A man shot dead by police at a village near Sevenoaks in Kent had been reported wielding an Uzi-type sub-machine gun, the police watchdog said on
Sunday.
Wait a minute--are you saying "gun control" in the UK doesn't stop criminals from getting guns?
Unarmed Kent Police officers went to Stansted village on Saturday morning in response to a call that a man was threatening a member of the public, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said.
So if a member of the public's life is being threatened, someone who is prohibited by law from protecting himself, that's not important enough to send someone 'round capable of giving him the protection he's denied?
Two armed response units joined the officers and challenged the man, who was white and aged around 40.
But once "The Only Ones" feel threatened, the means of defense are made available?
Police then shot the man two times and he died at the scene.
And the only thing that will stop an armed threat is another man on the scene who is also armed?
He is not thought to have held a firearms licence or to have been a member of a registered gun club.
I repeat my first question...
Has anyone in the UK said that our ban on hand guns prevents criminals from getting guns? I doubt it. What it does mean, however, is that if someone is wandering around with a gun then they're more than likely a criminal and fair game for police marksmen.
ReplyDeleteSo if a member of the public's life is being threatened, someone who is prohibited by law from protecting himself, that's not important enough to send someone 'round capable of giving him the protection he's denied?
Is this really the standard of your logic? A police armed response unit was dispatched and duly shot the asshole dead. Seems to me someone got the protection they deserved and a gun-totting nutcase got what he deserved. Where's the problem?
Oh, and where have you quoted this rubbish from? There are no longer registered gun clubs in the UK where it's permitted to shoot any type of handgun never mind a sub-machine gun so that last quote is superfluous.
Okay see: this is why you don't get a say on these matters, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about:
ReplyDeleteA full sized uzi "submachinegun" (description by madeia, not a corporate name of government classification) Has a folding stock, and can be equipped with a barrel long enough for it to be considered a rifle.
just run a google on "uzi Carbine" to see for yourself.
And the point was: they didn't send anybody capable of neutralizing the threat untill they knew for sure that the offender was armed with a firearm.
i.e.: disarming the criminals was a failure, and is putting the general public at risk.
Disarming the police was a success, and is putting the general public even more at risk.
Is this really the standard of your logic?
ReplyDeleteLet's fisk your post, Mr. Bravely Anonymous:
Has anyone in the UK said that our ban on hand guns prevents criminals from getting guns? I doubt it.
Don't doubt it. No personage less than Prime Minister Tony Blair said it, multiple times, in the press and before Parliament. In 1996 and '97, British papers were FULL of crowing about how much the gun ban would reduce ALL crime in Great Britain, not just "gun crime." It wasn't until 2002 that even the British press began to reluctantly report that ALL crime, INCLUDING "gun crime" had significantly increased under that ban.
You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. (/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm)
Seems to me someone got the protection they deserved and a gun-totting nutcase got what he deserved. Where's the problem?
Seems you didn't bother to actually read the article, even though David copied the relevant sections into his post. A call went into the police that a man with a gun was behaving bizarrely. The police, KNOWING IN ADVANCE THAT THERE WAS A REPORT OF A GUN, sent two UNARMED officers to "investigate." That's why David questioned: So if a member of the public's life is being threatened, someone who is prohibited by law from protecting himself, that's not important enough to send someone 'round capable of giving him the protection he's denied?
See, the two UNARMED officers were obviously incapable of arresting a man with a gun. They had to call for help. David was mocking the mindset that would first send unarmed cops to a gun report instead of the armed cops who eventually had to show up.
Oh, and where have you quoted this rubbish from? From Reuters, which, last I heard, was in London. (uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL292705220071230)
Next time, RTFQ before you post, would you please?
In reading this I was going to pretty much say the same things Gaviota said, until I read down to where he said them, good job, Gav.
ReplyDeleteSo that leaves me with an observation and a question. The observation is that our Bravely Anonymous commenter seems to be pretending he is from the UK. His syntax and some spellings are just not UK'ish.
The question is no matter where he is from, why does he lack the skills to read the language his people(his claim) invented?
Can't I use Americanisms to make you guys feel at home? Aw shucks man, ah just wanna let loose with some Yankee expressions every now and then.
ReplyDeleteNo one in the UK believed the government when they said that the new laws would reduce gun crime or make it more difficult for criminals to get guns. Maybe you guys would've believed them but I don't know what you've been smoking to be perfectly honest so nothing would surprise me.
In the UK the only guns you can buy without being a member of a gun club(members of which can own muzzle-loading handguns:S) are shotguns and rifles. Last I heard an Uzi with or without a stock wouldn't qualify as a rifle here.
Now ain't this fun!? Hot diggity dog.
Can't I use Americanisms to make you guys feel at home?
ReplyDeleteWe ARE at home. Faking a persona that isn't yours is a tactic used by people who are dishonest. Since all people who want to ban guns in order to "control crime" are dishonest, this would seem to fit the character of your posts.
I believe that in your very first post on this topic, you stated: Has anyone in the UK said that our ban on hand guns prevents criminals from getting guns? I doubt it.
NOW you say:
No one in the UK believed the government when they said that the new laws would reduce gun crime or make it more difficult for criminals to get guns.
