It happened in England, could it happen here?

celtic_crippler

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
137
Location
Airstrip One
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)

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]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.

[/FONT]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

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,249
Reaction score
767
Location
Land of the Free
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

Brown Belt
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
477
Reaction score
36
Location
UK
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/u...whose-obsession-made-him-a-killer-721200.html
 
Last edited:

Deaf Smith

Master of Arts
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
85
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

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,249
Reaction score
767
Location
Land of the Free
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

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
307
Location
Chattanooga, TN
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

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,269
Reaction score
198
Location
Jupiter, FL
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

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,249
Reaction score
767
Location
Land of the Free
If they are fleeing, then they wouldn't get a face full of buckshot. An *** 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

Master of Arts
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
1,722
Reaction score
85
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

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,327
Reaction score
4,612
Location
England
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/u...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

Brown Belt
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
477
Reaction score
36
Location
UK
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

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,327
Reaction score
4,612
Location
England
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

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
10,826
Reaction score
616
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

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,249
Reaction score
767
Location
Land of the Free
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

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,327
Reaction score
4,612
Location
England
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

Brown Belt
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
477
Reaction score
36
Location
UK
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

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,327
Reaction score
4,612
Location
England
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

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,249
Reaction score
767
Location
Land of the Free
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

Brown Belt
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
477
Reaction score
36
Location
UK
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

Administrator
Staff member
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
10,826
Reaction score
616
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. :)
 
Top