reported that U.S. murder rates have reached a 30-year low and "serious crimes reported by police declined for the sixth straight year in 1997."(7)

During this period of the study which was conducted by a Cambridge University professor and a statistician from the U.S. Department of Justice and reported in The Washington Times, several types of crimes rose steadily in Britain while declining in America. For example, "Robberies rose 81 percent in England and Wales but fell to 28 percent in the United States. Assault increased 53 percent in England and Wales but declined 27 percent in the United States. Burglaries doubled in England but fell by half in the United States and motor vehicle theft rose 51 percent in England but remained the same in the United States."(6)

To make matters worse for England (and this is also true for Canada), in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace and dangerous because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto; whereas in the U.S., burglars prefer night burglaries and they try to make sure homeowners are not at home to avoid being shot at by the intended victims. A recent report on this dangerous practice and the rising tide of thievery and burglaries in England has dubbed Britain "a nation of thieves." The London Sunday Times noted: "More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of 40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains the crime capitol of the West. Where," asks the British author, "have we gone wrong?"(8)

Ironically, the most drastic ascendancy of crimes in Britain was found in those types of felonies where recent studies in the U.S. have shown that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, not only save lives, but protect private property, reduce injuries to good people, and crime is generally deterred.(9) For example, the use of firearms to protect oneself against violent predators has proved to be an effective self-defense measure in the United States according to several studies described in the monumental books, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America (1991) and Targeting Guns (1997) by Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University; Don B. Kates, et. al., in the Tennessee Law Review journal; David Kopel in at least two books, Guns --- Who Should Have Them (1995) and The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (1993); and Dr. Edgar Suter and other members of Doctors for Integrity in Policy Research in various articles in the Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (1994-1995).(10,11)

Even U.S. government studies have had to admit the beneficial aspects of gun ownership in the hands of ordinary, law-abiding citizens, particularly in the area of self-protection. For example, a 1993 Department of Justice study found that "67.2 percent of people who had used a weapon to defend themselves against violent crime believed it had helped their situation." The results of this study are, of course, also in line with the 1996 epochal paper and subsequent book, More Guns Less Crime --- Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (1998) by University of Chicago professor John Lott and researcher David Mustard, which found that allowing people to carry concealed weapons deters violent crime --- without any apparent increase in accidental deaths. The work of these researchers, based on 16 years of studying FBI crime data for all 3,054 U.S. counties, concluded that "if states without right-to-carry laws had adopted them in 1992, about 1,570
Source: http://www.haciendapub.com/article15.html

Now, before anyone thinks I'm criticizing English law, I'm not. What England does, is as I said earlier, Englands business. Same for Canada, etc. I don't think every student should have a notebook, pen and pistol. I don't think you should give em out as door prizes, or have a big $5 bin by the cash wrap. What I'm curious here is more, what's the -real- stats, and who are the reliable sources.

Cases in point: Vermont and Texas both have pretty liberal gun access laws. Vermont with the least, is also the safest US State. Texas has high crime. Vermont's also alot smaller, less populated, and has a more consistent population. Texas is pretty big, and diverse. El Paso and Houston are not the same.

"Crime has more than doubled". Did it go from 2 to 5 or 200 to 500? That's a big difference in scope. Etc. What's changed over the years to change the statistics?

[Empty Hands]

I asked my other half about using a pump action shot gun out hunting, he looked at me appalled. Dear god he said, there no sport in that, it's no bloody weapon for a gentleman! that's what he said I swear.

??? How bizarre. It's not like a semi-auto combat shotgun or something, the action still has to be worked for each shot. I prefer a single barrel break action shotgun myself, but that is because they are simpler and easier to clean and maintain. Similarly, I prefer bolt action rifles.

[myusername]

Soon as I can afford it. I want to do a photo tour of the whole country. :)


Now, far be it for me to tell the people of a soverign nation what to do. (Unless it's California, but that's another discussion, lol).

