kill a burglar

[deuces wild]

Does it not hurt as bad when you are killed with a baseball bat? :blink:

Probably more

As would a shovel, pitch fork, sledge hammer, butchers knife, ax and knitting needles when applied to the head/eyes of an intruder. And all those household/garden items would require you to be in harms way as they would have to be dealt within arms length of the intruder.

And how many folks keep those items handy under their bed? :o

I will stick with my shotgun. Good range. good coverage and deadly. :D

Don't want to get shot dead? Don't break into my house. It is as easy as that. :D

[andsome]

The UK is better for not allowing firearms.

[deuces wild]

Really? Here are the first two results from a google search on "murders in UK with handguns".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1741336.stm

While Britain has some of the toughest firearms laws in the world, the recent spate of gun murders in London has highlighted a disturbing growth in armed crime.

The shooting of a young woman in London by a mobile phone thief has again raised the issue of escalating gun crime in the UK.

The attack follows a series of gun-related incidents in east London between Christmas and New Year, which included the case of two men who were killed by a single shot at a party.

http://www.tsra.com/Lott112.htm

Worried that even showing a starting pistol in a car ad might encourage gun crime in Britain, the British communications regulator has banned a Ford Motor Co. television spot because in it a woman is pictured holding such a "weapon." According to a report by Bloomberg News, the ad was said by regulators to "normalize" the use of guns and "must not be shown again."

What's next? Toy guns? Actually, the British government this year has been debating whether to ban toy guns. As a middle course, some unspecified number of imitation guns will be banned, and it will be illegal to take imitation guns into public places.

And in July a new debate erupted over whether those who own shotguns must now justify their continued ownership to the government before they will get a license.

The irony is that after gun laws are passed and crime rises, no one asks whether the original laws actually accomplished their purpose. Instead, it is automatically assumed that the only "problem" with past laws was they didn't go far enough. But now what is there left to do? Perhaps the country can follow Australia's recent lead and ban ceremonial swords.

Despite the attention that imitation weapons are getting, they account for a miniscule fraction of all violent crime (0.02%) and in recent years only about 6% of firearms offenses. But with crime so serious, Labor needs to be seen as doing something. The government recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03.

Crime was not supposed to rise after handguns were banned in 1997. Yet, since 1996 the serious violent crime rate has soared by 69%: robbery is up by 45% and murders up by 54%. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned the robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels.

[andsome]

This post is by no means meant to be racist. It is a sad fact however that a large part of the increase in violent crime has come from the immigrant community. Much of the gun crime is committed with guns brought into the country illegally, a lot of them by immigrants. If there were no guns there would be no gun crime, surely that fact makes sense? We would see a decrease in gun crime if it were an automatic MINIMUM twenty years inside for being caught in possession. Crime in general has got more violent, due in the main to sloppy lenient sentences handed out to thugs, and the sad fact that in the main no more that half of a sentence is actually served. What is needed in this country is for ten years to mean ten years served, with NO time off for good behaviour, but time added for bad behaviour.

[scuzzman]

There will always be gun crimes andsome - because people will always have guns. Marijuana, I assume, is illegal in the UK, but I know people that smoke it that live there...

Fact of the matter is, no matter how illegal you make something, it'll still be there. Look at murder: it's illegal, carrys steep penalties, yet there are people who do it, sometimes even with knives. How should this be solved? Is the next option to make knives, then bats, then plumbing equipment illegal? No, because it doesn't make sense.

[Topband]

Health & Safety at work act comes to mind, burglary is a job isn't it? So you've got to make sure your friendly burglar is safe whilst they are on your premises in case they hurt themselves, maybe make them a nice cup of tea, perhaps bake them a cake as well.

Sorry, I think "Mr Niceguy" has left the UK. :sadwalk:

[andsome]

Sure, bats and plumbing equipment can be used a weapons, but this is not a valid point. My argument is that a gun serves NO useful purpose other than as a weapon, and should not be allowed in general ownership. Sure, a shotgun, or a target rifle as used in sport has it's place, but these guns should be under lock and key, as secure as possible on licenced premises.

[scuzzman]

Sure, bats and plumbing equipment can be used a weapons, but this is not a valid point.  My argument is that a gun serves NO useful purpose other than as a weapon, and should not be allowed in general ownership.  Sure, a shotgun, or a target rifle as used in sport has it's place, but these guns should be under lock and key, as secure as possible on licenced premises.

