Surely in America most peopel are walking around armed to the teeth with guns? why should a pair of nunchucks bother anyone

NOW!

Mine's the black one with the balaclava.

as a practicing, and vocal, martial artist* to distance myself from these idiots. I'm sure most genuine martial artists out there will do the same. They cause us nothing but problems with the Daily Heil readership types, in the same way as some kid going berserk then blaming GTA4 gets bad press for the entire gaming community. It was this kind of idiot that got throwing stars banned in the UK.

Unfortunately, these types seldom get hit by Darwin's Laws, and never seem to hit their own eyeballs with an arrow. Assholes.

*See? THAT'S how to use commas.

Yep, in some States it is perfectly legal to carry a licensed gun, but illegal to carry a knife/Ninja Star etc. 'Cause, you know, that would just be dangerous!

Especially in New Jersey.

The cops saved their silly lives.

I'm guessing the police did this for their own protection.

Let's face it - nunchucks and katanas might beat automatic weaponry in anime and Hong Kong kung fu flicks but it's probably not going to work so well on the mean streets of New Jersey...

or it didnt happen

surely you can get some pix of the scene.

Because in the USA, "arms" has been determined to mean "firearms". So whereas it's probably legal to give 8 year olds functioning semi-automatics to take to school for "self defence", it's illegal to carry any weapons that do not create profit for the American weapon makers each time they are used.

Lots of people have registered guns in America, but thats it, they are registered. If these weapons were not registered and they had no legal reason to be carrying them then (Going to a ninje expo or something) then it is illegal, even though they appear to be acting in a good natured way

Seconded!

Or maybe that's thirded, forthed, or fifed(?) by the time my comment shows up after several other peoples that are not currently visable.

I mean, just out of interest.

I realise that's only a distraction, but I would assume there's a reason these chums were underway for some serious vigilante action (and a possible hail of bullets in the style of Indiana Jones - try beating x bullets/sec with a couple of throwing stars)..

Now there was a game! I'm going all misty-eyed as I type...

Just the sort of chuckle I needed for a friday afternoon after the pub.

mine's the black one with the nun-chucks.

Someone's been watching too many 'Something's gotta be done to clear up this mess' films. Michael Douglas, Charlie Bronson and Marion Wayne would be proud.

They want to thank God for the police.

Seriously, sending C&D letters to drug dealers? Threatening them? Out here (UK) you might get some laughs, in the US they'll just shoot you and move down a block.

If they'd been busted carrying a carload of guns to go "persuade" drug dealers to cease their activities, I'm certain they'd have been busted for that, too. The issue isn't weapons, it's vigilantism, which is illegal no matter the methodology.

There seems to be a huge misunderstanding about the US and guns-- yes, they're legal to own, sure, but it still remains illegal to shoot people without justification, and it really doesn't happen all that often.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but adjusting for population size difference, don't the US and UK have a fairly equal murder and violent crime rate?

"Registered" what now?

I never had to register a firearm, and I own several. Yes, I had to go through a background check (the data from which is *supposed* to be destroyed within a certain timeframe) and sign the firearm over into my ownership from the dealer. However, that record of ownership is something which can only be accessed by the government with proper legal reasons, from what I understand.

As I understand it, there is no firearms "registry" in the US. The NRA-types would throw a fit.

Your not alone. I put so much money into that game, it puts supporting a drug habit to shame. Time to fire up xmame.

They're going to fight a criminal scourge, and law enforcement arrests them

The RIAA/MPAA do it for an unproved civil infringement, and law enforcement bends over backwards.

I think the drug vigilantee people should maybe turn on the riaa/mpaa so then the cops have more time to deal with the druggies

Is it just me or is the mental image of two grown men in full ninja costume with a massively under-inflated sense of their own mortality pootling along in a Ford Mondeo, surreal, depressing and funny all at the same time.

There has to be a scene from a film there. Anyone?

Paris because hopefully the ninja outfit would muffle her voice.