I will ask though, what is your and Tez's reply to this statement? The data's a bit older from the late 90's, and I don't have any data to support/negate it. Site I'm pulling from I've no idea of it's credibility at the moment. Came up on a Google search.


Source: http://www.haciendapub.com/article15.html

Now, before anyone thinks I'm criticizing English law, I'm not. What England does, is as I said earlier, Englands business. Same for Canada, etc. I don't think every student should have a notebook, pen and pistol. I don't think you should give em out as door prizes, or have a big $5 bin by the cash wrap. What I'm curious here is more, what's the -real- stats, and who are the reliable sources.

Cases in point: Vermont and Texas both have pretty liberal gun access laws. Vermont with the least, is also the safest US State. Texas has high crime. Vermont's also alot smaller, less populated, and has a more consistent population. Texas is pretty big, and diverse. El Paso and Houston are not the same.

"Crime has more than doubled". Did it go from 2 to 5 or 200 to 500? That's a big difference in scope. Etc. What's changed over the years to change the statistics?


I know that both gun and knife crime are being reported more in the UK press so I wouldn't personally dispute the above article. However, the stats are old and the author of the article appears to be associated with the NRA so is probably not that neutral. I can give you a link to our home office statistics but again can we claim that they are neutral? The home office is run by the government after all!

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

I am not too proud to admit that my own personal take on this is riddled with hypocritical ideas and contradictions! On the one hand I personally don't want our government to relax our gun laws. On the other hand, if they were to be relaxed I would go straight out and buy one!

I also would not advocate stricter gun laws in the US. I think it is your right to carry a gun and I agree with the idea that banning ordinary citizens from carrying guns would not reduce gun related crime in the US.

I personally believe the difference in the UK and the US when it comes to gun control is a cultural difference. On the whole we are not used to carrying guns, we are not used to using them and to be completely honest for the average Briton it is not even an issue. As Tez mentioned earlier it is not an issue people really vote on or are bothered about. As I've never owned a gun I don't feel the need to have one. If on the other hand everyone in the UK suddenly got one I would feel I needed one. It is different for you guys as you have always had the right to carry guns so you would miss them.

Additionally, due to the average Briton's lack of shooting experience, the last thing I personally want is a bunch of idiots without a clue running about armed! Give my Mum a gun and she'd probably shoot herself getting it out of her handbag! Give my brother a gun and he'd probably use it to scare the local kids away from his garden! Give the average Briton a gun and there would be bloodshed across all the bus stops in the land as people enforced their self righteous qeueing etiquette on helpless tourists! Obviously I am being tongue in cheek but to be fair there are quite a few muppets that make up the general public!

Just because your gun laws work for your country does not mean the benefits would automatically transfer to the UK either. It's like 24 hour opening times for pubs and restaurants! What works in other country's doesn't necessarily work in the UK. People making the argument for 24 hour drinking claimed it would make England more relaxed and mature around alcohol! They claimed we would develop a Mediterranean cafe-style culture! That turned out to be an unfulfilled dream as what we have instead is some pubs sticking to previous closing times and others staying open just that little bit longer! So instead of police having to deal with one busy period of a night time they have a few "kicking out" times to police!

The UK is a little weird and I personally wouldn't want to arm it's public!!

[Bob Hubbard]

Funny thing.....I don't care much for guns....

Soon as my ass in relocated to Texas, I'm buying one, and going to learn how to use the darn thing.

But I think we're in pretty good agreement on things. :)

[Andy Moynihan]

??? How bizarre. It's not like a semi-auto combat shotgun or something, the action still has to be worked for each shot. I prefer a single barrel break action shotgun myself, but that is because they are simpler and easier to clean and maintain. Similarly, I prefer bolt action rifles.


It's the British version of our own shotgun snobbery: In England, the "real men" use the side by side, the not-real-men use over-under.

Over here, the "Real men" use the pump, the not-real-men use the semiauto.

[Tez3]

In the USA? More so on the anti-gun side.

