Largest ARMED robbery in UK history?

[Devastatin Dave]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1213144,00.html
But i thought you guys outlawed handguns and now the UK is inhabited by hobbits living in Hobbiton with only the occasional ruffian acting up during a football game? How on earth, if there are laws against the ownership of handguns in the UK, did this happen? Is it because when laws are passed, only people that obey laws will obide by them? Hmmmm....:wall:

[Ice]

40 Million pounds?! Woah, that's huge.

[InsaneApache]

Shhhh!!!!.....you aint seen me, right?

[Devastatin Dave]

Shhhh!!!!.....you aint seen me, right?
Hmmm, I don't know, maybe a little "amnesia money" would do the trick.:eyebrows:

[Duke Malcolm]

The BBC said £25 million...

[ShadesPanther]

But i thought you guys outlawed handguns and now the UK is inhabited by hobbits living in Hobbiton with only the occasional ruffian acting up during a football game? How on earth, if there are laws against the ownership of handguns in the UK, did this happen? Is it because when laws are passed, only people that obey laws will obide by them? Hmmmm....

It does cut down firearm crime as it is harder to get one and they are more noticible.

Say for instance. How many Deaths are there in the USA from crime Military weapons(Eg. M4a1, AK47, Carl Gustav Launcher, M79, Barret etc~;))? Lets say the number is x. Therefore because of x deaths this shows that limiting these weapions to only criminals is silly and so we should allow the people to have as many as possible.


Silly argument, yes, but just as silly as the argument against limiting firearms to the public.

[Tribesman]

But i thought you guys outlawed handguns and now the UK is inhabited by hobbits living in Hobbiton with only the occasional ruffian acting up during a football game? How on earth, if there are laws against the ownership of handguns in the UK, did this happen? Is it because when laws are passed, only people that obey laws will obide by them? Hmmmm....

And how would different gun laws have made any difference at all in this case Dave .
Oh I know , the manger would have reached for his gun after he was handcuffed and put in the back of what he thought was a police car , or even better his wife and kids could have shot the people who they thought were police when they were telling them about the "accident" .
Yay guns for all , its the only way to stop this crime :dizzy2:

[GiantMonkeyMan]

they get them illegally from places where guns aren't illegal eg the US :inquisitive: well that's what i've heard from my bro and he is doing a Criminology degree
and you so have never been to england if you think that football ruffians are the limits of crime here...

back to topic: that is a lot of money... i wonder how they police are going to follow this crime up

[Louis VI the Fat]

You can never stop illegal gun ownership completely. You can, however, go a long way towards preventing any hood ass punk from robbing a grocery store at gunpoint whenever they need a dose of crack.

[Goofball]

But i thought you guys outlawed handguns and now the UK is inhabited by hobbits living in Hobbiton with only the occasional ruffian acting up during a football game? How on earth, if there are laws against the ownership of handguns in the UK, did this happen? Is it because when laws are passed, only people that obey laws will obide by them? Hmmmm....

And how would different gun laws have made any difference at all in this case Dave .
Oh I know , the manger would have reached for his gun after he was handcuffed and put in the back of what he thought was a police car , or even better his wife and kids could have shot the people who they thought were police when they were telling them about the "accident" .
Yay guns for all , its the only way to stop this crime :dizzy2:

Hush your mouth Tribesman. You have been told enough times by now that you should understand:

The more guns there are, the less crime there is.

The NRA says so.

Who the hell are you to deny it?

[RabidGibbon]

The articale

However, no one was hurt in the robbery.

So would it have been better if a mass shoot out erupted, involving dozens of heavily armed people blazing at each other?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Question: are crossbows legal?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They're not illegal but IIRC there are limitations. Gun crime has gone up considerably since the law was passed. Guns are now much cooler and more of a status symbol because they are so hard to get. No robbery is ever commited with a legally owned firearm.

In fact if everyone did have a gun it would reduce crime, right now in the UK if you have a gun you can be certain anyone you're going to rob won't, then the first Police on the scene won't either.