I take it you don't hunt...

All my shotguns are in locked safes, with trigger guards on them.

[andsome]

Sure, bats and plumbing equipment can be used a weapons, but this is not a valid point.  My argument is that a gun serves NO useful purpose other than as a weapon, and should not be allowed in general ownership.  Sure, a shotgun, or a target rifle as used in sport has it's place, but these guns should be under lock and key, as secure as possible on licenced premises.

I take it you don't hunt...

All my shotguns are in locked safes, with trigger guards on them.

I see no problem with hunting with a shotgun, if the purpose is to eat what is killed. However hunting with hounds by SO CALLED sportsmen has just been banned in the UK. I don't know how much you know about this, but the idea is to chase a fox or a stag from horseback, until the animal is at deaths door through exhaustion, then let the hounds tear the animal to pieces. Any children then on the hunt are likely to have their faces smeared with the animals blood. this I cannot condone at all.

[lester1]

Sure, bats and plumbing equipment can be used a weapons, but this is not a valid point.  My argument is that a gun serves NO useful purpose other than as a weapon, and should not be allowed in general ownership.  Sure, a shotgun, or a target rifle as used in sport has it's place, but these guns should be under lock and key, as secure as possible on licenced premises.

I take it you don't hunt...

All my shotguns are in locked safes, with trigger guards on them.

I see no problem with hunting with a shotgun, if the purpose is to eat what is killed. However hunting with hounds by SO CALLED sportsmen has just been banned in the UK. I don't know how much you know about this, but the idea is to chase a fox or a stag from horseback, until the animal is at deaths door through exhaustion, then let the hounds tear the animal to pieces. Any children then on the hunt are likely to have their faces smeared with the animals blood. this I cannot condone at all.

:offtopic:

However I totally Agree

Perhaps we could hunt the odd burgler that might put them off :D

[hooly1]

I know somebody who had his house broke into, I think it was over the top, but he cought the bloke breaking in, and he cut 2 of his fingers off, he got 4 yrs and did 2, but I bet the burgler thought twice next time!!

[andsome]

I know somebody who had his house broke into, I think it was over the top, but he cought the bloke breaking in, and he cut 2 of his fingers off, he got 4 yrs and did 2, but I bet the burgler thought twice next time!!

That stopped him from showing anyone two fingers of scorn.

[Besty]

What about the police then should they be allowed guns? Do the police in england have guns?

[Shirley Crabtree]

The majority of English Police carry a Truncheon and 'cuffs AFAIK..

Thankfully we don't allow every Tom,d*** and (Dirty)Harry to own shotguns,high powered rifles and pistols ...It's just a privelidge of farmers,gangsters,yardies,triads and pikeys :P

Gun culture breeds nothing but death,misery and crime...

If I was awoken by a burglar in my house I'd just make A LOT of noise and throw heavy stuff in his/her general direction...Hopefully they'd realise I am a bit of a looney and scarper....If not I might have to resort to a rather nasty chinese burn and a swift kick to the face :angry:

[ranger]

Besty, the police forces in Scotland, England and Wales do not carry firearms and in fact the public and the police themselves have always came out against the idea of the "British Bobby" carrying guns. What we do have is specially trained officers in rapid response units to go to any incidents where firearms are involved.

The only place in the UK you will find the police carrying firearms as standard issue so to speak, is N.Ireland/Ulster and with the terrorist threat there, there is no choice.

[andsome]

Besty, the police forces in Scotland, England and Wales do not carry firearms and in fact the public and the police themselves have always came out against the idea of the "British Bobby" carrying guns. What we do have is specially trained officers in rapid response units to go to any incidents where firearms are involved.

The only place in the UK you will find the police carrying firearms as standard issue so to speak, is N.Ireland/Ulster and with the terrorist threat there, there is no choice.

This is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

[deuces wild]

Besty, the police forces in Scotland, England and Wales do not carry firearms and in fact the public and the police themselves have always came out against the idea of the "British Bobby" carrying guns. What we do have is specially trained officers in rapid response units to go to any incidents where firearms are involved.

