Update: Old Bill Releases UK Shotgun Defense Couple

 

TTAG reader NorthernBrit brings us up to speed on the recent armed self-defense case in Leicestershire [UK]:

Don’t know if you caught this but the couple involved have been released, without charge. The left-leaning Guardian newspaper reports that “Andy Ferrie, 35, and his wife, Tracey, 43, were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm after a legally-owned shotgun was fired during a break-in at their home in Welby, Leicestershire, in the early hours of Sunday. The Ferries were released on police bail as police announced that two men had been charged with burgling the property near Melton Mowbray . . .

In a statement released by the Crown Prosecution Service, Judith Walker, the chief crown prosecutor for the East Midlands, said: “Looking at the evidence, it is clear to me that Mr and Mrs Ferrie did what they believed was necessary to protect themselves, and their home, from intruders.” . . .

“The law is clear that anyone who acts in good faith, using reasonable force, doing what they honestly feel is necessary to protect themselves, their families or their property, will not be prosecuted for such action.”

Not a bad result by UK standards. Here’s an interesting and bold opinion piece from The Daily Mail. As you know, The Mail is at the opposite end of the political spectrum to the Guardian and the Mail’s circulation is vastly greater.

But when a burglar is not carrying a gun, the law seems to feel that use of one by the victim is a disproportionate response. Yet how is the householder, taken by surprise and in great fear, supposed to know?

For most people protecting themselves and their property, the question will not arise. There are around 862,000 licensed gun owners in the UK, or just under 1.5 per cent of the population.

That probably means in nearly 99 out of 100 houses, a burglar could break in and there is no chance of his being confronted by a shotgun-wielding householder . . .

A civilised country has to have a rule of law, and vigilante justice cannot be reconciled with that. But neither can people live in fear of increasingly organised and ruthless burglars, against whom the police are perceived to provide little or no protection . . .

The Home Secretary should introduce a bill as quickly as possible that stops householders being arrested, and thus coming to the attention of the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] in the first place.

Now, here’s the outcome reported in what passes for the local rag in my neck of the tundra, SW Scotland (The Daily Record):

Rutland and Melton MP Alan Duncan, a Government minister, said the real crime would be if the couple were prosecuted for defending their home . . .

Mr Duncan said he was delighted the couple would not face further action.

He said: “I stuck my neck out in defence of my constituents on Monday.

“I’m delighted the CPS has seen sense and has exonerated them. The law has worked and so has the system.

“The focus must be on the burglars and not the victims. My constituents can hold their heads high.”

He added: “I hope they can sleep happily and safely at home this evening.”

Mr Duncan said he had spoken to the police about the incident.

“I did speak to the police today and impressed on them that the law would look very silly if my constituents were ever charged or prosecuted.”

He said their shotgun licence should not be questioned by the police as a result of the incident.

Exactly!

comments

  1. avatar RIGHT! says:

    Welcome to Obama’s second term

    1. avatar Johnny Mac says:

      Obama’s 2nd term is an unknown, and I’m confident that he would sign just about any gun control legislation that passed his desk.

      However–and make no mistake about this–so would Mitt Romney.

      How do I know this? Because I lived in Massachusetts when he signed an Assault Weapons ban into law. To watch Ted Nugent stumping for Mitt Romney made me physically ill.

      There may be other good reasons to choose Romney over Obama, but do not fool yourself into thinking that he is better on guns. Obama cannot sign any gun legislation that cannot pass a Republican-controlled House; and Romney will not refuse to sign any gun legislation that passes a Democrat-controlled House.

      Control of the House is much more important that who is elected president…

      1. avatar HSR47 says:

        I may not live in MA (although I was born there), but it seems to me that MA has HAD an AWB since the late 1990’s, and that Romney didn’t even become Governor until 2003.

        As for the so-called “AWB” that Romney signed into law in MA, every reputable source I have found clearly states that all the bill did was copy certain bits of the Federal AWB, which was about to expire and was directly referenced in the pre-existing MA AWB, into MA’s statutes, thus preventing large numbers of guns suddenly becoming “illegal” to own overnight.

  2. avatar Little John says:

    They should not of been arrested in the first place….. let hope Right, is not right on his statement above. hehehehe if he is and Obama has his way we wont be having our guns to protect ourselfs, family, home or country…..

  3. avatar Roll says:

    You know the world is going full stupid when it is a crime to protect yourself and your property…

  4. avatar Bill Baldwin says:

    I wonder why both the husband and the wife were arrested. Did they take turns shooting the bad guys?

