Buffalo Roam
Registered Senior Member
Buffalo, your argument smacks of desperation. You quote a fact;
"You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than in New York."
What are the gun laws like in New York? Oh that's right, you aren't allowed to carry guns in New York, thus proving the point that removing guns lowers crime!
Do you comprehend what you paste ever?
Also, that list of countries you pasted, hardly comparable to the USA or UK, really. Apples to Oranges, and a straw man. Rather pathetic.
On your other stats, well, if 'gun defence' stats a la Kleck are to be believed, gun owning Americans use their guns to prevent crime 2.5 million times per year, which outstrips recorded crime, and puts America WAY above the uk for attempted robbery etc, meaning guns aren't keeping you safe, because you are victims more often than your unarmed British counterparts.
Sorry, but you just can't argue your way out of this one.
But your 20 more time likely to be Mugged in New York City than in my home town, and we have concealed carry.
And Great Britain has even stiffer gun control laws than New York, and your 6 time more likely to be mugged in London.
Again our crime rates are going down, across the board, Britians are going up.
And remember as you just pointed out:
Americans use their guns to prevent crime 2.5 million times per year,
And the reason we know that is because those are the reported incidents, with judical disposition.
How many victimes were able to defend thamselves in Great Britain? isn't that why they become victimes? They have no means of self defence, and when they do defend themselves they end up charged with a crime and sent to jail? and end up like this British subject?
In 1999 three men with a combined 110 arrests broke into his house. Martin used a shotgun to kill one of the attackers and wound another. Martin was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison for defending himself. The conviction was later reduced to manslaughter. Four years later he is still in prison. Adding insult to injury, the British government has used taxpayer money to help the career criminals who attacked Martin sue him for civil damages.
We don't have a good Police Force anymore, we have a cheap one. This incident is the result of that in my opinion.
Chris, England
The burglar should never have been there in the first place. Your home is your castle and the only place of sanctity we can expect...if we can't defend that, then things really have got bad.
SK, UK
What Tony Martin did was only fair. I have been the victim of four crimes and each time it has been up to me to pick up the pieces and get on with life. People who break the law not only show no respect for their victim but also for the country as a whole.
Chris, England
Tony Martin should never have gone to prison. EVERYONE should have to right to protect their property.
Pam Knight, England
If Fearon can sue Tony Martin for the physical injury he received while breaking into this man's home, then why can't Tony Martin sue Fearon for the mental anguish he has suffered and will continue to suffer for the rest of his life - by being persistently burgled, and now, having come out of prison is unable to return to his home without being in constant fear of his life? No amount of hi-tec security or police presence will give this man total peace of mind. The police are aware of a contract that has been put out on Tony's life and that of his dog. Why don't they make more of an effort to track down the people responsible and bring them to book instead of turning Tony Martin's home into a fortress - which in my opinion will only last until the media frenzy dies down anyway. Sadly the public have lost faith in the police and justice system and radical changes need to be made to toughen up laws and prison sentences to reflect the views of the people. Blair and Blunkett take note!
Sue W, Westcliffe-on-Sea, U.K.
The statue of Justice blindfolded is meant to indicate that all will be treated equally under the law. Unfortunately, as recent events have all too clearly shown, her blindness appears to be limited to the needs of victims and decent, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens of this country whilst she appears to pander to the whims of every career criminal and freeloader that comes her way. What is this country coming to? Whatever happened to good old common sense, decency and 'doing the right thing'?
TR, UK
If you can't feel safe in your home then where? Of course most people, including Mr Martin wishes the result had not been the death of a 16 year old, but who allowed that 16 year old into the house? We are all responsible for our actions, one would hope that if you take the risk to terrorize someone else's life that you should be prepared for them to stand up for themselves. Having a burglar in my home left me unable to function for weeks and unable to sleep comfortably for years. If I were to be burglarized again, I would do all that I could to protect myself. I wouldn't wait to see if it was a friendly burglar or a dangerous one.
Rose, Canada
Now argue your way out of this:
http://gunowners.org/op0335.htm
Violent crime in the U.S. peaked in the late 1980s and started dropping in the 1990s. Many factors are involved, but here are a few that should be noted:
States in the late 1980s began enacting laws allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. Concealed-carry raises the risk of criminal conduct, because a criminal can never know if his potential victim is armed. Thirty-five states now have "shall-issue" laws, which say any law-abiding citizen who applies shall receive permission to carry a firearm. Nine other states allow concealed-carry but with discretion given to police. Only six states -- Illinois among them -- totally ban concealed carry.
States in the 1980s also began enacting longer prison sentences, truth in sentencing, mandatory sentencing and similar judicial reforms. Over the past two decades, as America's crime rate has dropped, incarceration rates have more than tripled, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice.
A record 6.6 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at year-end 2001. The more criminals in custody, the fewer crimes that are committed.
Contrast this with gun-controlling Europe. The joint study of crime in the U.S., England and Wales noted that prison sentences for criminals in England and Wales have grown more lenient. Sentences for murder were three years longer here than in England and Wales, four years longer for rape and robbery and almost three years longer for assault.
"We urgently need to re-examine our cozy assumptions about law and order," the London Sunday Times editorialized in 1998 in response to these findings.
England has done so. It has virtually disarmed its law-abiding citizens and become more sympathetic toward criminals. Consider the sad saga of Tony Martin, a farmer near Norfolk, England.
In 1999 three men with a combined 110 arrests broke into his house. Martin used a shotgun to kill one of the attackers and wound another. Martin was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison for defending himself. The conviction was later reduced to manslaughter. Four years later he is still in prison. Adding insult to injury, the British government has used taxpayer money to help the career criminals who attacked Martin sue him for civil damages.
Martin is hoping for parole, but last month British government lawyers opposed parole by arguing that burglars are citizens who must be protected from homeowners such as Martin, a man who had no criminal history.