If you look at the anti-gun crowd's arguments, they're usually based on one of the following:

1) Arthur Kellerman's laugher of a study.

2) Michael Bellisilles sham of a study, where he falsifies data.

3) Emotional arguments (if it saves one child's life...)

4) Attempting to associate law-abiding firearms owners in the same crowd as criminals.


If you look at advertisements put forth by the Brady Campaign, you'll see that virtually all of them that aren't solely for the purpose of endorsing a political candidate, are going to use one or more of the above methods. For example, the Prop B advertisements, the slew of ads they ran in Ohio a few years ago, the New Mexico campaign, etc.

Each of those ads showed criminals using firearms, and also using firearms that weren't even relevant to the matters at hand. They would claim that there would be bloodbaths in the streets when law-abiding civilians carry firearms, even though the characters portrayed in the ads were hardly of the law-abiding type.

To make things worse, the media is mostly anti-gun, and is quite guilty in spreading such misinformation.


On the other hand...

If you look at the pro-gun arguments, you will find that most of them are backed up by the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, whose authenticity isn't nearly as much in question as the anti-gun sources.

Sure, there are several pro-gunners who are horribly flawed, use items that were proven wrong (the Hitler quote is probably the worst of them all), but in the end, the majority of pro-gun arguments have factual backing from a much more reliable source than those two characters at Emory University.




This is where I whole-heartedly agree. The problem, though, is when a lie is believable, and repeated enough, that people begin to adopt it as the truth.





You'd be surprised at how many people leave the anti-gun cause, once they open their minds, and take a look at the FBI UCR.

Even more of them leave once I've introduced them to recreational shooting. :)



I'm not being funny here but us Brits don't know any of the people mentioned I'm afraid and we haven't seen any of the adverts.




As for the British being armed, I don't think people really want to be. We never really have been armed in the same way that Americans have. Guns were always for the well off, the peoples weapons have always been knives, cudgels, staffs etc and way back the long bow.

Myusername is right about the figures on crime, as I've explained on here many times, we have a gang problem in the inner cities, we have a knife problem with the young people, it's a Catch 22 situation there, young people carry knives to feel safe from other young people carrying knives which in turn makes yet more young people carry knives.


Emptyhands, country people are very traditional, they will carry shotguns handed down through father to son, there is an etiquette to shooting which is not just English but European. One doesn't just go off into the woods and start blasting at things.The gamekeepers would be displeased and shoot you. We've only just got them to stop laying mantraps.

http://www.ruralsports.co.uk/game-and-grouse-shooting.html

http://www.propertyweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=38&storycode=3071955

[Tez3]

It's the British version of our own shotgun snobbery: In England, the "real men" use the side by side, the not-real-men use over-under.

Over here, the "Real men" use the pump, the not-real-men use the semiauto.

LOL! We get Americans over here who buy into our shoots and bless them they love it when Lord Bolton joins us, they love the way we have a snifter and lunch brought out by the staff. It can be a very big status thing who you shoot (and hunt) with but most of us do it because it's fun and we enjoy it, we also enjoy eating the results.

[Andy Moynihan]

LOL! We get Americans over here who buy into our shoots and bless them they love it when Lord Bolton joins us, they love the way we have a snifter and lunch brought out by the staff. It can be a very big status thing who you shoot (and hunt) with but most of us do it because it's fun and we enjoy it, we also enjoy eating the results.


Hell, If I were over there I'd buy into a shoot too( Might need a loaner piece since I imagine they'd prefer I left my Mossberg 590A1 at home......)

[donna]

It's the British version of our own shotgun snobbery: In England, the "real men" use the side by side, the not-real-men use over-under.

Over here, the "Real men" use the pump, the not-real-men use the semiauto.
Over here, shotguns are for killing snakes, the 22 is for game!

[Andy Moynihan]

Over here, shotguns are for killing snakes, the 22 is for game!

What sort of game is around in Oz?