Its psychology, by making guns illigal you reduce the risk of committing a crime so people who might have been deterred now aren't. This is why concealed carry laws reduce crime, the risk to the crimal goes up because anyone he robs on the street might shoot him.

Its a very sad truth.

[Ice]

Gun crime has gone up considerably since the law was passed.




No guns... no gun crime? :idea2:

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

they get them illegally from places where guns aren't illegal eg the US :inquisitive: well that's what i've heard from my bro and he is doing a Criminology degree
and you so have never been to england if you think that football ruffians are the limits of crime here...

back to topic: that is a lot of money... i wonder how they police are going to follow this crime up


I heard they tended to come from Eastern Europe or Ireland. Tribesman, ShadesPanther, go sort out your paramilitary co-islanders.

[Crazed Rabbit]

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-Thomas Jefferson

Crazed Rabbit

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No guns... no gun crime? :idea2:

Sorry, I thought I made it clear. It doesn't work, all firearm robberies in the UK are commited with illigeal weapons.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

yes but because it is harder to get guns then there will be less gun crime from punks who think it would be cool to go waving a gun about... people who rob things using guns are probably quite serious as this robbery shows

and my bro said that guns come from: usa, ireland, south america, eastern europe, and the middle east mainly... but i thought i would point out the usa (cos i am a bit of an anti-american :embarassed: )

[Husar]

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-Thomas Jefferson

Crazed Rabbit
You´re quoting one of those rebels who left mother Europe to go slaughter native Americans...:hide:
If people in that bank had guns, there might have been some wannabe-hero shooting at the gangsters, resulting in a firefight and a blodbath, compared to only some stolen money. Don´t tell me you rate money over lives.

[Xiahou]

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-Thomas Jefferson

Crazed Rabbit
Awesome quote. :2thumbsup:

[Byzantine Mercenary]

people will use what ever weapon they can get hold of, if guns are harder to get hold of then criminals will just use something else, however if there were more guns there would be more gun crime rather then stabbings, beatings etc, compare gun crime in the US and Britain and you will see what i mean

[KukriKhan]

Co-o-ol; it's been at least a week since our last gun thread - I was jonesin'.

If you were one of the robbers, how long would you wait to spend any of that cash?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

yes but because it is harder to get guns then there will be less gun crime from punks who think it would be cool to go waving a gun about... people who rob things using guns are probably quite serious as this robbery shows

and my bro said that guns come from: usa, ireland, south america, eastern europe, and the middle east mainly... but i thought i would point out the usa (cos i am a bit of an anti-american :embarassed: )

It doesn't work though because the criminals always bought their guns illigeally. The fact is that since the law was past gun crime has gone up sharply from near zero to shootings every week in some areas because guns are now higher status.

Anyway the guns aren't hard to get hold of, just go into a pub and ask in some areas, they're not expensive either.

The fact is guns are now "bling" so every "punk" does have one. Serious people don't tend to shoot people because its bad all round. Its the idiots that wave the things around that get people killed.

Husar, yes quite, but in this case the colonial, sadly, is right.

They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

[Devastatin Dave]

If you were one of the robbers, how long would you wait to spend any of that cash?
Atleast a year, but first you need to get of the country. The best way to get away with this is become a UN worker and you can even get your travel paid for and what ever villiage they send you to "observe", you'll be able to have sex slaves and live like a king. :2thumbsup:

[Ja'chyra]

Atleast a year, but first you need to get of the country. The best way to get away with this is become a UN worker and you can even get your travel paid for and what ever villiage they send you to "observe", you'll be able to have sex slaves and live like a king. :2thumbsup:

I'm thinking that you've given this too much thought DD :dizzy2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

You´re quoting one of those rebels who left mother Europe to go slaughter native Americans...
Jefferson was born in America, and did not fight Indians.


If people in that bank had guns, there might have been some wannabe-hero shooting at the gangsters, resulting in a firefight and a blodbath, compared to only some stolen money. Don´t tell me you rate money over lives.

It's funny how anti-gunner always make up hypothetical situations to justify their positions.

