UK politician murdered in broad daylight

[eider]

How many intruders have you had inside your house/apartment?

All great answers to the other questions.
There only remained this one.
I was a commercial detective for many years, and also a trainer for the last twenty five.
As well as serving court process, tracing people, defence investigations etc, I worked for commerce, industry and retailers for three days each week because this filled my working life adequately.
If a company experienced repeat burglaries at a premises then we would be called in to handle the situation. Intruder alarms just deter thieves. We used to catch and detain them. All of my face-to-face incidents were in commercial premises or in the streets outside.
I also trained many hundreds of store detectives and retail investigators over twenty five years.

I wrote for our national security magazine for fifteen years. 95'-2011.

I never faced a gun, but knives, steel boots, wooden planks, bars, saws, chisels etc were occasional problems. That's the difference between our two countries. Guns are very rare.

 

[rocketman]

More accident deaths per regulated autos than by guns...... right?
But how many murders are committed in autos compared to guns?

Look, it's obvious that with 300 million guns swilling around in your land that no idea will put this right inside a century, but it's your grandchildren that might begin to benefit from legislation that allows for more guns to be taken out of the system and crushed. Right?

Wrong, in fact if I have anything to do with it my grandchildren will be taught as my sons are from a young age gun safety, how to shoot a weapon, as well as their right to defend themselves against tyranny. The problem isn't a gun problem it is a people problem, crazy people will always find a way to harm others if that is their intent, and there is no law or weapons ban that will stop the people problem...as long as there are people there will be people problems, it certainly is not a gun problem.

Legislation that produces sensible licensing, training and insurance could help.
Imagine iof police could seize/crush any gun found (in a public place) that did not carry insurance?
That's what we do with cars, by the way. no insurance? Seize 'em, crush 'em.

Nonsense! this just typical liberal drivel asserting that more government intrusion upon the liberty of the citizenry will fix the people problem they have now....it is not a gun problem, guns do not shoot themselves,and the overwhelming majority of legal gun owners do not shoot other people. The only people getting rich off this piss poor idea are insurance companies, and those that suffer are the citizens with yet another constitutional right being infringed upon by an already bloated intrusive government. LAME! :down:

 

[annabenedetti]

All great answers to the other questions.
There only remained this one.
I was a commercial detective for many years, and also a trainer for the last twenty five.
As well as serving court process, tracing people, defence investigations etc, I worked for commerce, industry and retailers for three days each week because this filled my working life adequately.
If a company experienced repeat burglaries at a premises then we would be called in to handle the situation. Intruder alarms just deter thieves. We used to catch and detain them. All of my face-to-face incidents were in commercial premises or in the streets outside.
I also trained many hundreds of store detectives and retail investigators over twenty five years.

I wrote for our national security magazine for fifteen years. 95'-2011.

I never faced a gun, but knives, steel boots, wooden planks, bars, saws, chisels etc were occasional problems. That's the difference between our two countries. Guns are very rare.

Sounds like you've had a very interesting career. If you don't mind saying, what was the focus of your writing for the national security magazine? If you'd rather not get that specific, I understand. Just wondering.

Setting aside your commercial career for a moment: if you had an intruder inside your house and that intruder was armed with a gun and every indication was that he planned to harm either you or your family - would you be willing to pull the trigger?

 

[eider]

Sounds like you've had a very interesting career. If you don't mind saying, what was the focus of your writing for the national security magazine? If you'd rather not get that specific, I understand. Just wondering.

Retail Security.
Occasional articles on tracing techniques.

Setting aside your commercial career for a moment: if you had an intruder inside your house and that intruder was armed with a gun and every indication was that he planned to harm either you or your family - would you be willing to pull the trigger?

I expect that I would..... be prepared to shoot.
And If I survived the incident I would be wondering how I could have been such a doughnut as to have overlooked simple domestic security failures that resulted in this nasty being able to get in.

You do need your gun. Definitely. So will your great grandchildren, I reckon, but if you came here and saw that we going shopping, answer our doors, have cycle trips, go to the park and live our whole lives without thinking about guns once, you'd see the benefits in any policy that might start the process of reducing the gun-mass that is with you now.