In the US, all legal weapons sales (except for C&Rs) are run thru a load of paperwork with the weapon's serial number, the buyer's ID info, fingerprints, etc. Each seller is required to have this data available for years for whenever ATFE decides they need to go thru them all. If even a T is miscrossed, or heave forbid, a "ditto" is used, the fines and fees are tremendous and the dealer is shut down and his records confiscated. Which means stored for however long the ATFE and it's masters decide, in their own facility, with little or no oversight.

So what's the difference then, of your records being stored at multiple locations, or confiscated by ATFE, or in some central "registry"? What about major states with "microstamping" laws with the serial number database to be accessable by LE whenever "necessary"? Is it not "registry" just because Democrats say it's not? A rose by any other name, and all that.

We won't even get into the "accessed with proper legal reasons" issue. Any activist judge can come up with a hundred "reasons" and his signature alone makes it "legal" thru warrants. "Think of the Children!" "OMG White Supremacist!" "Eek Evil Terrorist!"-there's three that are guaranteed to work anywhere under the 9th Circuit Court and anywhere near Mayor Boomberg's influence.

I love theses idiot comments. In most states you cant carry a knife over 1.5 inches . The charge is carrying a concealed weapon, not fire arm but weapon. So any thing that's defined as weapon including a gun is illegal to have concealed. Instates that allow you to open carry you can have a knife . In states that allow to have a permit its call a CCW. The W is weapons. So if you are going to bag on a country for their laws now what t he law actually is . But hey its fun to hate on yanks

Ever been to new jersey? Try pumping your own gas. All gas stations are full service by law for "safety and insurance purposes." New Jersey is a little piece of the UK ('nanny state') in the USA... A tribute to the 'protection' we so envy of our funny speaking counterparts across the atlantic.

I live in KS where guns + beer = weekend fun... my ex-g/f from NJ was shocked when she discovered that people 'actually do that in the midwest,' 'own guns!', 'don't hurt themselves'. Ninjas with swords and stars sounds like fun though, i'll have to see what I have going on next weekend.

skull and crossbones because I'm going to shoot my eye out.

Try..."Beverley Hills Ninja".

Quotes:

Haru: [Joey is chasing a chicken] Keep practicing, Joey, and someday you will choke that chicken.

____________________________________________

Haru: Do not worry. A ninja knows when he is in danger.

[Tanley and his men fire machine guns at them]

Haru: Now we are in danger. We are really in danger.

_____________________________________________

Haru: I am sure you would like to know who I am and what I do, but as part of my creed, I cannot tell you. See my identity must remain mysterious and my mission secret, I cannot reveal it to you.

Boy: Why not?

Haru: Because I would then have to kill you.

Boy: Daddy.

What are you talking about? This "registered" thing you speak of it foreign to me. Where I'm from in the US the original purchaser is the only person who must register the firearm. Afterward is can be sold/transferred to another owner without any sort of paperwork (they asked you to file a form but you aren't required to do so).

If you have ever purchased a firearm in the past you can pay a $50 fee and get through the background check in 6 hours (the background check doesn't apply to rifles and shotguns anyway - which is silly because those are the really dangerous guns. Most people with a pistol aren't very dangerous to the person they are aiming at)

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but adjusting for population size difference, don't the US and UK have a fairly equal murder and violent crime rate?"

Okay. I'm correcting you, you're wrong. No, they don't. :)

Here's a handy list for murders:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

U.S scores 0.042802 per 1,000 people, U.K. scores 0.0140633 per 1,000 people . So that's almost exactly 3x higher in the U.S. Canada scores 0.0149063 per 1,000 people.

Violent crime is similar, IIRC.

@AC "Correct me if I'm wrong, but adjusting for population size difference, don't the US and UK have a fairly equal murder and violent crime rate?"