The only place in the UK you will find the police carrying firearms as standard issue so to speak, is N.Ireland/Ulster and with the terrorist threat there, there is no choice.

This is a good thing as far as I am concerned.

Why? :blink:

[Besty]

Wait are you saying it is a good thing that police men in Northern Ireland have to carry firearms (standard issue glock unless im mistaken) or that policemen in the UK do not generally carry firearms?

[andsome]

I for one prefer the police to be unarmed except in special emergencies, as at present. Heaven forbid that guns become the norm as in many other countries. How many times are mistakes made by the police with guns. I bet it's more than they would like to admit.

[deuces wild]

I for one prefer the police to be unarmed except in special emergencies, as at present.  Heaven forbid that guns become the norm as in many other countries.  How many times are mistakes made by the police with guns.  I bet it's more than they would like to admit.

Do you have any statistics on the number of mistakes armed police officers make? And to turn it around...how many times has a gun saved the life of a police officer?

Following your logic shouldn't your military be unarmed also? How many times are mistakes made by soldiers with guns?

[andsome]

I for one prefer the police to be unarmed except in special emergencies, as at present.  Heaven forbid that guns become the norm as in many other countries.  How many times are mistakes made by the police with guns.  I bet it's more than they would like to admit.

Do you have any statistics on the number of mistakes armed police officers make? And to turn it around...how many times has a gun saved the life of a police officer?

Following your logic shouldn't your military be unarmed also? How many times are mistakes made by soldiers with guns?

I have no statistics and did not make any specific claims, but mistakes have happened. Regarding how many times a gun has saved the life of a police officer, again I make NO claims as to statistics, but in the UK it could only happen on one of the thankfully rare occasions that an armed unit has been sent on a specific detail. It is rather silly to suggest that UK citizens would wish for an unarmed military. The police in the UK however, have alway been looked upon as a community civilian police force, NOT as paramilitaries.

[Besty]

Andsome there were over 300 policemen and women killed in the troubles in Northen Ireland. I am sure that it would have been alot more if the police force wasnt armed. As to this comment

How many times are mistakes made by the police with guns.

and then have no statistics to back up this wild accusation. The way you said it was if the police were not trained how and when to use weapons when you obviously know nothing about it. In future dont make rash statements when you do not know what you are talking about.

THe police have a right to personal protection themselves. Just remember that

[andsome]

I don't see any need for such an aggressive post. I am not talking about Northern Ireland where a terrorist situation exists. I am talking about the UK, to which Northern Ireland does not belong. I have made NO wild statements at all, but in the UK there have been occasional mistakes with guns in the hands of the police, even quite recently, and these of course were made during the rare occasions when a police squad have been armed in answer to a specialist threat. I hope that the day never arrives when the police feel the need to be permanently armed in the UK. In fact, polls have shown that the vast majority of police are dead against being armed.

[Besty]

You said the police in the U.K and Northern Ireland is in the U.K. Sorry after reading your last post you have stated that you do not believe that Northern Ireland is part of the united kingdom. Well just to clarify. It is. Please do not regard me as agressive as i am not. As i have stated before the policemen and women have a right to have some form of protection.

[andsome]

You said the police in the U.K and Northern Ireland is in the U.K.  Sorry after reading your last post you have stated that you do not believe that Northern Ireland is part of the united kingdom.  Well just to clarify.  It is.  Please do not regard me as agressive as i am not.  As i have stated before the policemen and women have a right to have some form of protection.

I was in a tearing hurry to get out when I made this post. I was thinking about it as I drove along, and realised that I had made a mistake. Of course Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom, but of course is not part of Britain. I apologise to any Irish people that my statement may have upset.

You will note if you look back in the thread, that I agreed with another posting, that said that the police in England Scotland and Wales do not normally carry firearms, but due to terrorism in Northern Ireland the police there do carry them. I said that this was a good thing, and stand by that statement. In Northern Ireland, due to terrorism, the police are permanently in the position that they need to be armed. In the main land this is NOT so, and the majority of the police do NOT want to be armed.

I still think that you were showing aggression with your assertion that I was making rash statements, when I said that mistakes have occurred with police carrying guns. Unfortunately this statement is VERY true, this is one of the reasons that mainland police do not want to be armed. heaven forbid that we should ever get a load of trigger happy police on the mainland, as exists unfortunately in some parts of the world.