The US program Cops is shown here. One incident shown recently involved a householder who called the police because he thought he was being burgled. When the police arrived he shot at them through his front door because he thought that they were the baddies! We also see U tube clips of shop keepers shoioting at shop lifters (not just robbers) and emptying their guns at fleeing petty thieves.

But the idea of our local convenience shop needing to keep a handgun behind the counter.... that seems so strange. Our local police do not carry guns. It's just a different world, and for our children, who can go off to skating or shopping with their friends on their own it's got to be a better world, I think.

 

[annabenedetti]

I expect that I would..... be prepared to shoot.

Okay.

And If I survived the incident I would be wondering how I could have been such a doughnut as to have overlooked simple domestic security failures that resulted in this nasty being able to get in.

Best laid plans of mice and men, etc.

You do need your gun. Definitely. So will your great grandchildren, I reckon, but if you came here and saw that we going shopping, answer our doors, have cycle trips, go to the park and live our whole lives without thinking about guns once, you'd see the benefits in any policy that might start the process of reducing the gun-mass that is with you now.

I'm lucky enough to be able to say I don't live in a high crime area, although it's not far away. I go shopping, walking, go to the park - and don't think about guns once either, just the same as you. I do carry pepper spray when I walk, and I don't walk at night. I wouldn't just open the door to anyone knocking though, nor would I leave my door unlocked, but then some of this comes from being a woman and always having to be extra watchful. This country is so large, though, it's hard to make comparisons. My experience in California isn't going to be the same as elsewhere in the same county or state, let alone a different state entirely.

The US program Cops is shown here. One incident shown recently involved a householder who called the police because he thought he was being burgled. When the police arrived he shot at them through his front door because he thought that they were the baddies! We also see U tube clips of shop keepers shoioting at shop lifters (not just robbers) and emptying their guns at fleeing petty thieves.

But the idea of our local convenience shop needing to keep a handgun behind the counter.... that seems so strange. Our local police do not carry guns. It's just a different world, and for our children, who can go off to skating or shopping with their friends on their own it's got to be a better world, I think.

And yet, you still have crime. It's not like you don't have assaults, kidnappings, rapes, murders. I read your online news too.

 

[Rusha]

I expect that I would..... be prepared to shoot.
And If I survived the incident I would be wondering how I could have been such a doughnut as to have overlooked simple domestic security failures that resulted in this nasty being able to get in.
.

That's just it ... the type of *nasty* who would get in doesn't do so because your locks are insufficient, but rather because that is the type of person that he/she is ...

The person breaking in is a criminal and 100 percent responsible for his/her actions. Should they end up on the other end of a bullet AFTER breaking in, they are 100% responsible for getting shot.

 

[eider]

Wrong, in fact if I have anything to do with it...........

Nonsense! this just typical liberal drivel......:

Right! And yours is only one vote in hundreds of millions. You are in a democracy, so it is time to respect democrats!☺
And the initiative to seize insured vehicles here was a conservative one.
Wake up!

 

[eider]

That's just it ... the type of *nasty* who would get in doesn't do so because your locks are insufficient, but rather because that is the type of person that he/she is ...

The person breaking in is a criminal and 100 percent responsible for his/her actions. Should they end up on the other end of a bullet AFTER breaking in, they are 100% responsible for getting shot.

Fair enough, if that is your law where you are.

But burglary is dropping so fast here, apart from one 'blip'. People with very expensive cars are getting burgled more, because the only way to steal these cars is by getting hold of the keys!

Internet fraud is the new up and coming crime here.

 

[rocketman]

Right! And yours is only one vote in hundreds of millions. You are in a democracy, so it is time to respect democrats!☺
And the initiative to seize insured vehicles here was a conservative one.
Wake up!

You wake up! the second amendment is a right, driving is a privilege try not to confuse the two and even in a democracy it takes more than a false narrative to infringe on the constitutional rights of others. I don't respect democrats because they don't respect the law, the constitution or the rights of anyone that disagrees with their bankrupt utopian ideology.

 

[Crucible]

Just because strict gun laws are in place over here doesn't mean they're 100% impossible to obtain 'underground' as you must surely be aware. As tragic as this case is we have very little gun related crime in the UK so I don't know what point you're even trying to make with this thread frankly.

You know who is less likely than an unarmed person to be murdered in broad daylight? An armed one.