The murder rate in the US more than twice that in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate

There's nothing more tedious than hearing a bunch of people spout off about US weapons laws when they know little about them. NJ has the second tightest weapons laws in the US: http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=nj

"in some States it is perfectly legal to carry a licensed gun, but illegal to carry a knife/Ninja Star etc"

It all depends on the law in the particular state (and city). See non-official summary here: http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/USKnife.pdf

I believe (and IANANJL) that in NJ, there are no blanket prohibitions on knives, so long as there is a lawful reason for carrying the knife (gutting deer, carving chess pieces, cutting roofing felt) you'd be OK. Living out your Charles Bronson fantasies probably doesn't come under that category.

"it's illegal to carry any weapons that do not create profit for the American weapon makers each time they are used."

Complete gash - see above.

"Lots of people have registered guns in America, but thats it, they are registered."

It depends from state to state again. In Vermont, (IIRC) you don't have to register anything with anyone to buy, own or carry a gun. In Virginia, you don't have to have to register owned guns with the state and you don't have to get a licence to carry a gun openly (although you do have to have a licence to carry it in a concealed fashion).

http://www.stategunlaws.org/viewstate.php?st=VA

There are plenty of arguments to made for/against gun laws in the UK/US contexts - but they can at least be made on the basis of facts...

In any case, depending on the content of the letters and what the two tools proposed to say to the dealers, even if they were not armed, their (planned) activities might have been illegal.

Black helicopters because the UN World Overlord Army is coming to take everyone's guns away.

Aren't democrats the ones who are trying to make people give up their guns?

And, by the way, secondary sales aren't inherently illegal, and don't leave any traces beyond what the two parties consider fair. IE, I give you money, you give me a gun.

It is up to the seller to make sure the buyer is legit, but that doesn't include any sort of background check where I come from if it's two private parties (and not a gun store/gun show).

I could sell one of my firearms to a friend and there would be no record except that in our heads. As far as I'm aware, that's also perfectly legal where I live.

You should live in Finland.

In my usual state (drunk, in bed) it's not unusual for me to "pump my own gas". Trouble is, 'She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed' then tells me to "Open a fuc*king window"!

I'm not sure how it is in parts of the U.K., however, for the US it's a hodgepodge. There are federal regulations, state regulations, counties within in the state regulations, city regulations/ordinances, etc..

You don't have to register a gun to own it legally in the US, assuming you purchased it second-hand, or before those laws took effect. However, automatic weapons are have to be registered to be legal in several states, and in most others are outright illegal. Concealed weapons permits are given out like candy in a few states, and in others you need to be giving the governor reach-arounds for several years to get one, and that still doesn't cover transporting over state lines. And I always love the "feel good" laws they pass on guns and magazines, restricting the amount of ammo they can hold, or the weapon itself. They tend not to mention the fact that none of those are retro-active, so you can pick up those "banned" items at gun shows dirt cheap normally. For anything else you could consider being used as a weapon there are laws of similar natures times a hundred.

I would love to see that amendment simply amended/repealed all together, wouldn't break my heart in the slightest. I can't see how it would really effect much since it's already outright trounced anyway in my view. "The right to bear arms", does that not mean carrying a firearm is a right, or did someone flip two pages at once on me? The only reason it hasn't happened (other than politicians making money off the lobbyists as usual) is the Southern states will start a civil war part 2 before they ever allow that right on paper to go away, in fact, just about any state with a significant rural section of it's populace.

Those who live by the sword get shot in the chest by a drug dealer with a pistol.

Being arrested by the cops probably saved these idiot's lives.

So "the right to bear arms" refers only to guns then? I assumed "arms" would cover any weapon.

The right to bear arms does not give you the right to carry said arms around in public. There are concealed carry laws for that, and they are much stricter then the laws around obtaining a firearm.

The second amendment does not specifically say firearm, but it's read that way because who uses a sword these days except for dumbass kids? You're allowed to own a sword but if you go brandishing it in public, you're gonna be thrown in jail the same as you would if you openly carried around a shotgun or pistol.

Think of it this way. The second amendment says that you have a right to keep a gun at home so that when the zombie invasion comes, you will be ready to defend yourself.

Paris because some of your UK people have some stupid ideas about US law.

