renault12ts
MB Club Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Messages
- 16,671
- Car
- 2005 W215 CL500.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks Lee, must have missed that, puts the whole thing in a different light.
Because they were scum and he did us all a favour by shooting the intruders to his neighbours house.
He looked after his fellow citizen. The world would be a better place if there were more people like him.
When you look at the challenges faced by our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq you realise that things are very difficult for a professional army. An army of teenage conscripts, many of whom would have no aptitude for the rigours of soldiering, would fare far worse.
We ended National Service once the need for manpower for our Empire had passed. And we are currently looking to cut costs by reducing the Army to an unprecedented size rather than spending billions conscripting people that we don't need.
People in this country don't tend to buy firearms for self-protection. But that is one of the major motivations behind many purchases in the UK. One of the reasons they have that motivation is the perception that the bad guys they encounter will be armed. Again that is not the norm here.
It would mean a totally different mind set and it's not an army that could be used overseas, purely for defence of the Islands
The original reasons for allowing citizens to arm themselves are sound in that it meant people could oppose an oppressive Government [in the 18th Century.]
I am uncomfortable with UK Governments having the monopoly on lethal force particularly when they have a habit of turning this on individual groups or communities. By example I would look to what happened in Ireland over a 30 year period the 1984/5 miners strike and the various times troops have been used in the near and distant past against strikers and protesters.
I think that you meant USA, rather than UK, above??
Scott_F said:More gun-tooting rednecks who shoot first and ask questions later ??
What if the two men had been visiting a friend who was out ? Delivering a parcel and left it round the back as no one was home ? Quoting for some work that needed doing on the roof or in the back garden ?
His murderous actions would have been rather more difficult to justify. But it would have been a bit too late for the victims, wouldn't it ?
So you'd scrap our professional army and replace it with a Home Defence Force of unwilling amateurs ? And who exactly is going to invade us ??
Not ideal for our World commitments (Sierra Leone, Kosovo etc.) and disastrous if we have another Falklands situation.
It was evident this was an intruder. Hence he shot him. I don't see it as murder.
A delivery driver usually has a liveried van and a uniform. A friend wouldn't prowl around the garden and would probably ring rfe door, which said shooter would observe.
A would be intruder doesn't do any of these things but breaks windows, climbs around suspiciously.
I bet the householder would be grateful for his neighbours actions.
It was evident this was an intruder. Hence he shot him. I don't see it as murder.
A delivery driver usually has a liveried van and a uniform. A friend wouldn't prowl around the garden and would probably ring rfe door, which said shooter would observe.
A would be intruder doesn't do any of these things but breaks windows, climbs around suspiciously.
I bet the householder would be grateful for his neighbours actions.
I think the reasons for it are mixed. And it's coloured by the fact that countries didn't necessarily expect (or want) to have a full time standing army. In the early US idea of maintaining a citizen militia was important to them.
Both of these are bad examples.
I don't recall soldiers being used during the miner's strike. It would have been politically unacceptable. There was enough controversy that police were being imported from other forces.
And as for NI. If they hadn't sent in the army arguably the situation could have deteriorated to something a lot worse given that there were two opposing communities and a neighbouring foreign government in the mix.
Family members returning home unexpectedly, getting shot. On it goes.
However to put some meat on it to keep you happy the use of the military against the people goes back to before Peterloo in 1819 but was fairly common in the early 2oth Century in South Wales and in Clydeside in 1919; the military were used as strike breakers in 1926 and more recently against the Firemen.
Seemed to keep the situation from boiling over. It didn't erupt into civil war. The reality was that without the army there then a lot lot worse could have gone on.The shootings in Derry on Bloody Sunday and then later targeted assasination of IRA men by the SAS would not fit you model of the peacemaker role for the military, it may have started well but the events of Bloody Sunday finished it.
renault12ts said:The intruders had left the property...what difference did it make to the householder having the would be intruders shot?
Yes...if they had confronted me or mine then I'd have been justified in killing them...but to act as judge, jury and executioner after the event, is unjustified homicide.
What is your take on the Trayvon shooting, am I correct in saying that you lived in the U.S. at some point?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.