I thought guns were banned in England?? - Page 10

So do your criminals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newfoundland 

It seems to me that gun ownership  is embedded in the culture of US for several historical reasons. I don't believe that can be changed by more legislation it would require an alteration in the mindset of the population and that would be very unlikely to happen. It is not embedded in our culture ans I for one prefer to keep it that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newfoundland 

It seems to me that gun ownership  is embedded in the culture of US for several historical reasons. I don't believe that can be changed by more legislation it would require an alteration in the mindset of the population and that would be very unlikely to happen. It is not embedded in our culture ans I for one prefer to keep it that way.

I think that is it in the nutshell. I own guns, and I learned to shoot by the time I was five. I was taught strict respect and careful handling of guns and I have never ever used them foolishly. I do not have a strict opinion on country laws of gun ownership one way or another. The UK does not have the same relationship with guns as the US does. It doesn't make one country better than the other, IMO. They're  just different. 

I do not know the gun statistics well. I've seen different statistics that contradict each other.  If gun crime is higher in countries with lax gun control, it still doesn't change my preference to be able to own guns. It is simply a risk I am willing to take in order to have free access to a weapon that I use for protection, hunting, and pest control. 

If it is the other way around, I don't see the need to wave it around as "proof" that the UK is wrong for restricting guns. The UK isn't a significant part of the culture I grew up in, in this aspect. It would be silly of me to push my views of guns on people who doesn't want it.

Meh, just ignore me, I'm thinking out loud. 

I think you are right, the option or "choice" as with other subjects should be available to those comfortable with having them.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by KristyHall 

 

 

I think that is it in the nutshell. I own guns, and I learned to shoot by the time I was five. I was taught strict respect and careful handling of guns and I have never ever used them foolishly. I do not have a strict opinion on country laws of gun ownership one way or another. The UK does not have the same relationship with guns as the US does. It doesn't make one country better than the other, IMO. They're  just different. 

 

I do not know the gun statistics well. I've seen different statistics that contradict each other.  If gun crime is higher in countries with lax gun control, it still doesn't change my preference to be able to own guns. It is simply a risk I am willing to take in order to have free access to a weapon that I use for protection, hunting, and pest control. 

 

If it is the other way around, I don't see the need to wave it around as "proof" that the UK is wrong for restricting guns. The UK isn't a significant part of the culture I grew up in, in this aspect. It would be silly of me to push my views of guns on people who doesn't want it.

 

Meh, just ignore me, I'm thinking out loud. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by chickened 

I think you are right, the option or "choice" as with other subjects should be available to those comfortable with having them.
 

 

that wasn't quite what i was getting at.

I know what you were getting at. I do wave it around though as I think It is a bad descision but worse it is the fact that the UK personal freedoms do not allow just no gun ownership but also curtail other freedoms we enjoy one of which is the rights of the accused and a few others I could mention.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by KristyHall 

that wasn't quite what i was getting at.

I don't know what freedoms you refer to chickened and I am not really familiar with the rights of the accused under US law. We do not call them the accused here, they are referred to as defendants, which I think is apt as it acknowledges the fact that a person has the right to defend themselves. They have the right to be held by the police for no more than 48 hours without a judges warrant. They have a right to be cautioned about their rights before being charged. They have a right to legal representation, and this is free if they cannot afford to pay for legal help. They have the right to a fair trial, and the right to challenge the appointment of up to 6 of the 12 jurors who will hear their case. They have the right to speak, or not speak at their trial, whichever they deem to be in their best interest. They have the right to wait for psychiatric reports to be made to the judge, before he passes sentence if their mental health or state of mind is called into question.

I think these are pretty comprehensive rights don't you?

Well. the one that strikes me most is the Due Process.  Obtaining a search warrant is different, innocent until proven guilty is different. You are describing a fair trial procedure what I refer to are rights before a trial or you are detained by the police.  Our privacy laws differ also.  I really do not want to get into all the legal specifics but in short given the choice to be tried here or in the UK any defense council would gladly choose here including your lawyers.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/power-of-officials-to-enter-your-home/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I think you will find some differences.  It also seems your rights were updated in 1998 and in 2007 to be more protective to the individual.

Protection against self-incrimination is implicit in the Miranda rights statement, which protects the "right to remain silent." This amendment is also similar to Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In other Commonwealth of Nations countries like Australia and New Zealand, the right to silence of the accused both during questioning and at trial is regarded as an important right inherited from common law, and is protected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and in Australia through various federal and state acts and codes governing the criminal justice system.

The Supreme Court has held that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." 

They do not mention the UK specifically other than its commonwealth status which in my understanding is powerless but more of a symbolic gesture.

What sweeping statements you make Chickened. How can you possibly say that lawyers from the UK would rather defend a client in the US legal system? I can think of only two reasons:

You do not believe in the justice system in the UK

You believe that lawyers are more likely to get their clients off in the US system. Which I wonder is it?

If the person being defended is innocent then they are better off here.

It is not that I do not believe in UK  justice  I happen to think ours offers the accused more rights if they are truly innocent.

Your laws are improving in human rights for the accused.

Read about the Nuremberg trials. That was a classic example of US law and Uk  law clashing.  The soldiers that did what they were told would have never survived in a UK court. IMO
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by newfoundland 

What sweeping statements you make Chickened. How can you possibly say that lawyers from the UK would rather defend a client in the US legal system? I can think of only two reasons:

You do not believe in the justice system in the UK

You believe that lawyers are more likely to get their clients off in the US system. Which I wonder is it?

I think you are confusing the issue here Chickened. The Nuremberg trials happened rather a long time ago and they were war trials. If  you are referring to the old 'I was only following orders, excuse', you must agree that it is very easy to claim this when all the major protagonists are dead and cannot argue otherwise. Some witnesses I know survived to tell their ghastly tales, and following orders or not, a crime is a crime.

Regarding ordinary criminal trials I don't believe any right minded person would want an innocent person punished. I don't agree that a UK person has less protection under the law than a US citizen. You talked about the right to remain silent, but we have the same right. In fact the police caution says, 'You do not have to say anything ....' Surely this is just another way of saying 'You have the right to remain silent...' The Crown Prosecution Service must prove to the jury that the person is guilty, 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. Of course there can be unsound convictions, there is in any system, but there is the right of appeal, and as there is no capital punishment, no one would be sent wrongly to the gallows, unlike in some countries.