Reply to: Newlove Killers Jailed for Life

[Lucifer Box]

I want one of these...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILUXYVUUZrY

Perhaps they could mount those outside off-licenses instead of ultra-sonic speakers?

[AtW]

They still respect parental control in Germany.

I said it clearly I am against USA style sales of guns to basically kids. Minium age should be at least 25, probably 30 with additional requirements of stable employment, family, house, obviously lack of criminal record, lie detector test and more - plus insurance.

[tim123]

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?

They still respect parental control in Germany. This is a race that waits to be told that they can cross the road FFS.

tim

[Moose423956]

I want one of these...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILUXYVUUZrY

That's where I left my car!

[ChimpMaster]

Bring in Sharia Law for these people.

[BoredBloke]

Guns are strictly controlled in this country. The people who have them at the moment are those who would fail your test and so would continue to get their guns from other sources. However if you increase the number of guns in the population so you will increase the chances of some of these ending up in the wrong hands.

Your idea that arming the population would make those causing trouble to think twice is correct in a certain respect. They would think that they need a bigger and better gun than the one I may mave. What you would do is ensure that those currently commiting these crimes would be armed with a gun 100% of the time - just incase!

[AtW]

No wonder Americans became new superpower - they must have inherited great British spirit that is, based on replies in this thread, lost in this country

[Alf W]

This guy was kicked to death remember and not shot. The last thing we want is people indulging in Wild West shootouts around the place.

At the moment, gun crime is mostly self-regulating. In Manchester it's mainly gang members shooting each other anyway so scum vs scum is not something that worries me too unduly. Even if it is usually reported that the 15 year old who was shot on his bike at 03:00 in the morning mid-week was a lovely lad with a great future in front of him and was, in no way, involved in drugs and gangs.

[AtW]

Look at America.

Oh feck off with America as example, why you ignoring what happens in France and Germany? They have sensible gun laws there and I call to have even stricter laws than there! It is totally wrong to point to USA with their historical lax attitude towards gun sales and ignore examples of countries that are much nearer where they do it right.

Criminals should be in jail anyway - that's what police should do, they should not be walking about with knifes or illegal guns - I like UK police but they need to be harsher on criminals and stop putting signs "Burglars operating in this area", because putting such sign up means police is admitting they failed to stop criminals, ffs, if they can't deal with yobs scum then good citizens should - but they need to have legal rights to do so and have effective means of doing it, ie armed.

[ASB]

So instead of being kicked/beaten to death you get shot.

Quite. It's a huge problem where people are more often armed.

A number of people will also say "won't happen to me because by the time it does I'll have shot the scrote". Reality there are very few people who could actually do that.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.