And
You know how confident a person is with a gun, who knows beyond doubt everyone around them is unarmed? Very.

That's why it was in broad daylight in front of everybody. Idiot.
Also, in case you hadn't put two and two together, she was a lawmaker. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you all think it's fun and games to dictate people's liberties- it is not. I see all those smug faces over there; it's as if your minds are not even on this plane of existence.

 

[Tyrathca]

You wake up! the second amendment is a right, driving is a privilege try not to confuse the two and even in a democracy it takes more than a false narrative to infringe on the constitutional rights of others. I don't respect democrats because they don't respect the law, the constitution or the rights of anyone that disagrees with their bankrupt utopian ideology.

It's a stupid "right", one which is not universal and is born of an amendment, were your lawmakers infallible?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Problem is also that as you see above it simply says "bear arms" but gives no definition of what that involves. In context the framers obviously meant guns but their guns are not our guns and thus what counts? Their guns were slow firing and clunky, today we have miniaturised machines which fire more bullets in a second than theirs could over several minutes. Would a missile launcher count as bearing arms? It's hand held, portable and fires a projectile as high speed. What about other weapons? Artillery? Nukes? Where do you draw the line and on what basis?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[eider]

You wake up! the second amendment is a right, driving is a privilege try not to confuse the two and even in a democracy it takes more than a false narrative to infringe on the constitutional rights of others. I don't respect democrats because they don't respect the law, the constitution or the rights of anyone that disagrees with their bankrupt utopian ideology.

Ha ha! I've read about you folks.
You rant on about your right to possess firearm 'weapons', that democrats disrespect the law, yadda yadda, and then you talk about

right to defend themselves against tyranny

which begins to sound like you would turn these weapons upon righteous servants of the people if the people's vote might go against your own gung-ho dreams.

Since background checks have already started, since right-wing politicians are talking about lists of prohibited persons, since regulation is coming..... you're going to need to rethink your veiled suggestions about you're going to do as the US does it's best to producev a better environs for all.

And insurance cover for gun-users (public places) against 3rd party risks is a no-brainer then that might be just around the corner. If one of your loved relations was hit and injured in an accident caused by an idiot, and a court awarded damages, but you received no money at all because the idiot didn't have any then you'd be screaming for better insurance law.

If you insure your car then you know it makes sense, and if you don't insure your car for public roads then your a law breaker. Full stop. Our right wing government introduced car crushing for offenders, so please don;'t rant on about leftists, liberals, blah blah.

If you don't like something you seem to scream about liberals. Time to grow up, see the common sense of better gun controls.

 

[eider]

And there's me, going-on about sensible 3rd party insurance cover for gun carriers.

...there's nothing new under the sun....

www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/.../yang-gun-violence/
8 Oct 2015 ... Getting the insurance industry involved could be a great way to get meaningful
gun reform ... (CNN) President Obama said it best: Our reaction to gun massacres
has become a routine. ... Photos: Worst mass shootings in U.S..

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/mandatory_gun_insurance_before.html
Lawmakers in four states are considering measures that would require gun owners to maintain liability insurance or face a fine of up to $10,000.
Current gun liability insurance efforts are underway in Hawaii, New Hampshire, New York and Los Angeles. The measures are similar to one introduced last year in Congress by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY. Maloney's bill, the Firearm Risk Protection Act, would require proof of liability insurance before someone is allowed to purchase a gun. Failure to have the insurance could result in the fine.
Bill would require gun owners to have liability insurance or pay $10,000 fine
"We require insurance to own a car, but no such requirement exists for guns," Maloney said at the time of the bill's introduction. "The results are clear: car fatalities have declined by 25 percent in the last decade, but gun fatalities continue to rise."

 

[Crucible]

It's a stupid "right", one which is not universal and is born of an amendment, were your lawmakers infallible?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Problem is also that as you see above it simply says "bear arms" but gives no definition of what that involves. In context the framers obviously meant guns but their guns are not our guns and thus what counts? Their guns were slow firing and clunky, today we have miniaturised machines which fire more bullets in a second than theirs could over several minutes. Would a missile launcher count as bearing arms? It's hand held, portable and fires a projectile as high speed. What about other weapons? Artillery? Nukes? Where do you draw the line and on what basis?