[Andy Moynihan]

As an aside to remain on the original topic as well:

As I understand the Tony Martin case the circumstances surrounding the incident would have sunk him even by US legal standard( IE , I have heard it that he had bragged/threatened to others at his favorite pub that he was gonna fix this kid, and that he had fired on him after he had already abandoned any assaultive/larcenous behavior and basically broke and ran).

[donna]

Kangaroos, rabbits, goats, wild pigs.

We also have a vermin problem with wild dogs, foxes, and feral cats.

[Empty Hands]

It's the British version of our own shotgun snobbery: In England, the "real men" use the side by side, the not-real-men use over-under.

Over here, the "Real men" use the pump, the not-real-men use the semiauto.

I guess. For myself, I won't question the manhood of someone standing near me with a loaded shotgun. :D

[celtic_crippler]

I appreciate the additional background; however, in my mind that only furthers the fact that it's the individual, NOT the gun that is dangerous. If this fella' didn't have a shotgun I'm sure he'd find something else to bash them over the head with, throw or hurl at them, stab them with, etc, etc....

There are some things relevent to this and similar occurances that should be the focus of the debate IMHO.

1. Personal Responsibility

There's very few people that don't know that its' NOT okay to break into another persons house.
Freely making the decision to break into a home (for whatever reason, none of which are honorable) means freely accepting the consequences of that decision.
Breaking into someone's home means risking getting caught, which means risking being shot where guns are legal or suffering other bodily harm.
2. Right to Protect What is Yours

I like my stuff. You like your stuff. We both work hard for our stuff. It would be hard to replace a lot of stuff. A thief has no right to my stuff. If you want to give them your stuff....groovy, but I ain't giving mine away and I feel I have a right to protect it and so do a lot of other folks.
Some things can't be replaced, like family heirlooms for instance. The police don't sit on my front porch 24/7 so the only thing I can expect them to do is file a report and hope it just happens to show up in a pawn shop. I think my chance of retrieving my items from a wounded crook that just tried to climb out my window are a little better.
For those that would argue that it's not worth killing someone over, yadda-yadda....refer to point #1 in particular. "Freedom" means being free to make your own decision, which also means being free to suffer the consequences of those decisions. Everyone knows B&E is illegal and wrong so deciding to participate in it means accepting the risk. I personally don't agree with suicide either, but I won't stand in the way of someone's right to do it.... which is pretty much the same thing as breaking into my house. LOL

Don't want to die? Don't play Russian Roulette. Don't run across busy 4 lane highways. Don't fish toast out of the toaster with a metal fork. Don't shower with your hairdryer. Don't tug on Superman's cape. And don't break into my house.

...it should be a matter of common sense but our legal systems are superb at flushing common sense down the toilet.

[Empty Hands]

Emptyhands, country people are very traditional, they will carry shotguns handed down through father to son, there is an etiquette to shooting which is not just English but European. One doesn't just go off into the woods and start blasting at things.

Were you under the impression that it works that way here? :lol:

[donna]

Were you under the impression that it works that way here? :lol:
If you believe the media, yes that is the impression we get here in Australia !!:)

[Tez3]

Were you under the impression that it works that way here? :lol:

yeah! You all go out shooting in the woods and come back home with a deer strapped to the bonnet of the car, sometimes you shoot each other by mistake though! And you have those big hound dogs which the local sheriff always calls in to track down escaped prisoners.
You all wear those red checked shirts with jeans too.
I've seen it in America television shows so it must be real!!!

[Brian R. VanCise]

If you believe the media, yes that is the impression we get here in Australia !!:)

It is always very funny the impressions people get from media about people from other countries. The reality is usually a little different on several levels! http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/images/icons/icon6.gif

[Gordon Nore]

I appreciate the additional background; however, in my mind that only furthers the fact that it's the individual, NOT the gun that is dangerous. If this fella' didn't have a shotgun I'm sure he'd find something else to bash them over the head with, throw or hurl at them, stab them with, etc, etc....