In reality, the kind of stuff that does happen is citizens helping cops (http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/2343136.html) in distress:

At a news conference Monday, Phares said Stephens walked out of the AutoZone and got his weapon after hearing Harrison, who was fighting with Temple on the ground, yell for help.

As Stephens, who was wearing a neck brace and using a cane, walked toward the men, he heard shots and Harrison again call for help.

At that point, Stephens asked Temple to get off Harrison, Phares said. When Temple did not comply, he shot Temple four times in the chest.

Stephens ordered Temple again to get off Harrison. When he did not comply, he shot Temple in the head, killing him, Phares said.

What is funny is how some cities allow armored truck guards to carry guns to protect money, but won't allow a parent to carry a gun to protect her children.

Crazed Rabbit

[master of the puppets]

as that quote stated, (and my sig now YAY:2thumbsup: ) taking away guns would help very few. 90 something percent of armed crimes in the US are done by un licesced or stolen guns. so even if we took all the guns away...i mean all the guns we could find well crimes would still be commited. and anyone with a gun does not go out or try to be a hero but when someone enters there home in the middle of the night a gun can save a family, its happened.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

yes but you are more likely to accidentally kill a member of your own family

http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNOTHR.html

''Much is written in the popular literature concerning weapons for home defense, with articles recommending virtually any type of firearm short of a howitzer! Unfortunately, presence of guns in the home leads to more accidents and fatalities (often children) than to actual use in defensive situations. (Kellerman and Reay, 1986).

It should be remembered that most projectiles above .22 cal can penetrate the relatively thin wallboard of houses and apartments, and bullets fired from a military-style rifle might well penetrate through several houses! Perhaps the best weapon, if one were to pick an ideal based upon safety and ability to hit a target under duress, would be a short-barreled shotgun with shells containing small pellets (#6 or 7). (Zaleski, 1982)''

and here

http://www.nfpa.org/riskwatch/parent_firearm.html

''In 2001, 72 children ages 14 and under died from unintentional firearm-related injuries, and an estimated 1,400 were treated in emergency rooms in 2002. (An unintentional firearm death/injury occurs when the person firing the gun does not intend to harm anyone.) Nearly all childhood unintentional shooting deaths occur in or around the home. Fifty percent occur in the home of the victim and nearly 40% occur in the home of a friend or relative.

Canadian Statistics: In 1997, seven children ages 14 and under died from unintentional firearm-related injuries.''

[Husar]

Jefferson was born in America, and did not fight Indians.
He didn´t need to, he already had slaves on his farm...:oops:



It's funny how anti-gunner always make up hypothetical situations to justify their positions.

In reality, the kind of stuff that does happen is citizens helping cops (http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/2343136.html) in distress:
Yes, I really enjoy doing this. I haven´t heard about a bank robbery not working in the US because an old grandma killed the robbers with her M4 yet.:inquisitive:



What is funny is how some cities allow armored truck guards to carry guns to protect money, but won't allow a parent to carry a gun to protect her children.
That is because robbers want to rob money, not children, you can´t buy a Ferrari with a million children, but with a million € you can.:dizzy2:

[Mikeus Caesar]

On the subject of allowing gun laws to be removed to allow concealed carrying, i think that would be a terrible mistake. More criminals would carry bigger weapons about to attack and defend themselves, causing more deaths. It'll eventually end in a bloodbath as someone is afraid of others looking at them funny.

Heck, even just allowing handguns to be legal would be terrible. Remember Dunblane?

[Goofball]

If you were one of the robbers, how long would you wait to spend any of that cash?

I'd end up getting pinched within a week, but man, would I ever have one hell of a week! The cops would finally pick me up driving a Maserati down the highway at 200km/hr holding a bottle of Glenmorangie in my lap while leaning over to do a rail of blow off a hooker's ass.

:oops:

[Adrian II]

And how would different gun laws have made any difference at all in this case Dave?Has the relationship between gun ownership and IQ ever been researched? It's just a hunch, but I would totally expect a significant outcome.

[Tribesman]

Has the relationship between gun ownership and IQ ever been researched? It's just a hunch, but I would totally expect a significant outcome.
Oi shut it Adrian , or I might take you out for a nice Cheney style shooting trip .
The question you should mean is the different relationship between the rabid gun nuts who think control is a four letter word , and people who own guns . They are not the same at all .