    1. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

      I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, this is the country where a man was tackled to the ground and arrested for not smiling and looking like he was having a good time whilst in the stands at the Olympic games this summer. Knowing that, are you honestly surprised that these brave farmers were arrested under “suspicion” like everyone else who doesn’t wear a uniform and badge is over there?

      1. avatar Bill Baldwin says:

        Surprised? no. Just curious why both were arrested. I thought the man admitted to shooting.

        1. avatar Silver says:

          From what was gleaned in the previous post about this, apparently in the UK, you’re arrested even if there’s any suspicion until you’re “proven innocent.” Basically, over here, if you shoot a burglar, you’re not arrested unless further investigation places you under suspicion of foul play. Over there, you’re just flat out arrested until it’s decided you didn’t break the law. Nice, huh?

        2. avatar jwm says:

          are we even using the term “arrested” properly in the context of british law? maybe they were taken in for questioning and afterwards released? i don’t claim expertise in legal matters but it woulb be interesting to find out.

        3. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          Silver you do not know WTF you are talking about. Shootings are very rare in England, so when one occurs the shooter is arrested until it can all be shaken out. Also there is no right for everybody to own a long gun in their home – for all the bobby knows it was an illegal firearm. Better to take them in and check rather than let them go, and conspire to create an alibi, or run, or do who knows what – hindsight is always 20 20, but at 3 in the morning there isn’t much to be done other than take them in and hold them until the facts can be ascertained – that’s what’s known as good police work.

          Also at no point were they not innocent in the eyes of the law. They did not need to “prove their innocence” to the police – the police aren’t a judge and jury. I don’t know if the big words they use are confusing you, or you are just incapable of seeing another country’s justice system clearly without bringing your own blinkered bias into the equation – but either way you are quite wrong.

        4. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          jwm they were arrested, in that they did have to go with the police, and they were held in some kind of cell for a day or two. But being arrested for “suspicion” of a crime is quite different to be arrested for an actual crime. They were arrested on suspicion so that they could be formally questioned, on tape, about what happened. It’s how it works in England, and whilst I’m sure it’s a bit scary to do it that way it is actually designed to protect your rights rather than take them away.

        5. avatar Greg Camp says:

          hmmmmmmm, are you seriously claiming that gun rights are respected in Britain? How about the right to self-defense? Incidents like this one are exactly why we refuse to discuss compromises with your side. We know that if we give ground to you, we’ll end up like England.

        6. avatar JuanCudz says:

          It makes it a lot easier to get their DNA into the database.

        7. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          I don’t want my flame deleted Greg, so just imagine what I would like to say about your level of intellect. These people just shot some burglars in self defence, in England, with a GUN, and were RELEASED after questioning. How is that not the right to self defense being upheld? Please, do tell us all how that is not the right to self defence being upheld?

        8. avatar jwm says:

          both the man and woman were taken in, arrested. did they both shoot the badguys or am i missing something. if i shoot an intruder in my home can my wife expect to be arrested too. something doesn’t add up.

        9. avatar Silver says:

          jwm, the simple fact is that yes, in the UK, you can be arrested for committing no crime merely because they want to keep you around. hmmmm is a tool, a fool, and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He thinks it’s perfectly ok for the police to arrest anyone “just to be safe.” He’s a tool of tyranny, and would be one of the first lemmings manning the gas chambers.

        10. avatar hmmmmm says:

          No silver, the the simple fact is that no, you cannot just be arrested for committing no crime. If the police do that then you can sue them for wrongful arrest, and you will win a lot of money. FLAME DELETED – LAST WARNING!

  5. avatar bill says:

    Good for them. Common sense does not always prevail especially in England.

    PS I love the Daily Mail. I read it everyday. It is probably the only online newspaper I would even consider paying for.

    1. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

      “PS I love the Daily Mail. I read it everyday. It is probably the only online newspaper I would even consider paying for.”

      That is either the most sarcastic, or the most sad thing I have read today.

  6. avatar HAVE GUN says:

    “Mr Duncan said he was delighted the couple would not face further action.

    He said: “I stuck my neck out in defence of my constituents on Monday.”

    A little political influence didn’t hurt.
    If the same thing happens in a neighboring burg, would there be a different story?

    I have not idea, just a thought.

  7. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

    Wow – almost like this was a complete non story just like I said it would be.

