Newlove Killers Jailed for Life

[AtW]

You still taking the Guardian then AtW?

The Guardian is a pretty damn good newspaper shauny - they are not perfect, but then again they have by far more upsides than downsides, something that can't be said about you.

[BoredBloke]

Firearms ownership is the solution - either the man would have been armed or his wife would have supported him, or neighbours altogether - then, the man would have stayed alive and these scumbags would have been shot dead.

You have to be joking. I'd have thought it more likely that the teenagers who did this would be armed and rather than kick this bloke to death they would have just shot him. What is wrong here is these lads will be in their late 20's and early 30's when they get out. Hardly life then.

[AtW]

I'd have thought it more likely that the teenagers who did this would be armed

What exactly makes you think it would be more likely they would be armed? Do you think I advocate rules when teenagers can get legal guns at all? If they want illegal piece they can get it now!

These stupid idiots commit lots of crimes because they get away with it - being shot (even if not to death) would be a physical deterrent to the hardcore groups of those scumbags that would be eliminated from the gene pool by their actions.

The profile for a gun owner should be: good citizen older than 25 years (maybe 30), with family, house owner - with no criminal history, being able to afford 3rd party damage insurance, heck I probably won't qualify myself (yet) under this scheme, and these scumbags certainly won't have a chance.

If you get 15% good people armed then it will raise probability of being shot to those scumbags to a high enough level for them to rethink their actions, and if they won't then fine - they get shot dead, I say taxpayer and humanity in general win.

[Ruprect]

What exactly makes you think it would be more likely they would be armed? Do you think I advocate rules when teenagers can get legal guns at all? If they want illegal piece they can get it now!

These stupid idiots commit lots of crimes because they get away with it - being shot (even if not to death) would be a physical deterrent to the hardcore groups of those scumbags that would be eliminated from the gene pool by their actions.

The profile for a gun owner should be: good citizen older than 25 years (maybe 30), with family, house owner - with no criminal history, being able to afford 3rd party damage insurance, heck I probably won't qualify myself (yet) under this scheme, and these scumbags certainly won't have a chance.

If you get 15% good people armed then it will raise probability of being shot to those scumbags to a high enough level for them to rethink their actions, and if they won't then fine - they get shot dead, I say taxpayer and humanity in general win.

Unworkable. HTH

[AtW]

Unworkable. HTH

Do you think there are no 15-20% of citizens in this country that can be trusted with firearms?

[Ruprect]

Do you think there are no 15-20% of citizens in this country that can be trusted with firearms?

No, I just think your scheme is unworkable and ill thought out.

[BoredBloke]

What exactly makes you think it would be more likely they would be armed? Do you think I advocate rules when teenagers can get legal guns at all? If they want illegal piece they can get it now!

These stupid idiots commit lots of crimes because they get away with it - being shot (even if not to death) would be a physical deterrent to the hardcore groups of those scumbags that would be eliminated from the gene pool by their actions.

The profile for a gun owner should be: good citizen older than 25 years (maybe 30), with family, house owner - with no criminal history, being able to afford 3rd party damage insurance, heck I probably won't qualify myself (yet) under this scheme, and these scumbags certainly won't have a chance.

If you get 15% good people armed then it will raise probability of being shot to those scumbags to a high enough level for them to rethink their actions, and if they won't then fine - they get shot dead, I say taxpayer and humanity in general win.

At the moment we can't own handguns. Now how much gun crime is there in the UK? Are the people who currently have access to guns generally good or bad people. So with a limited supply of guns, the ones which are in use are generally in the hands of the bad people. Increase the supply and all you will find is that all the bad people get guns instead of a small percentage. Obviously if you are going to rob somebody who may be armed then you will need a gun yourself. So instead of being kicked/beaten to death you get shot.

[AtW]

Obviously if you are going to rob somebody who may be armed then you will need a gun yourself. So instead of being kicked/beaten to death you get shot.

Criminals are in minority - if they attempt to commit crimes against armed people then pretty soon criminals will shot dead, most likely however they won't attempt to risk their life for small heist and probably will focus on armed robbery of banks and such, which is fine by me - these places have better protection anyway and given firearms they should resist quiet effectively.

Personally if I have firearm, then I will feel pretty safe even if attackers have also got firearms and there are more of them than me - this is by far better than having same high number of attackers who may also be armed with illegal weapons (knifes are pretty deadly you know), whilst you have no effective response against them - only to run away maybe.

You advocate running away from the problem - I advocate solving it, and at least dieing fighting rather than dieing running away.

[AtW]

No, I just think your scheme is unworkable and ill thought out.

And what scheme do they use in France and Germany? It seems to work well there, maybe you think people of this country are not of the same quality as the French and the Germans?

Right of self-defence is as God given as it gets (given complete lack of God in this world), but denying people firearms this denies them effective means of exercising their rights.

[BoredBloke]

Criminals are in minority - if they attempt to commit crimes against armed people then pretty soon criminals will shot dead, most likely however they won't attempt to risk their life for small heist and probably will focus on armed robbery of banks and such, which is fine by me - these places have better protection anyway and given firearms they should resist quiet effectively.

Personally if I have firearm, then I will feel pretty safe even if attackers have also got firearms and there are more of them than me - this is by far better than having same high number of attackers who may also be armed with illegal weapons (knifes are pretty deadly you know), whilst you have no effective response against them - only to run away maybe.

You advocate running away from the problem - I advocate solving it, and at least dieing fighting rather than dieing running away.

Look at America. How many people get shot there is it
a - None
b - a few
c - Sh1_tloads

They have a pretty widespread gun availability. They may not have as much knife crime or like in this case, people being beaten to death, but I suspect that is probably because it is easier just to shoot them.

I'm not running away from the problem I'm just pointing out that your way wouldn't work. You would simply have criminals who previously might have carried a knife now carrying a gun.