The right to bear arms

[Calidore]

The idea that more guns will reduce the problem of gun violence reminds me of the old joke about the man in a leaky boat who drills another hole to let the water out.

My mind boggles at the amount of loss you've suffered, Varenne, and while nothing can replace them, I hope life brings you great goodness in compensation.

Volya, you're still a kid, so a certain amount of insensitivity isn't unexpected, but I hope you're suitably embarrassed and have learned something about rushing to make self-righteous proclamations without knowing anywhere near the whole story.

[Varenne Rodin]

The idea that more guns will reduce the problem of gun violence reminds me of the old joke about the man in a leaky boat who drills another hole to let the water out.

My mind boggles at the amount of loss you've suffered, Varenne, and while nothing can replace them, I hope life brings you great goodness in compensation.

Volya, you're still a kid, so a certain amount of insensitivity isn't unexpected, but I hope you're suitably embarrassed and have learned something about rushing to make self-righteous proclamations without knowing anywhere near the whole story.

Thank you, Calidore. I'm so glad you weighed in on the gun issue. I couldn't agree with you more.

I was too abrupt in my response to Volya's post. We talked it out and reached a better understanding. Overall, I'm glad for the conversation. Volya is a smart teenager. A lot of potential there. This is a very serious, and at times disturbing, discussion. I forgive any and all slights and jabs, and please know that I mean no harm to any of you.

[qimissung]

Thank you, Qimi. Your entire post is very insightful.

Thank you, Varenne.

That was exceedingly big-hearted of you to engage in a discussion with Volya. I'm glad you guys reached a better understanding.

[Emil Miller]

The local police held a meeting and informed those of us interested in attending what we could do to prevent ourselves from being targeted. I remember the following items:

1) Most burglaries happen during the day, during the week, because that is when no one is expected to be home. They are not done at night.

The moral of the story: Common sense prevention is the best defense.

You are right, but there are plenty of instances when thieves will use the cover of darkness and try to protect themselves by maintaining anonymity. It would be very difficult to convict if they are subsequently arrested but the offence has been committed in the dark.
In the case I have mentioned, Martin said that all he could see in the dark was the form of two figures and he opened fire instinctively to protect himself from possible attack. If he had allowed them to escape, instead of one burglar surviving to continue his criminal activity there would have been two.
Obviously the best way to protect one's property is to follow the procedures outlined in your post, but there is always the possibility that an attempt might be made as can be seen by the number of burglaries that actually take place.

[prendrelemick]

As a farmer living in a remote Victorian farmhouse myself, I took interest in the David Martin case. I thought as usual the truth was somewhere between two scenarios where either he or the burglers were the victim. However, his defence did not challenge the prosecution case that he was lying in wait for the burglers, and therefore he was freed on appeal.

Remember he was convicted by a jury who attended the whole trial - not just from sensational press reports. Also remember he used an illegally held weapon and he tried to hide it afterwards. - that alone is a jailable offence. His own guns had been confiscated because the police thought he was unstable.

This stuff the govenment is coming out with about protecting your home is electioneering bollox. Basically just talk, The law is already there, and has been for years. Politicians can talk tough without actually doing anything.

[Varenne Rodin]

Politicians can talk tough without actually doing anything.

This is what I got out of attempting to communicate with Duncan Hunter about this (I was asked by a local committee to contact him):

Dear Miss Kane:

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on firearms following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It's good to hear from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this matter.

Like you, I was deeply saddened when I heard the news of the horrific shooting in Connecticut. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims of this tragedy. I welcomed hearing of your views on the issue of gun control as part of an effort to protect our children. I can assure you that as a father of three, I firmly believe that we must consider all options possible to ensure the safety of our children, particularly while at school.

That being said, however, when situations like this arise, the first reaction is to advocate for additional gun control laws and restrictions that may not be necessary. Let me be clear, I fully support efforts to implement policies that reduce crime and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and street-gangs. Further, I believe that those who violate our state and federal gun laws should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Duncan Hunter Member of Congress

[Emil Miller]

This stuff the govenment is coming out with about protecting your home is electioneering bollox. Basically just talk, The law is already there, and has been for years. Politicians can talk tough without actually doing anything.