    Due process was followed, and justice was served. Now I guess the rabid anti-English folks here will all disappear, rather than admit they were wrong and that they have zero clue about the English legal system. Zero clue period, to be honest.

    1. avatar Greg Camp says:

      Um, no, this story shows the clear bias against good citizen gun owners over there. They had to have an MP come to their defense. What happens to the person who doesn’t get that kind of help? If that’s the kind of system that you want, you’re welcome to it. Over there. Not here.

      1. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

        These people were released without charge. But why let the facts get in the way of you shooting your mouth off about things you don’t understand, right?

  8. avatar Snachnim says:

    Amen hope they keep their shotguns clean!

  9. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

    How embarrassing for all you extremists who commented when the story first broke.

    Good for you for posting this follow up, Robert.

    1. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

      How is this incident ANY different than that poor farmer who had been broken into multiple times and shot the burglar and spent several years in prison. Oh wait, there is no difference, only the judges or magistrates are different, with different opinions, beliefs, actions, results.

      Anthony Edward “Tony” Martin (born 1944)[1] is a farmer from Norfolk, England, who in 1999 killed one burglar and wounded another who had both entered his home. He was convicted of murder, replaced with manslaughter on appeal, and as a result became a cause célèbre, and polarised opinion in the United Kingdom.[2]

      In 1999, Martin, a bachelor, was living alone at his farmhouse in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, nicknamed Bleak House, which he inherited at age 35 from his uncle.[3] He claimed to have been burgled a total of ten times, losing £6,000 worth of furniture. Martin also complained about police inaction over the burglaries. The police reports state that multiple items and furniture were stolen such as dinnerware and a grandfather clock.[4]
      On the night of 20 August 1999, two burglars – Brendon Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras 16 – broke into Martin’s house.[5] Shooting downwards in the dark, with a pump-action Winchester shotgun loaded with birdshot, Martin evidentially shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit – fatally – in the back and both sustained gunshot injuries to their lower limbs. Both escaped through the window but Barras died at the scene.[2]

      Yeah love how one must depend on the politicial whims and beliefs of a political appointee of whom most in that country have a history of proving that criminals have superior rights to civilians.

      1. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

        Tony Martin lives (or lived, I don’t know any more, as I now live in the US) down the road from me. He was a local hero and the person he killed was utter scum, but that doesn’t change the fact that he shot and killed a man who was RUNNING AWAY from him.

        Please tell me what the police would do if you shot a man in the back as he was running away from your property here in the USA? Would that be a justified DGU? I DO NOT THINK SO.

        The double standards by you idiots are beyond belief – you make the US out to be some kind gun free for all, when quite clearly it is not. If you shoot a man (child, actually, Barras was 16) who is running from you in the back then you are going to be in a world of trouble in even a castle doctrine state – because by definition a man running for his life is no threat to you.

        1. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

          Geez, the article states this, yet you claim something else. So provide the police report that shows different to match your claim FLAME DELETED

          [5] Shooting downwards in the dark, with a pump-action Winchester shotgun loaded with birdshot, Martin evidentially shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of an adjacent ground floor room).

        2. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          WARNING PERSISTENT FLAMERS WILL BE PERMANENTLY DELETED

          On the one hand we have Tony Martin, who shot and killed a juvenile in the back as he was running from his house, and on the other hand we have this case, where so far it seems no such event happened and it was a legitimate DGU.

          What I don’t understand is how you can not accept that even in the USA you would be in trouble for what Martin did.

        3. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

          Wheres the police report to substantiate your claim einstein?

          FLAME DELETED – WARNING PERSISTENT FLAMERS WILL BE PERMANENTLY BANNED

        4. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

          Money bets you were one of the two survivors!

        5. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

          Telling it that their failure to substantiate a claim is worse than mikeb gets deleted, WOW!

        6. avatar DonS says:

          If you shoot a man (child, actually, Barras was 16) who is running from you in the back then you are going to be in a world of trouble in even a castle doctrine state

          Unless you’re in Texas, at night, shooting a thief who’s fleeing with your property.

        7. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          Well where’s the police report to support your claims then? Right off the bat though even an epsilon– can tell there is at least some difference, because NOBODY IS DEAD. The other big giveaway that these events are very different is that the Ferrie’s have been released without charge. Until we all see the full police report we cannot be sure, but that is a pretty huge tip in probability to my side of the scales.

