An Englishman's home is his castle : Who said British Justice is a shambles ?

[snaw]

Understand the fury at what happened to him, and the wanting to smash the crap out of him for doing so. But to go as far as breaking a cricket bat over someones head, as he's held down. No, sorry. Too much. And so's shooting them while we're at it.

We live (Least I did) in a society where people are tried by jury's, and that's a good thing. From glimpses of coutries where mob rule prevails, I don't much like what I see.

[threaded]

Nope, just enough to make him need care for the rest of his life. Lose-lose really. Probably wouldn't have got much more than 30 months if he'd topped the bloke.

Would not the state have been paying out for him anyway for the rest of his life, a life of crime.

This outcome is cheaper for the state.

[snaw]

Would not the state have been paying out for him anyway for the rest of his life, a life of crime.

This outcome is cheaper for the state.

Summary justice, at the scene of the crime will definitely save money ... I'd invest in used tyre companies now, it'll be all the rage before long, and the Taliban wouldn't have a patch on us.

[AtW]

And so's shooting them while we're at it.

So, let me just understand you:

a) 3 guys in balaklavas meet you in your house
b) they put down your family on the floor and tie them up
c) one of your family manages to escape - this suprises attackers as their original plan clearly stopped working

At this point you can pull your legit firearm and shoot them - you won't?

Now if it was just one guy who broke into house and run away once he saw you, then maybe shooting to kill would probably be excessive, however the moment they actually made family lie down and tied them prepped for execution (I'd think that if they were doing it to me), they've signed their own death warrant - they crossed the line by doing a) and b).

The sad part here is that the system in this country gives no way to defend onself effectively - only firearms can even out the odds and make such crimes highly unprofitable to those who attempt them. It's much cheaper for taxpayer also. Win-win for all apart from criminals.

[Mr.Whippy]

Those guys shouldn't be in prison. OK it probably was excessive force, but oh well... tough tulip on them. If they weren't criminal scum then it wouldn't have happened. Now he's not in any fit state to commit more crime against decent, law abiding folk and also his partners in crime will maybe think twice in future.

I know I'd have done the same thing if I was in their shoes.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

.....

The sad part here is that the system in this country gives no way to defend onself effectively
.

Sod off somewhere else then (Not that what you say is true anyway).

.
- only firearms can even out the odds and make such crimes highly unprofitable to those who attempt them. It's much cheaper for taxpayer also. Win-win for all apart from criminals.

This is utterly ridiculous - why wouldn't the crims carry guns too? They have less to lose and easier access to untracable guns and ammo and now they know they may face an armed householder - result; more dead householders and a good chance of more innocent bystanders getting caught in the crossfire.

[EternalOptimist]

Sod off somewhere else then (Not that what you say is true anyway).


This is utterly ridiculous - why wouldn't the crims carry guns too? They have less to lose and easier access to untracable guns and ammo and now they know they may face an armed householder - result; more dead householders and a good chance of more innocent bystanders getting caught in the crossfire.

er..
I think he knows that PSB. But they have the upper hand now. At least if everyone had guns it would even the odds. That would be a deterrant
Thats his argument

[AtW]

Sod off somewhere else then (Not that what you say is true anyway).

I think you may find that democracy allows different people have different opinions - I don't tell you to sod off, so please don't tell me either.

This is utterly ridiculous - why wouldn't the crims carry guns too? They have less to lose and easier access to untracable guns and ammo and now they know they may face an armed householder - result; more dead householders and a good chance of more innocent bystanders getting caught in the crossfire.

Criminals already carry guns, it's as illegal as it would be. Good law abiding citizens however don't have them.

Criminals like that are in minority - this means they'll be shot off dead pretty quickly, it's simple probabilities - if 20% of people have firearms (and trained to use them), then probability of criminal not meeting armed resistance will be 80% (or 0.8), so if they do it twice the probabilities will drop to 64% (or 0.64), three times and it is already 50-50 they'll be shot: 7 times they get on a job and it will be 80% chance they'd get armed resistance.

Those who choose to buy legal guns should accept full responsibility that using them would increase chance of them being shot also - it's THEIR choice, if you don't want it then don't make it - go unarmed as you do now, meanwhile people who are prepared to fight for themselves should not be denied lawful tools to do so.

When I lived in Russia I carried legal licensed 9mm gun that is classed as firearm in this country. I never used it, but having one meant I had the option to do so if necessary.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I think you may find that democracy allows different people have different opinions - I don't tell you to sod off, so please don't tell me either.



When I lived in Russia I carried legal licensed 9mm gun that is classed as firearm in this country. I never used it, but having one meant I had the option to do so if necessary.

If Russia was so wonderful why did you leave? If you choose to live here accept that democracy means that the majority prefer not to carry firearms - this was true when they were legal. What's good for Russia isn't automatically right for here; there are some pretty significant differences, so don't try to and change the place you came to (presumably because it was different) into the place you came from.

Of course we could legalise firearms like the USA for example, but would undoubtedly result in a much higher murder rate, just like they have there.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

....

Criminals like that are in minority - this means they'll be shot off dead pretty quickly, it's simple probabilities - if 20% of people have firearms (and trained to use them), then probability of criminal not meeting armed resistance will be 80% (or 0.8), so if they do it twice the probabilities will drop to 64% (or 0.64), three times and it is already 50-50 they'll be shot: 7 times they get on a job and it will be 80% chance they'd get armed resistance.

.

BTW - I'm not an expert on statistics and probability, but I think the logic in your calculation is flawed - surely the odds start again for each occurence rather than automatically reducing?