"I would love to see that amendment simply amended/repealed all together, wouldn't break my heart in the slightest. I can't see how it would really effect much since it's already outright trounced anyway in my view."

Hitler believed the same thing about guns. They were dangerous and only the military should possess them.

"All gas stations are full service by law for "safety and insurance purposes." New Jersey is a little piece of the UK ('nanny state') in the USA..."

And yet, strangely, here in the very nanny state UK of which you so knowledgeably speak, we're invariably expected to pump our own gas. I haven't seen an attended petrol station in a great many years.

So how do we account for this? Could it be that this particular example of nannying is in fact New Jersey's very own brand, and that in fact, your reference to the UK was for no particular reason after all?

so they can easily catch the "vigilianties" but can't just easily go out and arrest the scum they were after? this planet is screwed man. or corruption rules. which is the same point again...

It's no wonder that so many Americans are killed by arms each year. With a right guaranteed in law that the population is allowed bear arms.

If the US government amended the law removing the right to bear arms and instead completely banning it then maybe the bears wouldn't get so angry and keep on killing hikers!

Ok, Ok! I'm going, just let me get my coat!

Sounds like some boys were looking to get sliced, diced, and served (to pit bulls). Lucky for them the cops caught 'em.

"'The right to bear arms', does that not mean carrying a firearm is a right..."

Actually, um, that's exactly what it means. "Keep" as in possess/own, "bear" as in carry on your person, unless you think they were making an ursine reference.

To feel comfortable with the Second Amendment requires that 1) You presume your neighbors to be reasonable and responsible people, and 2) You realize that a firearm is no more intrinsically evil than an automobile or a kerosene lamp. And no less dangerous when used by the careless or malicious.

Maybe the local drug lords gave the police a heads-up. Since most of the police are probably in the employ of these American 'entrepanours', I would expect nothing less (as long as they pay their taxes).

In the USA it is against the law to carry certain types of weapons, but to possess a gun is to be part of the fabled 'American way'.

Paris, is she not American (tenuous, I know)?

Your argument runs thus:

Hitler was a bad guy.

Hitler believed $SOMETHING.

Therefore, $SOMETHING is wrong.

Spot where it falls down.

An automobile is designed to get you from A to B. A Kerosene lamp is designed to illuminate. Any deaths resulting from these objects are accidental, and generally result in a redesign of said automobile or lamp to minimise the chance of it happening again - think seatbelts, crumple zones etc.

On the other hand a firearm is designed to kill things. That's it's purpose.

"evil" is a loaded word, but given that most things that are killed don't wish to be and that a firearm is absolutely, categorically "more intrinsically" designed to kill, then it's not a great leap is it? Bagging the odd rabbit for dinner excepted as only PETA think that's evil.

As for no less dangerous, discounting target shooting (which doesn't require you to carry a gun about in public), please explain to me how you can use a firearm - not just carry one, but use one - and have it *not* be dangerous? They're SUPPOSED to be dangerous, that's the point. See above.

"Dangerous to whom?" is the pertinent question. A military or police force loyal and beholden to its served civilian populace is dubbed a necessity. Either is certainly dangerous to those discerned as malefactors by the protected and, despite any statistical possibility of circumstance of being turned against the intended masters, considered a necessity all the same. The citizen bearing personal arms merely brings the same argument to the level of the individual rather than the group*.

It's a matter of self reliance. Some people are happy taking the bus or metro to work. Others would rather depend upon themselves and drive, work from home, live over shop, etc.

"Evil" was used as shorthand for worthy of dread or contempt. I've personally seen fires kill people and utterly destroy lives. I'm careful that I don't burn my house down, but I'm not contemptuous of fire. I'm careful. And since the vast majority of my neighbors aren't ablaze, I'm assuming they're no less careful.

Bearing all this in mind, why do I have the feeling that the drug dealers are still on the corner while a group of impetuous, rash, and foolish youths were attempting to do what the community as a whole should have? Thugs should be afraid of the ire of the townsfolk, not the other way around. *Never* the other way around. That is neither progress nor civilized.