[BigTex]

You´re quoting one of those rebels who left mother Europe to go slaughter native Americans...
And the british YEEEEEHAW!!!!!!!!!!:skull:

Btw someone better let Tony Blair out for a walk he's looking like he might take a pooh in the oval office again.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

On the subject of allowing gun laws to be removed to allow concealed carrying, i think that would be a terrible mistake. More criminals would carry bigger weapons about to attack and defend themselves, causing more deaths. It'll eventually end in a bloodbath as someone is afraid of others looking at them funny.

Heck, even just allowing handguns to be legal would be terrible. Remember Dunblane?

You miss the counter arguement, if a criminal thinks you might be carrying he's less likely to attack you, the more "civilised" we get the harder we seem to have it with crime.

Remember there are just as many guns in Canada as America but there are fewer shootings in Canada.

Adrian: I am a rifleman and my IQ is quite high.

I'm not in favour of concealed carry laws but the fact remains that banning guns wholesale here has raised the gun crime rate. As I said, vertually no gun crime is commited with a registered weapon.

What should be done is licensing and a requirement for a qualification before owning a weapon. Ausault weapons should be illigeal because you only use them against other people.

Accidents usually happen when guns aren't secured, anyone who has a gun and doesn't have the ammunition locked up should be shot. The people who leave their weapons loaded should be flogged and shot.

[Goofball]

You miss the counter arguement, if a criminal thinks you might be carrying he's less likely to attack you, the more "civilised" we get the harder we seem to have it with crime.

Remember there are just as many guns in Canada as America but there are fewer shootings in Canada.

Adrian: I am a rifleman and my IQ is quite high.

I'm not in favour of concealed carry laws but the fact remains that banning guns wholesale here has raised the gun crime rate.

No, that is incorrect.

Here are the facts:

Guns have been banned and gun crime has continued going up.

The two may be correlated, but there is certainly nothing that would point to any sort of causality.

[Husar]

Well, if I were an armed criminal, I would certainly make sure that anybody who would try to pull out a weapon would not survive this...
Maybe concealed weapons work because most criminals are stupid, but I can´t imagine why you should have time to pull out a weapon if a criminal already points his gun at you.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Maybe concealed weapons work because most criminals are stupidThere is no such thing as a criminal. There are however criminal acts. Of which a majority of the violent ones are commited on aggresive impuls. That's why people shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons on them.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Wow. France has eliminated the career criminal. All wrong-doings are committed by ordinary, law-abiding citizens who are seized by violent passion to committ "criminal acts." In France, you get arrested once and never again have problems with the law, the rehabilitation programs there are so good. You realize the foolishness of your impulses and live a respectful and decent life until you die of old age.


There is no such thing as a criminal. There are however criminal acts. Of which a majority of the violent ones are commited on aggresive impuls. That's why people shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons on them.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Of which a majority of the violent ones are commited on aggresive impuls. That's why people shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons on them.

Ah, more of the hypothetical, unproven slander that all people are psychopaths just waiting to act. Nevermind that the average concealed weapon permit holder is much more, on average, law abiding than the average citizen. And hey, which is more dangerous; Washington DC, with its vast array of Federal agencies dedicated to protecting Americans, and a virtual ban on possessing guns, or Vermont, where any schmoe can walk around with a concealed weapon-without any kind of permit!-legally?

Crazed Rabbit

[Husar]

There is no such thing as a criminal. There are however criminal acts. Of which a majority of the violent ones are commited on aggresive impuls. That's why people shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons on them.
Wrong.
In the exact moment a person commits a crime, he or she becomes a criminal.


