Mountain Meadows, and Las Vegas. It is a fair comparison?

[bluebell]

15 hours ago, sheilauk said:

This is completely untrue.  The UK allows for self defence in and out of the home.  In fact recently the definition of self defence was amended to broaden it's scope so that any harm to an attacker/burglar can be caused in self defence except grossly excessive harm, considering all the circumstances.  And we all know the police will take forever to attend, arriving when its all over!  You can't however, harm someone who is running away,  even if they assaulted or burgled you.  Most guns are illegal and very few people including criminals have them.  (obviously there are other weapons, eg knives, but carrying most kinds of knives is also illegal and penalties are high).  Home invasion is low,  home burglaries are low especially when people are at home.  should a person be harmed or killed, the police will investigate,  even if it's allegedly a homeowner assaulting a burglar because people lie!   However, a homeowner genuinely acting in self defence won't be punished. Of course, some mistakes are made by the police, and people have been charged and juries have acquitted them because they were acting on self defence. Most people probably are compliant when threatened, but it's not because the government requires them to be, more likely due to fear, even if they have access to their own weapons.   The UK doesn't have a gun culture,  has never really had one,  and I think most citizens are perfectly happy with our gun laws.   Many can't understand the US love of guns. Each to his own.

I think you're right, it's a difference in culture, and that comes from the different ways that each culture was shaped.

In the U.S. most of the states were frontier states at one time or another.  Every person was responsible to protect themselves and their families from very real threats.  There were no lords or landowners who were expected to protect the people who lived on their lands like existed in England and other European countries in the past.  Each person had to protect themselves.  And this wasn't that long ago (when compared to European history especially).  I grew up in a town in the west (next to Yellowstone national park) that came into existence in 1909, for example.

Hunting is also a huge heritage in the U.S. so besides protection, there is a gun culture surrounding the need to hunt.  In England, if i understand right (and I might not) hunting is not as big a part of the culture as it is in America, probably because hunting was more a rich person's sport than a way for the average family to feed themselves.  

So you have a large portion of Americans. growing up with a heritage where guns were necessary for protection and for food.  It's a mindset that got passed on even as it stopped being as relevant (depending on which part of the u.s. you're talking about).

Besides that, the kind of people who wanted to live in the U.S. (especially the western states) as it was developing were generally the kind of people who were very comfortable being in charge of their own safety and also didn't trust authority as much.  That's a heritage and personality type that also get's passed down.

So it makes sense that Americans and the British are very different when it comes to their relationship with guns.  

[Guest]

14 hours ago, boblloyd91 said:

I wonder how aware this individual is of how the Saints were treated at Haun's mill and would share the same outrage over that. Or how the Puritans behaved towards  Indians, Quakers and religious dissenters. It sounds like a hate filled bigot who is ghoulishly using a tragedy to get points on a religious group he despises over something that happened ages ago and hasn't been done by Latter Day Saints since. Some people listen to their father the devil and like to spread contention I guess....

Despite what motivations caused the MMM, we should never engage in an effort to justify those actions. But, it is true that he hates Mormons, which is why he does not want to look at the truth of other murderous actions elsewhere..Since he gets paid to attack almost every faith, all he seems to care about is his "bottom line".  

[longview]

20 hours ago, Gray said:

Afraid? I didn't respond because your point was irrelevant. The topic is gun control, not GB's particular self-defense laws (assuming you're not misrepresenting them).

This is laughable.  The points were arguments against gun control.  The logic is unassailable.  You had no better alternatives except to force people to wait agonizing minutes for the police to show up (IF you were lucky enough to be able to call the police).

[longview]

16 hours ago, sheilauk said:

This is completely untrue.  The UK allows for self defence in and out of the home.  In fact recently the definition of self defence was amended to broaden it's scope so that any harm to an attacker/burglar can be caused in self defence except grossly excessive harm, considering all the circumstances. 

"At the same time as government demanded sole responsibility for protecting individuals, it adopted a more lenient approach toward offenders. Sentences were sharply reduced, few offenders served more than a third or a half of their term, and fewer offenders were incarcerated. Further, they were to be protected from their victims. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one burglar and wounding another, was denied parole because he posed a danger to other burglars. "It cannot possibly be suggested," the government lawyers argued, "that members of the public cease to be so whilst committing criminal offences" adding, "society can not possibly condone their (unlawful) murder or injury".  Meanwhile, much of rural Britain is without a police presence. And the statutes meant to protect the people have been vigorously enforced against them. Among the articles people have been convicted of carrying for self defence are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper. This trade-off of rights for security has been disastrous for both. Crime has rocketed. A UN study in 2002 of 18 developed countries placed England and Wales at the top of the Western world's crime league. Five years after the sweeping 1998 ban on handguns, handgun crime had doubled. As was forecast at the time, the effect of outlawing handguns has been that only outlaws have handguns."   see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3612532/Where-I-come-from-our-homes-are-still-our-castles.html