*I might have written "The citizen bearing personal arms merely brings the same argument *back* to the level of the individual *where it naturally lay* rather than the group" to be more in tune with the mindset that holds reliance primarily on the man in the mirror as a basic personal responsibility and the other side of the coin of claiming personal rights.

Dear Vulture fans,

Basil Baxter would like to caution against giving Ninja’s undue media attention. Basil Baxter has had dealings in the past with Ninja’s and they never ended well; for the Ninja’s.

As Basil Baxter has frequently commented on his blog; there is no kick, jump or blow designed to counter a Chainsaw. (Polly would like to amend that; a ‘high quality’ chainsaw. She gets ever so jealous when Basil Baxter tests other girls.)

These two miscreants were obviously on their way to wreak havoc on Basil Baxter’s master plan to distribute narcotics to toddlers and thus lay the groundwork for world domination. All Basil Baxter can say, in their own retarded lingo; MASSIVE FAIL!

Besides, had Basil Baxter, in all his benevolence, not decided to loan Ussama Bin-Laden his SS20 nuclear missiles which where en-route to the Ninja headquarters at the time; the Ninja’s would have been less than no more. (Basil Baxter also quite regrets not disarming them at the time, anyone travelling to Pakistan is advised to bring Geiger counters.)

http://www.basilbaxter.com/32/basil-baxter-shares-his-toys/

In any case; Basil Baxter is not an unreasonable person. He quite admires these two’s audacity and therefore has decided to bust them out. Unfortunately Basil Baxter has never had to measure Semtex quite as precisely as needed to only blow a mere hole in a wall so perhaps some causalities might ensue. Ah well, Basil Baxter feels that it is the thought that counts.

And remember: Babies stop crying if you shake them. Death comes to us all but only sometimes does it wear sunglasses.

In North America the Mondeo is either the Ford Contour or the Mercury Mystique...

I don't know why I'm writing this, no one cares, least of all me.

Commas can't be used before "and". This be because "and" already is a comma. Don't get me stared on starting sentences beginning with "And!"

Mine has I heart Lynn Truss on the back.

The plural of nunchuk (they in fact only come in plural by definition) is "nunchaku".

I preferred Shadow Dancer to Shinobi 'cos you could set your dog on the baddies.

ok, so this pair of 'ninjas' were not being very smart at all, but the fact remains that they, along with more and more people, were doing this because the police would not. nuff said.

my opinion is that even though most people are too stupid, weak and untrained, they STILL feel the need to seek justice and/or protect themselves and family.

for example, when i was victim of credit card fraud, one transaction resulted in a delivery address. on contacting the police, even though this one was on a silver platter for them, they said categorically that 'nothing would be done due to lack of manpower and having to focus on more serious crime"...

so what the hell am i paying tax for? is it surprising that people then want to take things into their own hands? no, it's not, and we will see more and more vigilantees so long as the police dont do their job.

the fact that the police in this story had no interest in the actual criminals these guys were after says it all.

And? What is wrong with sentences begining with and? Or ending with and for that matter????

Obviously not part of that mythical "well-regulated militia"

I could complete Shinobi on one credit. Without losing a life. And that includes the 'behind the scene Ninja' too.

That was, admittedly, about 18 years ago...

Tried it the other day on MAME - got owned :|

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but adjusting for population size difference, don't the US and UK have a fairly equal murder and violent crime rate?"

In the year 2001 the US had about 12000 gun related killings

The total for the EU was 600-700.

I am all for the literal interpretation, as in "The right to bear feet". But please don't point the business end at me, especially if unwashed.

Why not check the assault victimization?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_vic-crime-assault-victims

UK #2

USA #10

At least in USA they can defend themselves, unlike the UK subjects that are, well, subjected to their governments will.

Damn self defense, it should be outlawed! Only the chosen ones should be able to defend themselves, for example, those nice undercover armed policemen that have proven metro shooting abilities.The rest of the subjects should play dead in a case of assault. :-)

Can a UK subject sue his rulers for not protecting him and at the same time not allowing him to defend himself?