I don't think anyone is arguing that. The basis for posting this story was the false premise that a gun owner was being persecuted by his government. That wasn't even close to the truth, which was that the gun owner was a deeply disturbed individual who crossed paths with a very foolish adolescent. It's just tragic -- the legality or illegality of the gun in the story does not negate the result: a ruined man and dead kid.

The story itself makes a far more important point.

When a news story involving a gun breaks, it immediately is transmogrified into a gun rights story. Two implacable adversaries -- Pro and Anti -- start churning rhetoric and arguments to support their respective sides before anyone knows what actually happened. People virtually trip over dead bodies to get to one side of the issue or the other.

When the VT story was unfolding, I remember one reporter was lamenting how easy it is to get an assault rifle before somebody else pointed out that all the destruction was caused by a .22 and a Glock. Then somebody else chimes in about how great it would be if profs and students could pack heat on campus. For cryin' out loud, the bodies weren't even cold before these vultures swooped in. And the media are absolutely complicit in this tawdry behaviour.

The Martin story is a pathetic but familiar tale of the difficulty that civilized societies have in managing people with severe mental health problems. On the one hand, we want to protect people, but not at the expense of taking away the liberties of others. As you suggest, crippler, Martin was a ticking bomb, ready to go off. But nobody really wants to have a serious discussion about prevention, which might require soul searching and an expenditure of intellectual and monetary capital, so it's easier to talk around the periphery, and figure out a way to spin this into a Pro or Anti-gun story.

Many, many times I've heard Pro and Anti-Gun advocates from outside my county point to the same tragic incident in my country and come up with two different conclusions. Increasingly I find both of these 'sides' very unsatisfactory and self-serving.

[Empty Hands]

yeah! You all go out shooting in the woods and come back home with a deer strapped to the bonnet of the car, sometimes you shoot each other by mistake though! And you have those big hound dogs which the local sheriff always calls in to track down escaped prisoners.
You all wear those red checked shirts with jeans too.
I've seen it in America television shows so it must be real!!!

I see I can't fool you. Yes, it's all true. ;)

[Tez3]

I appreciate the additional background; however, in my mind that only furthers the fact that it's the individual, NOT the gun that is dangerous. If this fella' didn't have a shotgun I'm sure he'd find something else to bash them over the head with, throw or hurl at them, stab them with, etc, etc....

There are some things relevent to this and similar occurances that should be the focus of the debate IMHO.


1. Personal Responsibility

There's very few people that don't know that its' NOT okay to break into another persons house.
Freely making the decision to break into a home (for whatever reason, none of which are honorable) means freely accepting the consequences of that decision.
Breaking into someone's home means risking getting caught, which means risking being shot where guns are legal or suffering other bodily harm.
2. Right to Protect What is Yours

I like my stuff. You like your stuff. We both work hard for our stuff. It would be hard to replace a lot of stuff. A thief has no right to my stuff. If you want to give them your stuff....groovy, but I ain't giving mine away and I feel I have a right to protect it and so do a lot of other folks.
Some things can't be replaced, like family heirlooms for instance. The police don't sit on my front porch 24/7 so the only thing I can expect them to do is file a report and hope it just happens to show up in a pawn shop. I think my chance of retrieving my items from a wounded crook that just tried to climb out my window are a little better.
For those that would argue that it's not worth killing someone over, yadda-yadda....refer to point #1 in particular. "Freedom" means being free to make your own decision, which also means being free to suffer the consequences of those decisions. Everyone knows B&E is illegal and wrong so deciding to participate in it means accepting the risk. I personally don't agree with suicide either, but I won't stand in the way of someone's right to do it.... which is pretty much the same thing as breaking into my house. LOL

Don't want to die? Don't play Russian Roulette. Don't run across busy 4 lane highways. Don't fish toast out of the toaster with a metal fork. Don't shower with your hairdryer. Don't tug on Superman's cape. And don't break into my house.

...it should be a matter of common sense but our legal systems are superb at flushing common sense down the toilet.