"In another case, a well-known TV personality was seated at her kitchen table with her daughter one night when she caught several young men peering through her window. She immediately began looking around for something to use to defend herself and her daughter from what she believed was an imminent attack and found a kitchen knife. She waved it in front of them and chased them away.  But she was later visited by Hertfordshire police, who summarily informed her that the knife was an "offensive weapon" and, thus, illegal.  see https://www.naturalnews.com/049963_self-defense_government_dependence_United_Kingdom.html

"Though intruders into your home would generally not be covered by the amendments, all the circumstances will have to be considered and each decision will be judged individually. For example if you deliberately set your dog onto the intruder and they then suffer injury, you may be liable for prosecution and the dog ordered to be kept under control.  see https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q524.htm

"Q78: Can I put barbed/razor wire/broken glass on the top of my fence to stop people getting in?  Using barbed/razor wire and broken glass in order to stop people getting in to your home is not advisable. You are making yourself liable to civil action as you owe a duty of care to ensure that visitors to your property are reasonably safe. Odd as it may seem, you also owe a duty of care to trespassers.  see https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q78.htm

The socialist state much prefer the "security" of the "collective" rather than the individual.  In a related matter, the UK refused the parents leave to take their sick baby to America for better/alternative treatment.

[sheilauk]

These are not reliable, particularly the telegraph.   May and not advisable is not the same as illegal.  l work in criminal law.   I know what our self defence laws are and how they are applied.   I have defended people using self defence.  The UK does not have a socialist state and it has a different culture.   I don't lecture you on your country and laws,  please don't try to tell me about mine.  As for the baby, it had nothing to do with the State despite what a few publicity seeking Americans came and shouted about.  The doctors and parents disagreed and there were a series of court cases. The baby was already seriously ill and unable to be moved before the 1st court case was heard.  The treatment wasn't better, it was untested for the baby's illness, and the doctor offering it ended up retracting.  Much of the reporting on the case was seriously flawed. 

Edited to add - the UK's awful gun crime  - 5864 incidents (all types of crimes involving guns including unlawful possession ) in 2016 and domestic burglaries were down by 7% in 2016.  We had 691 murders in 2016, very few by guns.

Edited October 12, 2017 by sheilauk
Figures added

[sheilauk]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think you're right, it's a difference in culture, and that comes from the different ways that each culture was shaped.

In the U.S. most of the states were frontier states at one time or another.  Every person was responsible to protect themselves and their families from very real threats.  There were no lords or landowners who were expected to protect the people who lived on their lands like existed in England and other European countries in the past.  Each person had to protect themselves.  And this wasn't that long ago (when compared to European history especially).  I grew up in a town in the west (next to Yellowstone national park) that came into existence in 1909, for example.

Hunting is also a huge heritage in the U.S. so besides protection, there is a gun culture surrounding the need to hunt.  In England, if i understand right (and I might not) hunting is not as big a part of the culture as it is in America, probably because hunting was more a rich person's sport than a way for the average family to feed themselves.  

So you have a large portion of Americans. growing up with a heritage where guns were necessary for protection and for food.  It's a mindset that got passed on even as it stopped being as relevant (depending on which part of the u.s. you're talking about).

Besides that, the kind of people who wanted to live in the U.S. (especially the western states) as it was developing were generally the kind of people who were very comfortable being in charge of their own safety and also didn't trust authority as much.  That's a heritage and personality type that also get's passed down.

So it makes sense that Americans and the British are very different when it comes to their relationship with guns.  

I agree - our attitudes to guns come from living very different histories.   I am saddened by the many gun deaths but I don't see our prohibitions working in the USA.  And it's for the USA to work out for itself.   Many laws don't translate into other countries. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, sheilauk said:

These are not reliable, particularly the telegraph.   May and not advisable is not the same as illegal.  l work in criminal law.   I know what our self defence laws are and how they are applied.   I have defended people using self defence.  The UK does not have a socialist state and it has a different culture.   I don't lecture you on your country and laws,  please don't try to tell me about mine.  As for the baby, it had nothing to do with the State despite what a few publicity seeking Americans came and shouted about.  The doctors and parents disagreed and there were a series of court cases. The baby was already seriously ill and unable to be moved before the 1st court case was heard.  The treatment wasn't better, it was untested for the baby's illness, and the doctor offering it ended up retracting.  Much of the reporting on the case was seriously flawed. 

Edited to add - the UK's awful gun crime  - 5864 incidents (all types of crimes involving guns including unlawful possession ) in 2016 and domestic burglaries were down by 7% in 2016.  We had 691 murders in 2016, very few by guns.

Appreciate you taking the time to give an accurate description