          So far the only “evidence” you have to support your assertion that these events are the same is because you say so. Unfortunately the world does not turn on the say so of egotistical fantasists, no matter how much they shout and stamp their feet.

        8. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          Sorry Don, perhaps a lawyer can step in here, but I do not believe the castle doctrine would save you from a ton of trouble if you kill an unarmed man who is running from your property, even in Texas, and even at night.

          The “D” in DGU pretty clearly does not apply when the perp is running away as fast as their legs can carry them.

        9. avatar DonS says:

          Sorry Don, perhaps a lawyer can step in here, but I do not believe the castle doctrine would save you from a ton of trouble if you kill an unarmed man who is running from your property, even in Texas, and even at night.

          From the Texas Penal Code:
          § 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
          justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
          tangible, movable property:
          (1) if he would be justified in using force against the
          other under Section 9.41; and
          (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
          deadly force is immediately necessary:
          (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of
          arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
          nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
          (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
          immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
          robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
          property; and
          (3) he reasonably believes that:
          (A) the land or property cannot be protected or
          recovered by any other means; or
          (B) the use of force other than deadly force to
          protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
          another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

        10. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          3A is pretty much the fly in the ointment there, from how I read it. Of course what the law says exactly, and how it’s applied can vary quite a bit depending on the judge.

          Of course the guy that Martin killed didn’t, as far as I know, have any of his property on his person – so again the castle doctrine wouldn’t apply anyway in that case, even in Texas.

        11. avatar DonS says:

          3A is pretty much the fly in the ointment there, from how I read it.

          Don’t need 3A, just 3B. (Note the “or” between 3A and 3B).

        12. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          In the Martin case you would fail at 2 before you even got to 3. Are you reading this jarhead? Even in Texas in the land of the free Tony Martin would have been in a whole world of trouble. FLAME DELETED – LAST WARNING

          However Don I do take your point that you could shoot somebody in the back at night if they are running with your property – I didn’t realise it went quite that far in Texas. I still think that 3A sinks you in many cases though, because 3B would not apply unless the thief is shooting at you or behaving aggressively somehow – which if they are running away they are unlikely to be doing.

        13. avatar DonS says:

          I still think that 3A sinks you in many cases though, because 3B would not apply unless the thief is shooting at you or behaving aggressively somehow – which if they are running away they are unlikely to be doing.

          I read 3B to mean that if I used any force at all in attempting to recover my property, and any force short of deadly force would expose me to serious injury, then deadly force is justified. That is, if I reasonably believe that trying to take my property back with my bare hands will expose me to serious bodily injury (e.g. maybe I’m 5’5″ and 140lbs while the thief is 6’5″ and 300lbs), I’m justified in using deadly force.

          The thief being armed or aggressive doesn’t seem to be required for 3B to apply. Just my reasonable belief that using force in trying to recover my property will expose me to a substantial risk of serious bodily injuy.

        14. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          You know what, after re-reading 3B I think you have the correct gist of it. Better make sure you stuff some jewelry in his pocket before the police arrive I guess!

        15. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

          Wow, nice standards, but those standards are not British hence irrelevant and just more smoke screen to the antis adamant refusal to provide the data.

          This point is about the double standards of politicial whimsey in Britain and hmmm has refused to prove that is true.

          Where did Tony Martin violate those BRITISH standards compared to this couple? Having real trouble seeing beyond the double standard as both groups of bad guys were in the house when shot.

          They had both been broken into multiple times as well. Such an endearing lauding of the British

          But then we get to the fly in the ointment that hmmm and the antis refuse to present much less acknowledge.

          Both groups of bad guys were in the house, in a dark room in Martins case, and the victim (Martin) was shooting downwards.

          So show everyone the police report not to mention the forensics report that Tony Martin pursued them past the stair well the article states he shot them from.

          The ballistic trajectory were Martin to have pursued would mean he moved to ground level, which would then change the trajectory of the shotgun round to have been more to a 0-5 degree impact versus a 20 to 40 degree impact when fired upon from the stairwell upon the criminals. It is basic geometry of angles and such we are asking about, or are you more of an artsie emotional type who has problems dealing with facts and such as geometry does give artsie types problems.

          Come on hmmm, lets see the report or all the fluff your spinning doesnt mean didley.

          Your insane refusal to present this data just lends further credence to the perception that you were the other burglar who survived being shot by Martin since you do admit you lived right down the road.

