Brits who want their guns back
 

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE

A segment you'll never see on our network news...

Damn..I goofed again. I really meant to post this on the politics board. Moderator, please move.

Good luck with that guys. :-/

Kind of sad, isn't it? Those who say it can't happen here are kidding themselves.

what are you bemoaning exactly?

do you seriously want to contend that the banning of guns had anything to do with the rise of gun use in crimes?

The stats are there...when a nation is disarmed, the "hot burglary" rate goes up. Burglaries where the perps don't care if people are home or not, because the perps have weapons, while knowing their victims are unarmed.

It does.

Do you seriously want to contend that the banning of guns does not have anything to do with the rise of gun use in crimes?

Criminals generally go for the "easy score". If they know everyone else is unarmed, suddenly the whole population has become just that.

Do you seriously want to contend that gun control in any way lowers crime?

The clip is not very recent but still true today.

I think Tony Martin has now been out of jail for sometime (2003) and his sentence was reduced by the furore it caused at the time.

I left the UK at the time of the pistol ban. I don't see pistol ownership ever being restored in the UK.

a gun grabber cop that I know told me that AZ is a very safe state due to all of the people that are armed....but he feels that you and I in California do not have the RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE. "It's law enforcements job to protect yoy"

SCOTUS has decreed that law enforcement has no obligation to protect individual citizens, just 'society at large'.

So next time you see the cop, you can tell him that according to the Supreme court, it's YOUR job to defend yourself...not his.

that is precisely what happened in Australia

If anti-gunners are so vocal about their stance --why not post a "no guns in this home" sign in your front lawn?

yeah, criminals would respect their principled stance against guns. hehehehe.

Can you provide the sourceof this statement?

That clip is old and really deals with fox hunting which was outlawed a while ago. The Brits have chosen to ignore the law now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

Boy, I'd love to pay someone $50K yearly to shot at in my behalf.

That cop is a liar...

rjp

http://www.google.com/search?q=police+have+no+obligation+to+protect+indi viduals&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

THE POLICE NEVER CAME.

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

See the plethora of links above.

Come on over and give it a try! At first its interesting to see people walking around with a gun on their hip, but its not that unusual over here.

Criminals know that a lot of the public are armed and ready to defend themselves and their neighbours.

Joe A