I'm not saying what you say isn't true but what we are getting at is that the Tony Martin case isn't the one to prove that we should be armed is it?
That's what the OP was trying to prove, that because Tony Martin shot someone who was breaking into his house we should all be armed and he was prosecuted for defending himself. If we are to be convinced it has to be by a better case than this one.

In this country we can defend ourselves and our property, it has to be reasonable though, you can't go round the countryside daring gypsies to break into your house just so you can sit in wait for them and shoot them. If you wake up and find someone in your house, you go down stairs and feel in danger of your life which is very likely because someone is there so you shoot them, thats fine, it's self defence and provided you do the right things after (and frankly leaving someone to bleed to death on your carpet isn't the best way to endear yourself to the law or your wife) you will not be charged. You may even receive some money from the criminal compensation board.
Here is the statement by the Crown Proscecution Service, ( like your DAs)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/archive/2005/106_05.html

[Tez3]

I see I can't fool you. Yes, it's all true. ;)


Well all those nice American television people don't lie do they lol!

[thardey]

Well all those nice American television people don't lie do they lol!

Also, in many places (if not most) you aren't allowed a full 5-shot load for your pump -- you have to put in a spacer that limits your shooting to 3 shots total -- one in the chamber and two in the magazine.

So, we're only getting a one shot advantage over a side-by-side.

[mook jong man]

Over here, shotguns are for killing snakes, the 22 is for game!

A house brick works pretty good on a red belly black snake too , I've found .

[Tez3]

Also, in many places (if not most) you aren't allowed a full 5-shot load for your pump -- you have to put in a spacer that limits your shooting to 3 shots total -- one in the chamber and two in the magazine.

So, we're only getting a one shot advantage over a side-by-side.

Yes but your shotgun isn't an ancestral heirloom lol! The ones we use are not even of this century, dear me no! people are using guns made in the middle of the 19th century still. It's not the pump action bit so much, it's just that it's not done.
I don't know if I can explain it really because it comes across as the Englishmans snobbery! We have a lot of things here that just aren't done! As Myusername said we are a funny lot.

http://www.thefield.co.uk/gunreviews

[Tez3]

A house brick works pretty good on a red belly black snake too , I've found .

Yeah but what about those nasty little spiders that hide in the dunny?

[mook jong man]

Yes but your shotgun isn't an ancestral heirloom lol! The ones we use are not even of this century, dear me no! people are using guns made in the middle of the 19th century still. It's not the pump action bit so much, it's just that it's not done.
I don't know if I can explain it really because it comes across as the Englishmans snobbery! We have a lot of things here that just aren't done! As Myusername said we are a funny lot.

http://www.thefield.co.uk/gunreviews

Its just not cricket is it . :)

[mook jong man]

Yeah but what about those nasty little spiders that hide in the dunny?

They're redback spiders , my dad got bitten by one of them on the hand in a outside dunny and his hand swelled up really bad , but they are not as bad as the funnel web spiders those little buggers can kill you in about 15 minutes .

[Bob Hubbard]

yeah! You all go out shooting in the woods and come back home with a deer strapped to the bonnet of the car, sometimes you shoot each other by mistake though! And you have those big hound dogs which the local sheriff always calls in to track down escaped prisoners.
You all wear those red checked shirts with jeans too.
I've seen it in America television shows so it must be real!!!

One Vice President shoots a guy, next thing ya know we're an international joke. I tell ya, just can't get no respect.


America has 1 think that proves we're tougher than England.

Ain't never been no Cyberman or Dalek invasion here. :D

:dalek:

[donna]

A house brick works pretty good on a red belly black snake too , I've found .
Snakes out here are way too deadly to try that trick, and the buggers are lightening fast.

[Tez3]

One Vice President shoots a guy, next thing ya know we're an international joke. I tell ya, just can't get no respect.


America has 1 think that proves we're tougher than England.

Ain't never been no Cyberman or Dalek invasion here. :D

:dalek:


yeah we get them but at least our deer don't fight back rofl.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H0GNwjkg7ho