          Giving you ALL the leeway to prove that documented report that Martin was IN HIS HOUSE AND DID NOT PURSUE THE BURGLARS is false, come on hmmm, we are waiting for YOUR PROOF cause frankly, all anti gun extremists have no credibility.

        16. Tony Martin shot Fred Barras in the back whilst he was running away – something that would get you charged in several places in the US too.
          If the couple in the recent incident had shot one of their adversaries whilst he was running away, then I doubt very much they would have been released without charges being brought.
          Please don’t forget that the US (despite indications otherwise…..) operates under a less restrictive form of government than just about anywhere else.

        17. avatar DonS says:

          Tony Martin shot Fred Barras in the back whilst he was running away – something that would get you charged in several places in the US too.
          Probably most, but most certainly not all, places in the US.
          Please don’t forget that the US (despite indications otherwise…..) operates under a less restrictive form of government than just about anywhere else.
          We don’t forget it – most (?) of us are perfectly happy with a very limited government. We’re unhappy because, over the last several decades, that government has made itself much less limited than it’s supposed to be.

        18. Aye; it’s an unfortunate fact that ANY State apparatus will, over time, attempt to take ever greater control over a nation & its citizens.

          The buggers have had longer to practice over here:-(

        19. avatar DonS says:

          And that’s why, probably rhetorically, “the tree of liberty must be refreshed periodically with the blood of patriots and tyrants”. Hard to do that without armed patriots. Tyrants we have in abundance.

    2. avatar RuffRidr says:

      “How embarrassing for all you extremists who commented when the story first broke.”

      Had the story not broke, the couple might very well still be in prison as Jarhead points out. +1 to the extremists.

      1. avatar Silver says:

        These days, anyone who doesn’t fall lockstep in with tyranny and willful self-subjugation is an “extremist.”

      2. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

        Aahahahahah. aaahahahahahah.

        It’s because of you guys that they got out? Arrgghhahahahahahah.

  10. avatar Steve says:

    Well it nice to hear that these folks have been released.

    To some of the other commentators who so ready to jump on the UK justice system for arresting these folks, I have a question.

    How is what happened in this case all that different from what one would expect here in the US?

    It is not hard to imagine the Police here in the US taking someone into custody for a while until they sort out the particulars of a shooting. I do think that several days is longer than was strictly necessary to sort out this case, but that’s just my opinion from thousands of miles away.

    The end result was that the police did their due diligence and found that these folks were within their rights and released them. That is the way its supposed to work.

    If I was involved with a home-defense type shooting, I would expect to be taken into custody, brought to the police station, questioned. I would expect my gun to the taken for evidence. I would expect the whole process to be difficult. I would also expect that once it was sorted out I would be released.

    I guess it just seems that some folks who cried “Injustice” at the treatment of these folks were a bit overeager. Chill out a little bit and let the process work.

    Now if these folks had been arrested, held for weeks, and charged with Murder or something else I would see that as a gross injustice, but that didn’t happen.

    1. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

      Your last sentence is exactly what normally happens in the UK.

      1. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

        FLAME DELETED Unless you are held for terrorism related offenses the longest you can be held in England without charge is 24 hours, although this can be extended to 96 by a magistrate – ie the police have to give reasonable proof to a 3rd party for that extension. Realistically a magistrate will not refuse a request for an extension, but still at most you are looking at 4 days in jail, not even one week, let alone many weeks as you claim.

        Oh and the maximum for terrorism offenses is 14 days without charge – you might want to compare that to how the land of the free behave with YEARS without charge and no rights in a foreign prison.

        1. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

          See that is what in the US is called Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground, where without any arrest or such, the DA makes a determination based on those rules and standards of what constitutes self defense and then refuses to press charges where those standards of self defense are met. Really sucks that DA’s actually have to follow law and guidelines based on such a law rather than their whim as is in jolly olde England, then again, it is their job to determine if charges should be brought anyway.

          Sure you get questioned, sure they may take the firearm for what reason I really dont understand (no ballistic finger print from a shot gun, or the slug dug out of the bad guy is definitely from the hand gun).

          But in the US you only get arrested if your self defense act was actually outside the standard, which you would know if you actually read US law, but you dont.

          Yet here you are commenting on US laws and such all the time with no legal clue, so you just, how did you put it, oh yeah, YOU STFU on every issue in the US!