And hey, which is more dangerous; Washington DC, with its vast array of Federal agencies dedicated to protecting Americans, and a virtual ban on possessing guns, or Vermont, where any schmoe can walk around with a concealed weapon-without any kind of permit!-legally?
I don´t know, but I if I understand that correctly, the federal agencies are responsible for all of the US and not just for Washington DC, that´s the police. Besides that, Washington DC is a city, a rather big city and Vermont is a state. I don´t know whether there are any big cities in Vermont, but I guess the social situation in those is different. Don´t search for robbers and street gangs on the farmland where everybody knows everybody else. That doesn´t have anything to do with gun ownership.

[Duke John]

Aren't the stakes raised to a dangerous level when everybody owns a gun? What would a robber do when he knows that a shop owner has no gun under the counter and what if he does? In the latter case does is the shop owner safer?

[Beirut]

I'd end up getting pinched within a week, but man, would I ever have one hell of a week! The cops would finally pick me up driving a Maserati down the highway at 200km/hr holding a bottle of Glenmorangie in my lap while leaning over to do a rail of blow off a hooker's ass.

:oops:

"It's better to burn out... than to fade away... my-my hey-hey... "

Neil would be so proud. ~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Wow. France has eliminated the career criminal.
You realize the foolishness of your impulses and live a respectful and decent life until you die of old age.

Oui. Zats rite. Zere ar no more any criminals left in France.
https://img477.imageshack.us/img477/4625/animinspector3za.gif

[Goofball]

Ah, more of the hypothetical, unproven slander that all people are psychopaths just waiting to act. Nevermind that the average concealed weapon permit holder is much more, on average, law abiding than the average citizen. And hey, which is more dangerous; Washington DC, with its vast array of Federal agencies dedicated to protecting Americans, and a virtual ban on possessing guns, or Vermont, where any schmoe can walk around with a concealed weapon-without any kind of permit!-legally?

Crazed Rabbit

Here we are with that correlation/cause confusion that gun advocates seem to have so much trouble with.

You say that Vermont is safer because people are allowed to carry concealed weapons. I, on the other hand, would have just as strong an argument if I said that Vermont is safer because it doesn't discriminate against homosexuals.

Actually, I like where this is leading. Tell you what, let's make a deal:

Any state that can demonstrate it's social maturity and equanimity by ending discrimination against homosexuals will from now on have no gun restrictions whatsoever, because the populace of that state will have proven itself responsible and fair-minded enough to handle firearms without government supervision.

~:idea:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Deal!


You forgot to specify what "ending discrimination" entail.:stupido: :smartass2: :deal2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

You say that Vermont is safer because people are allowed to carry concealed weapons. I, on the other hand, would have just as strong an argument if I said that Vermont is safer because it doesn't discriminate against homosexuals.

No, I was merely dismissing the allegation that guns make people more violent.


Aren't the stakes raised to a dangerous level when everybody owns a gun? What would a robber do when he knows that a shop owner has no gun under the counter and what if he does? In the latter case does is the shop owner safer?

Well the criminals in Britain know their prey is defenseless, hasn't made them less violent. If anything, it would seem that violence has gone up in Britain.

In the US, the safest way of dealing with somebody trying to mug you is to pull a gun; it has the lowest rate of injury among all responses, including completely cooperating with the mugger.

A weapon gives you the power to defend yourself; without it, you're completely at the mercy of the criminal's whims. I find it somewhat reprehensible that people value 'minimizing conflict' over people standing up for themselves.

Crazed Rabbit

[Goofball]

Deal!


You forgot to specify what "ending discrimination" entail.:stupido: :smartass2: :deal2:

Doesn't matter. Because I also didn't specify who the final judge of whether or not they had ended discrimination would be.

I guess I should have mentioned who that would be.

Here he is:

http://www.ticketvision.com/concerts/images/elton_john..jpg

Now, where were we...

Oh yes, you were about to sign some documents, weren't you?

Let me get you a pen...

~;)

[Tribesman]

the fact remains that banning guns wholesale here has raised the gun crime rate. As I said, vertually no gun crime is commited with a registered weapon.