Between 1997 and 1999, there were 429 murders in London, the highest two-year figure for more than 10 years – nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms – in a country that has virtually banned private firearm ownership.

The U.K. has strict gun control and a rising homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000. Switzerland has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. And to date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland.

Handguns were used in 3,685 offences in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40%. It is interesting to note:

• Of the 20 areas with the lowest number of legal firearms, 10 had an above average level of "gun crime."

• Of the 20 areas with the highest levels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the average.

Increase of crime from pre-handgun ban in UK:

Armed robbery 170.1%

Kidnapping/abduction 144.0%

Assault 130.9%

Attempted murder 117.6%

Sexual assault 112.6%

Nice going UK... What's next your rulers are going to prohibit? Fists and fingers?

Self defense - BAD!

Criminals handled with care - GOOD!

@ Andy Barber:

"Commas can't be used before "and". This be because "and" already is a comma. Don't get me stared on starting sentences beginning with "And!" [...] Mine has I heart Lynn Truss on the back."

I'm sure Lynn Truss, knowing a thing or two about grammar, would be well aware that there's actually no rule against starting a sentence with 'and' or 'but'. And yes, commas can certainly be used before 'and' - although commas should always be used with caution. They're useful, but they can get unruly if they're not kept under proper control.

@ Sillyfellow

"the fact remains that they, along with more and more people, were doing this because the police would not. nuff said."

The trouble is that that's *not* a fact. What that is is your assessment of the incident based on the report as presented by The Register. Which may or may not be Fair And Balanced (tm). At best, it may be their own rationalisation for what they were doing - but even then, it's not a 'fact' until we know what action the police had taken or were intending to take against the dealers, and how that compared against the action available to them. Your assessment, I'm guessing, is based more on your own negative experience than on your knowledge of the case in point.

(Incidentally, I notice your invocation of the infamous "I Pay My Taxes" there. As someone who works in the public sector (yes, I know: boo, hiss, etc) I hear this a large number of times every day; invariably from people who're unhappy that they're not being afforded the special treatment they've been conditioned to expect. Most of them either don't realise or don't care that my colleagues and I - plus most of the other residents of the area - also Pay Their Taxes.)

It may indeed be that the police in this case were not doing what they should've been doing. Or it may be that they were doing exactly what they should've been doing, but that these two guys were impatient and deluded as to their own prowess as warriors. We just don't know. What we do know is that they were arrested for committing an offence. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the fact that someone else was doing something wrong somewhere else in the neighbourhood doesn't usually make for a valid defence in law.

@ Damir Colak:

"unlike the UK subjects that are, well, subjected to their governments will."

Just a small point: British citizens in general haven't been 'subjects' since the British Nationality Act 1981. Only a very small number of people with a very specific status continue to be recognised as 'subjects', and there will be no more after them.

As to whether we're subject to the government's will, well, everyone is, to some extent. The big question here is to what degree, relative to other countries, and whether the level of control is justified.

Just shows the fallacy of relying on raw statistics without context or understanding

I have not got any. But the overall figures for the whole of the EU and the other detailed ones given in other messages seem to contradict yours. Sadly, the problems in London (and a couple of other very large cities) seem to involve knives among youngsters and even those are vastly exaggerated by the media.

I live in Switzerland. I am too idle to check the date, but a character had a good go at shooting some local politicians in the town of Zug just a couple of years ago. The weapons posession here is for army service (not school pupils, who tend to be a bit young for that) and is heavily hedged about with rules (and there is a growing movement to have all weapons kept in the army magazine because of suicides and a few incidents).

Pistols/hand guns in UK have never been legal outside shooting clubs in modern times. So no idea where your before and after comparisons originate. Please do not quote oddities caused by nutters in shooting clubs or criminal gangs. It is a sad fact that today, for those who really want to, especially in Europe where international travel is easy and very widespread, guns are easily smuggled from troublespots such as ex-Yugoslavia. The wonder is that the vast majority throughout the EU do not possess guns and EU murder and crime rates compare, with a few, localised exceptions, rather well with the USA in general (I believe that not the whole of the USA has a problem) and some other places.