          So prove all those incidents where the bad guys got their arses handed to them by their intended victim in the UK are not superior to the civilians and suprise us poor heathens in the US by proving they didnt get arrested, go to trial, be convicted or cost them $50,000 in legal expenses when the facts clearly show they were justified, put up or STFU.

          By the way wanker, WHERE THE HECK WERE THE BOBBIES? Thought you infer the BOBBIES can protect you ALL THE TIME?

          Dont like it when you get treated the same way, too bad for you.

        2. avatar hmmmmmmmm says:

          jarhead don’t you feel even the tiniest amount of shame that you keep running your gums without even the first clue what you are talking about? Just because the 1A lets you froth and foam without any knowledge of which you speak, doesn’t mean you actually should do so.

          The crown prosecution service in England fulfills pretty much the exact role of the DA here – the police can howl as much as they like, but if the CPS says they will not take the case, then that is it – you are free. You will not even be charged without the CPS giving the nod first. Your idea that people are charged in England “on a whim” is rooted in ignorance.

        3. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          Pro-gun commenters don’t need to know what they’re talking about as long as they keep repeating the same NRA talking points. What they lack in integrity and substance they make up in passion.

        4. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

          FLAME DELETED – LAST WARNING

        5. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          gobbledeygook = disagrees with you

        6. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

          Then ban mikeb and hmmm as well as I said nothing this morning that he does not do in the same fashion on a regular basis.

        7. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          Whaaaa whhaaaaaaa. And you were a Marine with that whiny attitude?

      2. You’re wrong in this.
        I can recall several incidents of self defence over the last year or two here in Blighty & all resulted in either no charges being brought, the charges being dropped or the defendant being acquitted.
        There has been a radical(for the UK) rethink recently about an individual’s right to use force in defending themselves or others & their property.
        It’s a start in the right direction.

      3. avatar jwm says:

        mikeybnumbers, i have never seen you put out a single fact in your diatribes. won’t call them debates or arguments. but you say we just repeat nra talking points. the only reason you’re here is to try and drum up hits for your own failed blog.

        1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          You’re failing on the veracity meter again. And I noticed another thing. As much as you complain about the substance of my comments, yours are generally nothing more than criticism of me. You’re the one who’s not adding anything.

          It’s true that I prefer to use my head and talk theory, but to say that you’ve NEVER seen one fact from me is less than honest.

          Here’s one of my favorites, there have been others.

          http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2012/04/intentional-homicide-rate-whos-worse-uk.html

        2. avatar jwm says:

          sorry, i don’t click onto the links to your site. that would double the traffic to your failed site and that would be a favor to you.
          and as you are actively involved in trying to violate my rights and freedoms do you wonder why i’m critical of you?

  11. avatar jwm says:

    i guess my biggest complaint with the uk is the fact that you have to have a license to buy a shotgun or rifle and can’t buy a handgun. i see no reason to restrict the law abiding in such a manner. that’s why i belong to the nra and saf.

    1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

      Yeah, that make you a genius. The UK has a 4 times lower intentional homicide rate, compared to the US, largely due to gun control.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        i said restrict the law abiding mikeybnumbers, not the criminals. and do not mistake my lack of formal education for low iq points. personal insults are the tell that you’ve got nothing left to bring to the debate.
        and i do have to apoligise for comparing you to hitler. for a brief period of time he was successful and was on the cover of time magazine. drags his name in the dirt to include him in a reference to you.

        1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          That’s the spirit. When wrong and called on it, double down.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          the court of mikeybmumblers has ruled me wrong. all hail mikeybmumblers. what a joke.

      2. You might wish to consider the difference in culture & ethnic make-up of the UK before crowing that our lower homicide rate is due to restrictions on the legal possession of firearms.
        Up until 1936 we had LESS restrictions on firearms than the US, whilst at the same time having a far lower homicide rate.
        The UK also has double the US’ violent crime rate, more than double that for theft & a “hot” burglary rate of 57% against 13% in the US.

        Frankly, I’d rather live in the US.

      3. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

        Yawn .1898 Britain no gun control 1.0 murder rate per 100k people

        Britain 2010 1.3 murder rate strict gun control.

        Uh why didnt their always low murder rate go down as you infer, eh?

  12. avatar Sammy says:

    Any way Mike b ############ can be deleted from this blog? If he feels righteous enough to limit our A2 why can’t we limit his A1? I mean just on an irritation basis he should be blocked, not to mention his BS arguments. Besides, he has his on propaganda site.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email