Guns have not been banned wholesale in the UK have they , only certain types of firearm .And the licencing rules/proceedures have changed as have the regulations on storage and security .
Lots of gun crime is commited with registered weapons , for starters as far as the new rules go , not having the approved type of gun cabinet ....gun crime , having the correct cabinet but not having it correctly fastened to the wall....gun crime , improper storage of ammunition ....gun crime , allowing your licence to lapse ....gun crime .
See with the new regime of inpections and paperwork there is a lot of gun crime , then add in the replicas ....more gun crime
Or do you mean registered weapons being used to kill people sort of gun crime ?
Michael Ryan...registered , Thomas Hamilton....registered , that farmer who shot the tinker....registered , but his licence was revoked , so that's a gun crime and a gun crime , that Yorkshire pensioner who shot the kids on his allotment ...registered , them two women killed at the family bar-b-Q...registered .
Yep you are right virtually no crime is committed with registered weapons , and all the increase in gun crime figures over there is directly related to the amount of armed robberies being committed with firearms .

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I don't think it would be fair if they made everyone gay...

:book: ~;)

[Goofball]

In the US, the safest way of dealing with somebody trying to mug you is to pull a gun;

Unless they are using a gun to mug you and is already pointing one at you.


In the US, the safest way of dealing with somebody trying to mug you is to pull a gun; it has the lowest rate of injury among all responses, including completely cooperating with the mugger.

Does that include injury to the mugger?

I personally wouldn't be willing to kill a guy if he just wanted to take my money.

Which means I wouldn't be willing to shoot him.

Which means I wouldn't be willing to point a gun at him.

Which means I really have no need to carry a gun.

[Goofball]

I don't think it would be fair if they made everyone gay...

:book: ~;)

Even if they gave everyone a gun? That would be a fair trade, wouldn't it?

Granted, the guns would probably all be rhinestone-encrusted derringers. But still...

:laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Granted, the guns would probably all be rhinestone-encrusted derringers. But still...
...Its not how big it is , it's what you do with it that counts.

[Goofball]

the fact remains that banning guns wholesale here has raised the gun crime rate. As I said, vertually no gun crime is commited with a registered weapon.

Guns have not been banned wholesale in the UK have they , only certain types of firearm .And the licencing rules/proceedures have changed as have the regulations on storage and security .
Lots of gun crime is commited with registered weapons , for starters as far as the new rules go , not having the approved type of gun cabinet ....gun crime , having the correct cabinet but not having it correctly fastened to the wall....gun crime , improper storage of ammunition ....gun crime , allowing your licence to lapse ....gun crime .
See with the new regime of inpections and paperwork there is a lot of gun crime , then add in the replicas ....more gun crime
Or do you mean registered weapons being used to kill people sort of gun crime ?
Michael Ryan...registered , Thomas Hamilton....registered , that farmer who shot the tinker....registered , but his licence was revoked , so that's a gun crime and a gun crime , that Yorkshire pensioner who shot the kids on his allotment ...registered , them two women killed at the family bar-b-Q...registered .
Yep you are right virtually no crime is committed with registered weapons , and all the increase in gun crime figures over there is directly related to the amount of armed robberies being committed with firearms .

Apparently you weren't paying attention, Tribe. He said "vertually [sic] no gun crime is commited [sic] with a registered weapon." You should know by now that when gun advocates say that there are virtually no gun crimes committed with registered weapons, they mean there are a certain amount, more than they are prepared to admit, but all gun advocates are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find any bullet holes at all anywhere on their bodies that were put there by a registered firearm, they're to tell the NRA immediately so that they can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up. And finally, necrophilia is right out.

:laugh4:

(My apologies to Monty Python for so blatantly stealing one of their bits)

:bow:

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Since it was brought up earlier I figured I'd clear a few things up about Vermont.

1) Vermont is very rural, there is nothing here that warrants being called a city, the biggest towns are probably Burlington, Bennington and Montpelier, but I may have missed one. Bennington has 60k people, but I don't know about the others.

2) Vermont has a large number of hunters and guns and also has very low gun crime, or at least it does as far as I know. In Bennington County I've heard of maybe one shooting in the last year, it was fatal, but it occurred while those involved were drunk iirc.

3) Not only are there a lot of guns, but a lot of people own them, and if my eyes do not decieve me a fair number of people carry them in gun racks in their trucks, but I do not think very many carry concealed firearms.