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

'Bear arms' has no purpose or meaning if it does not entail having arms which suffice against others who have them.

So when authorities and foreign powers go back to muskets and swords, you can preach your nonsense then

 

[Tyrathca]

'Bear arms' has no purpose or meaning if it does not entail having arms which suffice against others who have them.

So when authorities and foreign powers go back to muskets and swords, you can preach your nonsense then

So then tanks, missile launchers, machine guns, artillery, mortars are all also acceptable under that amendment then? What about nukes? If the "authorities" and foreign powers capabilities are you barometer then that is what they have.

The problem here is they haven't specified the valid purposes that someone could bear arms for. Although it seems think violent uprising and fighting a modern armies invasion is what they had on mind, the problem is that ends to the madness of being able to justify almost ANY weapon no matter how destructive.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Crucible]

So then tanks, missile launchers, machine guns, artillery, mortars are all also acceptable under that amendment then? What about nukes? If the "authorities" and foreign powers capabilities are you barometer then that is what they have.

The problem here is they haven't specified the valid purposes that someone could bear arms for. Although it seems think violent uprising and fighting a modern armies invasion is what they had on mind, the problem is that ends to the madness of being able to justify almost ANY weapon no matter how destructive.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to resist tyranny. The fault in your line of thinking is supposing that, in a circumstance where America goes into a civil war or revolution, that it's just society against the military.
That is not the case, and you can take the actual American Civil War as the perfect example- that is not what happens. The military splits as well. And the police. And virtually all authorities.

Therefore, the missiles and tanks are redundant. If it comes down to that, society can retrieve them.

 

[Tyrathca]

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to resist tyranny. The fault in your line of thinking is supposing that, in a circumstance where America goes into a civil war or revolution, that it's just society against the military.
That is not the case, and you can take the actual American Civil War as the perfect example- that is not what happens. The military splits as well. And the police. And virtually all authorities.

Therefore, the missiles and tanks are redundant. If it comes down to that, society can retrieve them.

But then by that reasoning the guns are redundant too. You haven't actually said the reasoning behind the (very vague) line you are trying to draw.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Crucible]

But then by that training the funds are redundant too. You haven't actually said the reasoning behind the (very vague) line you are trying to draw.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

Well first you need to understand that America is designed to resist tyranny- the Founding Fathers orchestrated the entirety of the nation based on that- it's all about checks and balances. And safeguards.
You'll see it everywhere in the supreme law and ordinance of America.

Everyone gets a horse in the race, you see.

 

[Tyrathca]

Well first you need to understand that America is designed to resist tyranny- the Founding Fathers orchestrated the entirety of the nation based on that- it's all about checks and balances. And safeguards.
You'll see it everywhere in the supreme law and ordinance of America.

Everyone gets a horse in the race, you see.

But if tyranny takes the form of an oppressive military dictatorship then then just guns isn't enough. You need tanks and missiles because that is what they will use against you and more. Otherwise what will your resistance do against an Apache gunship or Abram's tank?

Case in point - Syria.

You haven't actually given a clear reason for why the line should be drawn at guns. You've only really given a rationale for why they should be included, not why anything else shouldn't.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Crucible]

But if tyranny takes the form of an oppressive military dictatorship then then just guns isn't enough. You need tanks and missiles because that is what they will use against you and more. Otherwise what will your resistance do against an Apache gunship or Abram's tank?

Case in point - Syria.

You haven't actually given a clear reason for why the line should be drawn at guns. You've only really given a rationale for why they should be included, not why anything else shouldn't.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

Checks and Balances is a mechanism to help prevent a totalitarian state. All power doesn't rest in any specific branch of the government. But in the case that a totalitarian state attempts to nevertheless form, the very existence of an armed society resists it's full blossom.

All the 'rationale' is there- the US is not an inquisitorial form of government, but an adversarial one. In an inquisitorial government, guns can be controlled, speech can be limited, and people otherwise have to conform to what a majority or authority finds to be appropriate.

The theme is 'liberty', not 'social conformity'- something that's gotten, and will get, the UK in trouble sooner or later because what the rest of the 1st World is trying to do is repeal human nature. Just like that lawmaker who was shot down in broad daylight- that's just the beginning.
Good luck with that.