The law as it exists states that people can use 'reasonable force' to dissuade an attacker. What does that mean other than a self-serving piece of legal jargon?
It may well be that the politicians will once again do nothing, but if they are convinced that it is a useful electioneering ploy it shows that there is significant public approval for a change in the law.

[TheFifthElement]

He did. In fact the defence lawyer who represented him later wrote an article for a leading newspaper in which he said that it was wrong for anyone to shoot a burglar. So with that kind of representation, who needs enemies ? Here's what the appeal judges were told about the case when Martin, who had changed his legal representative, appealed against his sentence and had it reduced to manslaughter:

The appeal judges, Lord Woolf, Mr Justice Wright and Mr Justice Grigson, were told that the case put forward by the defence at the original trial had only ended up helping the prosecution.

Yes, that might be what the judges were told but they rejected it. Martin's case wasn't dismissed, it was commuted to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility - if anything Martin is a great example of why gun control is needed. He was suffering from a paranoid personality disorder and he shouldn't have had a gun (both legally and practically). His self defence argument never washed and it certainly was not the basis on which his sentence was amended to manslaughter. This is what LJ Woolf said:

Lord Woolf, sitting with Mr Justice Wright and Mr Justice Grigson, said: "Martin used a firearm which he knew he was not entitled to have in a manner which was wholly unjustified.

"There can be no excuse for this, though we treat his responsibility as being reduced," he said.

From this report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/oc...martin.ukcrime

Not at all. I agree that Martin had an illegal weapon and I wouldn't feel sorry for him if he were charged with that offence. But I do feel sorry for him being charged with murder when trying to defend himself on his own property from two burglars who, in my view and also that of many others judging by the stir it created in the UK media, got what they deserved.

But by your logic the commission of a crime disbars you from the protection of the law. It makes you an outlaw. So why should Martin be any more deserving of sympathy than the burglars? Why is his back story relevant, if the burglars' are not? You would argue that the burglars setting foot on Martin's property should disbar them from any protection under the law, it should in your words:

By his criminal act, the burglar has forfeited his rights.

Therefore surely Martin forfeits his rights to protection under the law by means of his possession of an illegal weapon? He was a criminal before anyone set foot on his property. By your logic he is as deserving of his murder conviction as the burglar is of his death because 'By his criminal act the murderer forfeits his rights' is equally true. Had he not illegally possessed the weapons the events which led to his murder conviction would not have occurred.

And that's before you even get into the facts of the case. Martin's story did not tally with the forensic evidence. For example you said:

In the case I have mentioned, Martin said that all he could see in the dark was the form of two figures and he opened fire instinctively to protect himself from possible attack. If he had allowed them to escape, instead of one burglar surviving to continue his criminal activity there would have been two.

Yes, that's what Martin said, but there was significant evidence that Martin was lying. Perhaps there would be scope for sympathy had the burglar had been found dead at the foot of Martin's stairs having died from a single gunshot wound to the chest. But in fact the burglar who was killed, who was a 16 year old boy, was found dead outside the property having suffered multiple gunshot wounds to the legs and a fatal wound to the back. Did Martin need to 'defend himself' from a boy who was running away? Or was he enacting his paranoid fantasy of gunning down a 'thieving gypsy'? This image of Martin as an innocent man just protecting his property having 'surprised' some burglars and fired at them in the dark from the top of his stairs is a conveniently sympathetic image but not really commensurate with the facts of the case or his own history of gun related violence, his apparent mental illness and the poor state of his property that he was seeking to 'defend' from others but apparently couldn't be bothered taking any care of himself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/ap...artin.ukcrime2

There were no winners in that story, and certainly no heroes and if it's the best example you can give of why people should have guns to protect themselves from burglars, it's a pretty poor one.