The source of stats:

“Illegal Firearms in the UK”, Centre for Defense Studies at King's College in London, July 2001.

British Home Office, reported by BBC news, July 12, 2002.

Regarding Swiss, people bear arms for personal protection also. The military weapons are not the only guns present in the homes of the Swiss.

Here are more stats:

Contact Crime Victimization Rates (% in 1999)

#1 Australia 4.1

#2 England and Wales 3.6

#3 Scotland 3.4

#4 Canada 3.4

.

.

#13 USA 1.9

Source: 2001 Dutch Ministry of Justice, Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries

I really find it sad that the basic human rights like self defense and privacy are non-existant in UK.

Everything useful for protection is prohibited - even gobstoppers are cause for jail time/fine.

Stop&search, what is that? Nazi Germany '39?

What happened to Brits? Why and how did they allow all this to happen?

How does a woman that lives alone and has a gun for her personal protection within her home, present danger for society or for anyone else but the criminals?

How do you explain to a raped woman that it is ok, because if she had a gun she could have killed the rapist, and that is not good, because there is the police to protect her?

I too am of the opinion that the police spend too much time on stopping speeding cars, and not enough on theft, rape or murder.

Maybe they are genuinely afraid of anyone more threatening than a sales rep.

The community can't be expected to defend themselves, they don't have the training, they need to be properly represented.

Can we have all of the orphanages of Britain turned into Elite Ninja Crimefighting Acadamies.

<Totally awesome Ninja style black Helicopter>

"The community can't be expected to defend themselves, they don't have the training, they need to be properly represented."

Please don't confuse PUBLIC safety with PERSONAL defense, those are two completely different things.

Police is there to provide PUBLIC safety for the society, it cannot and will never be able to provide the PERSONAL defense (unless you manage to get one policeman per citizen at all times).

Anyway, what kind of training have the police? How many times a year they go to a shooting range? Is it the same training they used to kill the Brazilian electrician a couple of years ago, while strolling peacefully into a metro?

You expect them to be at your bedroom at all times? Follow you around the town?

What is the moral base of asking a policeman to put his life in harms way and protect yours when you are not willing to do the same, even for your own life?

What kind of training do you need to point a handgun at a rapist and pull the trigger? Why not allowing citizens to take the same training the policemen are taking? In the end, that training is paid by one's taxes.

Since when the subjects and citizens of UK are divided into two classes, those that are allowed to have means for protecting themselves and their families when assaulted and those that are not?

Human rights are universal, don't take away the only effective means of personal defense from women that live alone just because you are afraid of guns.

How disarming law abiding citizens and converting them into defenseless victims makes society safer?

Criminals prefer assaulting victims that have no means of defense... so, why is your government working for the criminals by making citizens defenseless and why are you supporting that kind of government?

According to the Penguin Dictionary of Troublesome Words "There is no rule against beginning a sentence with 'and'. And that's all there is to it!"

And 'and' can be preceded by a comma if single items in the list already contain 'and'. Consider these two sentences

"At the party I had pate, salmon, meat and potato pie and custard."

"At the party I had pate, salmon, meat and potato pie, and custard."

The top ten types of guns involved in crime in the U.S. show a definite trend in favoring handguns over long guns. The top ten guns used in crime, included the Smith & Wesson .38 Special and .357 revolvers; Raven Arms .25 caliber, Davis P-380 .380 caliber, Ruger .22 caliber, Lorcin L-380 .380 caliber, and Smith & Wesson semi-automatic handguns. These are not bolt action rifles or assault rifles or any kind of rifle or shotgun

"Anyway, what kind of training have the police? How many times a year they go to a shooting range? Is it the same training they used to kill the Brazilian electrician a couple of years ago, while strolling peacefully into a metro?"

Evidently very good as he was shot 7 times in the head, but please do tell how many times have your cops shot the wrong guy? Your cops must be the infallible ones we've been hearing so much about.... tosser