So? Which is it? Did they say it, or not? And did you doubt it or just disbelieve it? Try and make the reconciliation of these two opposing statements believable.
Last I heard an Uzi with or without a stock wouldn't qualify as a rifle here.
[Trying desperately to maintain patience here]
Yes, child, we know. Some of us OWN Uzis. Fully automatic Uzis at that. We know all about Uzis. The point we are making, THE POINT THAT YOU MISSED, [[AGAIN!!]] is that it was REUTERS OF LONDON, ENGLAND that made the comment that he had no firearms licences or gun club memberships.
WE know that licences and memberships had nothing to do with Uzis. Why do you suppose Reuters DIDN'T know that?
Cor. Blimey.
You know as well as I do that politicians lie through their teeth but most intelligent people can see through it. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop the politicians from doing whatever the fuck they like when they're in power.
ReplyDeleteSo, I will qualify and expand upon what I said for the hard of thinking amongst you: politicians made all sorts of claims for the effects of the ban on guns; no one with half a brain amongst my acquaitances believed them.
The thought of some of you guys actually owning lethal weapons such as automatic Uzis is, indeed, truly terrifying. I just thank God I live in the UK where reports of a man with a submachine gun are so rare(read virtually unheard of) that unarmed officers will be sent to verify the report, presumably from a safe distance, before calling in the firearms response team. Not a case of "Oh yeah? What's that, the 15th today?"
Yes there are many guns in the hands of criminals here in the UK but, fortunately, they mostly shoot each other with them and long may that continue. We at least have pretty much zero instances of kids shooting their brothers and sisters, women with PMT shooting their husbands and college kids wasting half the campus. Like I said, I'd rather be where I am thanks very much.
P.S. You've got nothing to gain from knowing who I am, I'm not involved in campaigning against your silly little pea shooters. There are plenty of you with meaningless monikers which may as well be anonymous as anything else. Why should I reveal myself when you don't and where's the point anyway?
ReplyDeleteAnon, you are a fraud and we all know it. I know you have this false impression of yourself as more intelligent and more humane than we. However, as in everything else, you are simply wrong.
ReplyDeleteNow lock the bathroom door, before your mother catches you, again.
one more thing for any genuine Englismen who hold with our phony Brit, Anonymous, remember what happened last time you sent the world's most feared military to take our arms?
ReplyDeleteSomething for everyone to think about,wot?
I'd rather be where I am thanks very much.
ReplyDeleteWe're glad you are where you are, too, if you are actually in Britain, which is the subject of some doubt.
We are glad we don't live in Britain, where the violent crime rate is actually higher than in the USA, even if guns AREN'T involved. Especially glad that we don't live in Scotland and Wales which have the highest crime rates than any country in Europe, or Canada, Australia, New Zealand combined.
We're glad we don't live in Britain where the populace is so emasculated and feminized that when British young people join the military, and a boatload of them, including armed British Marines, encounters some Iranian sailors, they promptly surrender without so much as a whimper.
You better be glad France is in such pitiful shape, because those surrender-monkeys would kick your ass in no time if they put their minds to it.
It's the same here, too, that the killings are mostly criminal-against-criminal. We just happen to have a much higher percentage of people who are violent criminals in the U.S. than in the U.K. -- and this was true even before the U.K. had _any_ gun control. We're a multi-cultural society, and some of our cultures are much more violent than those of Europe (not counting European governmental-sanctioned violence by fascists and communists); the most violent ones are comparable to the culture in Jamaica (which has gun laws similar to the U.K., but a national murder rate comparable to our worst ghettos). Not all of America's subcultures are "industrialized."
ReplyDeleteYet, despite this burden of so many violent criminals (including every member of the Crips, Bloods, Gangster Disciples, Latin Kings, and MS-13), our guns have managed to suppress the rate at which respectable people suffer robbery or assault to something way below England's rate. Of course, one of the side-effects is that a much higher percentage of respectable people who commit suicide do so with firearms than in England (even though the suicide rate considering all means of death is no higher than theirs).
If you Brits knew Tony Blair was lying about the benefits of gun control and voted for him anyway, then you got what you deserved when he "lied to you about Iraq." (What, you thought he would only lie _for_ you but not _against_ you?)
When the Limeys were threatened by Schicklgruber & Co. they asked Americans for guns, which we sent. When they are living under Sharia Law and illiterate fanatics are mutilating their women's genitals and pushing them into the gutter (as befits Dhimmis) I hope they don't ask for guns. Their masters won't let them have arms or ride anything but a donkey.
ReplyDeleteY. Sothoth
Mr Anonymous seems to have forgotten that the Police also shoot Brazilian electricians, people with a carrier bag containing a chair leg & those who resemble a known criminal.
ReplyDeleteAccording to his logic, anyone carrying an object that resembles a firearm deserves to be shot too.
I'll tell you something Mr Anonymous: I'd far rather have the means to defend myself, rather than rely on an ASU turning up - witness the recent demise of a killer when he encountered an armed citizen in Colorado.
Most UK firearms Laws do NOTHING to prevent crime & as such, should be thrown out, in order that citizens can once again defend themselves from those who wish to harm them.