[prendrelemick]

This is what I got out of attempting to communicate with Duncan Hunter about this (I was asked by a local committee to contact him):

Dear Miss Kane:

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on firearms following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It's good to hear from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you on this matter.

Like you, I was deeply saddened when I heard the news of the horrific shooting in Connecticut. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims of this tragedy. I welcomed hearing of your views on the issue of gun control as part of an effort to protect our children. I can assure you that as a father of three, I firmly believe that we must consider all options possible to ensure the safety of our children, particularly while at school.

That being said, however, when situations like this arise, the first reaction is to advocate for additional gun control laws and restrictions that may not be necessary. Let me be clear, I fully support efforts to implement policies that reduce crime and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and street-gangs. Further, I believe that those who violate our state and federal gun laws should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely,

Duncan Hunter Member of Congress

That's a standard letter he will have sent out by the hundred - I wonder if he even read yours.

The law as it exists states that people can use 'reasonable force' to dissuade an attacker. What does that mean other than a self-serving piece of legal jargon?
It may well be that the politicians will once again do nothing, but if they are convinced that it is a useful electioneering ploy it shows that there is significant public approval for a change in the law.

My understanding was they aren't changing the law, just "changing the emphasis" (which they can't do - it's up to the judges )and "having the debate".

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

...and if it's the best example you can give of why people should have guns to protect themselves from burglars, it's a pretty poor one.

Well, if it’s in bad taste for one to defend their home and family against human invaders, then how about a fat orange Tabby?

I grew up in Oak Cliff, a suburb on the south and west sides of Dallas. Those two words will send shivers up the spine of the north Dallas blue hairs. Over the years much of Oak Cliff had deteriorated into a region of fraught with crime. There remain fragments of Oak Cliff that remain wonderful, relatively safe places to live, but the borders of the bad element are pressing in and in some cases infiltrate the nicer neighborhoods.

Ours was one such neighborhood. After the parents passed on, I bought the old family home to renovate and sell. My wife and new baby moved in. Having been away from the home for a few years, I was not familiar with the usual “sounds in the night”, but knowing I was in Oak Cliff, I kept one of the three guns I referenced in post 14 next to the bed. (Winchester M1 Carbine WW II).

One night we woke up in terror at the sound of someone trying to rip a screen off a downstairs window. Instinctually, (because I was in Oak Cliff and a native Texan) I grabbed the weapon, along with a couple of cartridges kept separate from the home defense tool and made my way stealth fully down the stairs in the dark. Adrenaline pumping, not sure if I should hit the lights, yell or fire a warning shot, I proceeded down the hall.

I approached the den slowly, and as I entered I saw the corpulent home invader silhouetted by the light of the moon perched on the window sill grabbing hold of the screen with two paws pulling outward then letting it snap back into position.

It was the orange Tabby I inherited along with the house letting me know she wanted in.

[Emil Miller]

Yes, that might be what the judges were told but they rejected it. Martin's case wasn't dismissed, it was commuted to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility - if anything Martin is a great example of why gun control is needed. He was suffering from a paranoid personality disorder and he shouldn't have had a gun (both legally and practically). His self defence argument never washed and it certainly was not the basis on which his sentence was amended to manslaughter. This is what LJ Woolf said:


From this report: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/oc...martin.ukcrime


But by your logic the commission of a crime disbars you from the protection of the law. It makes you an outlaw. So why should Martin be any more deserving of sympathy than the burglars? Why is his back story relevant, if the burglars' are not? You would argue that the burglars setting foot on Martin's property should disbar them from any protection under the law, it should in your words:

Therefore surely Martin forfeits his rights to protection under the law by means of his possession of an illegal weapon? He was a criminal before anyone set foot on his property. By your logic he is as deserving of his murder conviction as the burglar is of his death because 'By his criminal act the murderer forfeits his rights' is equally true. Had he not illegally possessed the weapons the events which led to his murder conviction would not have occurred.