I couldn't tell you exactly why we have low gun-crime, but my guess would be that the rural setting, decent police forces, mix of rednecks with respect for guns and pacifistic hippies, all play a fairly significant role in our low gun crime rate, not necessarilly how many people have guns.

One last thing of note, we do have crime here, but it is mostly drug crime and domestic conflicts (in fact that was what the shooting was), we also have your usual mix of psychos (in 2002 or so a woman drowned both of her children, the trials been big news and the trial is still on-going last I heard), Vermont is not some Utopian land without crime.

[Husar]

(in 2002 or so a woman drowned both of her children, the trials been big news and the trial is still on-going last I heard)
Wouldn´t have happened if those kids were carrying concealed firearms...:dizzy2: :inquisitive:

[Somebody Else]

you can´t buy a Ferrari with a million children, but with a million € you can.:dizzy2:

You find the children, I'll sort out the rest...

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Wouldn´t have happened if those kids were carrying concealed firearms...:dizzy2: :inquisitive:

Husar I wasn't saying that. I just wanted to make it clear that Vermont, like everywhere, has some really messed up people who try to (or do) terrible things.

I don't think concealed firearms really help much to decrease crime, but I also don't think that making guns illegal or making it nearly impossible to own a gun is the right way to go either. Just so that that's clear.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, if I were an armed criminal, I would certainly make sure that anybody who would try to pull out a weapon would not survive this...
Maybe concealed weapons work because most criminals are stupid, but I can´t imagine why you should have time to pull out a weapon if a criminal already points his gun at you.
I can imagine:

Citizen: Oh, you're pointing a firearm at me. Hold on, I'm having trouble getting my concealed handgun out of the holster inside my shirt.

*BANG!*

Citizen: DAMN IT! I SAID WAIT!

:laugh4:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Concealed weapons have this principle: criminals are smart enough to realize that people may be carrying guns and that there's an extra chance that they could get harmed while trying to commit a crime.

Would you try to mug someone if half the people in a city were hiding a gun under their coat? Or even a tenth? Feeling lucky, punk?

[scooter_the_shooter]

What should be done is licensing and a requirement for a qualification before owning a weapon. Ausault weapons should be illigeal because you only use them against other people.

Accidents usually happen when guns aren't secured, anyone who has a gun and doesn't have the ammunition locked up should be shot. The people who leave their weapons loaded should be flogged and shot.\



Ok...

I shoot a(semi auto) ak47 pretty regular.... I never killed any one or tried. I never will use it on people; it does do pretty good against that paper:idea2:

Kill me and 90 percent of us other gun people for putting the ammo that we OWN and bought with OUR money, where we want? Heck I was keeping my ammo in my room when I was 12, would you have flogged me:laugh4:

I doubt you really mean that most gun owners should be shot. You were just blowing off steam right?(God know I have said some extreme stuff, I don't mean)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Even if they gave everyone a gun? That would be a fair trade, wouldn't it?

Well, it might be the end of the human race as we know it...;)


Granted, the guns would probably all be rhinestone-encrusted derringers. But still...

How absurd!! You need a least a 9mm! :2thumbsup:


Ausault weapons should be illigeal because you only use them against other people.

Oh please. The heart-rending 'guns are made just to kill people, they're so evil'. All guns are designed for conflict. Getting mad at a certain type because they do it very well is absurd. Why deny people one of the most effective forms of self defense just because you feel quesy about them?


Vermont is not some Utopian land without crime.

Very true. But nor is the terror-ridden nightmare gun-banners forcast whenever a state passes a pro-gun or pro-self-defense bill.


Does that include injury to the mugger?

I personally wouldn't be willing to kill a guy if he just wanted to take my money.

Probably not. ~D. That's your choice about self defense, though I personally would use all necessary force to stop a mugging. I wouldn't want to shoot him; noone carries a gun yearning for a criminal to attack so they can kill them. And, many times merely drawing a gun is adequete for compelling the mugger to move on.

Are you also of the opinion that a country shouldn't defend itself from invaders who just want to loot?