And that's before you even get into the facts of the case. Martin's story did not tally with the forensic evidence. For example you said:




Yes, that's what Martin said, but there was significant evidence that Martin was lying. Perhaps there would be scope for sympathy had the burglar had been found dead at the foot of Martin's stairs having died from a single gunshot wound to the chest. But in fact the burglar who was killed, who was a 16 year old boy, was found dead outside the property having suffered multiple gunshot wounds to the legs and a fatal wound to the back. Did Martin need to 'defend himself' from a boy who was running away? Or was he enacting his paranoid fantasy of gunning down a 'thieving gypsy'? This image of Martin as an innocent man just protecting his property having 'surprised' some burglars and fired at them in the dark from the top of his stairs is a conveniently sympathetic image but not really commensurate with the facts of the case or his own history of gun related violence, his apparent mental illness and the poor state of his property that he was seeking to 'defend' from others but apparently couldn't be bothered taking any care of himself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/ap...artin.ukcrime2

There were no winners in that story, and certainly no heroes and if it's the best example you can give of why people should have guns to protect themselves from burglars, it's a pretty poor one.

Not surprisingly the Guardian article is contradictory. It states that his neighbours found him to be weird:'

'Many people in the Fen villages near Emneth in Norfolk believed the "weird" farmer to be harmless. But others, who had heard him espouse his hatred for burglars and what he would do with them if he caught them, had taken to giving Martin a wide berth.'

Much later in the article we get:

'But many are firmly behind the farmer. Outside the Emneth Spar, a pensioner said: "All Fen people would have done the same thing. Fen people are independent people.'

"I would have blown them away myself. We all wanted him to get off because they got what they deserved. Fen people would have blasted them away."

Your assertion that Martin's illegal gun ownership is on a par with burglary is, quite frankly, absurd. Both of the burglars had a string of convictions for various offences and, whereas Martin's threats as to what he would do to burglars may have kept potential local wrongdoers at bay, the thieves had travelled 60 miles in order to commit their crime.
Of course, had he not been in possession of a firearm he wouldn't have been charged with murder. On the other hand, without the firearm he might have been killed himself and therefore decided to act first.
Nobody,except Martin, can know the exact circumstances in which he killed one of the burglars but if somebody is faced with two intruders in the dark who have no right to be on one's property there is no time for the kind of casuistry beloved of people like the now retired Lord Woolf and his legal cohorts as well a certain section of the press, when life and limb are at stake one acts instinctively regardless of the outcome. I would, in all probability, have done something similar if not the same.

[Varenne Rodin]

That's a standard letter he will have sent out by the hundred - I wonder if he even read yours.

Yeah. I doubt it. I doubt he does anything. I'm not surprised. They only send form letters.

[ennison]

The suggestion that teachers should be armed to shoot potential murderers is the type of suggestion that gun loving loony tunes would of course come up with. Guns are meant for killing people easily. People (and teachers are of that type) are all capable of anger and violence. Having lots of guns available makes it more likely that anger leads to fatal violence. Fists and stones may break ones bones but bullets blast ones brains out.

[Volya]

The suggestion that teachers should be armed to shoot potential murderers is the type of suggestion that gun loving loony tunes would of course come up with. Guns are meant for killing people easily. People (and teachers are of that type) are all capable of anger and violence. Having lots of guns available makes it more likely that anger leads to fatal violence. Fists and stones may break ones bones but bullets blast ones brains out.

I think that similarly to how trying to ban all guns is a knee-jerk reaction, so is trying to arm all teachers. Both of them will, in my opinion, only lead to more trouble. As usual, compromise is the better solution. Stricter regulations on what kind of gun you can buy and who can buy them, but allow (as an example) teachers who are lawfully allowed to concealed carry in other places to carry their weapon in school as well. After all if they're deemed safe to have one in public, why not in a school - if they want to massacre some children, they'll bring in their gun anyway.

[ennison]

Allow teachers to carry guns in school! Well I guess it's always useful to get an opinion on humanity from outside.