Which means I wouldn't be willing to shoot him.

Which means I wouldn't be willing to point a gun at him.

Which means I really have no need to carry a gun.

Not all crimes are muggings. What if you were attacked by someone bent on doing you physical harm?

Crazed Rabbit

[Tribesman]

That's your choice about self defense, though I personally would use all necessary force to stop a mugging. I wouldn't want to shoot him; noone carries a gun yearning for a criminal to attack so they can kill them. And, many times merely drawing a gun is adequete for compelling the mugger to move on.

Either you have no experience with muggings or the muggers where you live are really dumb .
Or maybe you have been reading too much gun nut publications .

[Spetulhu]

That's your choice about self defense, though I personally would use all necessary force to stop a mugging. I wouldn't want to shoot him; noone carries a gun yearning for a criminal to attack so they can kill them. And, many times merely drawing a gun is adequete for compelling the mugger to move on.

Either you have no experience with muggings or the muggers where you live are really dumb .
Or maybe you have been reading too much gun nut publications .

Lone muggers? They usually move in packs here. 5-12 teenagers, some armed with knives. When the time comes to pull a gun you're already surrounded by thugs close enough to grab your gun.

[Somebody Else]

Hmm... if I set out to mug someone, and I knew a lot of people carried guns, what would I do? I know, I'd take a gun with me. So now we have a mugger and victim, both fully capable of killing each other very easily. That's good, no, really.

At least you can run from a knife, but I don't know anyone who can run faster than a bullet.

[Ianofsmeg16]

If a mugger comes here, which is rare to say the least, one good sharp kick in the crotch would sen any man reeling. It may not be 'cool' but you gotta think, Is is it worth losing your hard earned money just for the sake of not kicking anoter guy in the family jewels?

[econ21]

Is is it worth losing your hard earned money just for the sake of not kicking anoter guy in the family jewels?

Sadly, I fear the real question is often "is it worth losing your life for whatever little money you are carrying on you"? For some physically very able blokes, the tables may be turned, but I rather suspect the muggers avoid those types anyway.

But I'm not sure how we got to this point in this thread. The robbery in question seems to have been carried out by a pretty serious gang of armed robbers who would probably have brutalised any real life bank manager's family, gun laws and kicks in the family jewels not withstanding.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Apparently you weren't paying attention, Tribe. He said "vertually [sic] no gun crime is commited [sic] with a registered weapon." You should know by now that when gun advocates say that there are virtually no gun crimes committed with registered weapons, they mean there are a certain amount, more than they are prepared to admit, but all gun advocates are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find any bullet holes at all anywhere on their bodies that were put there by a registered firearm, they're to tell the NRA immediately so that they can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up. And finally, necrophilia is right out.

:laugh4:

(My apologies to Monty Python for so blatantly stealing one of their bits)

:bow:

I'm not an American, as I stated. I am English, which is not the same as being British, by the way. You correct, there are nutters that go around shooting people with weapons but the people who do most of the killing use illigeally aquired weapons. I fail to see how it it so hard to admit this.

Again, the majoriety of gun crimes are committed with unregistered weapons.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

\



Ok...

I shoot a(semi auto) ak47 pretty regular.... I never killed any one or tried. I never will use it on people; it does do pretty good against that paper:idea2:

Kill me and 90 percent of us other gun people for putting the ammo that we OWN and bought with OUR money, where we want? Heck I was keeping my ammo in my room when I was 12, would you have flogged me:laugh4:

I doubt you really mean that most gun owners should be shot. You were just blowing off steam right?(God know I have said some extreme stuff, I don't mean)

Your weapon and ammunition should be seperate and both should be locked away in steel lockers. Ammunition is dangerous in itself, even without a gun. What if a child got hold of it and hit it with a hammer or something?

[rory_20_uk]

A heist of £52 million is not going to be foiled by a kick. I imagine they thought of that. I'm sure the people that did this would kill for that amount of money (I probably would), so to not co-operate would be at the expense of a lot of pain and the slow death of members of your family. Suffer that over someone else's loot? I don't think they ever signed up for that.

~:smoking: