Why does Britain arrest woman defending her home against pillagers?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Sikander
The "victims" were not even frightened enough to leave the scene even after being confronted by the deadly air pistol, which in the hands of a suitably violent expert might have even put an eye out.

Or killed them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/4527211.stm

That's from yesterday.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1173305,00.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1356518/posts

As you can see, air weapons aren't popular here right now. We have this strange aversion to seeing dead kids, you see.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ned


Thought so. She has been stripped of all right of self defense. That is your position. She can do nothing at all to help herself.

In other words Ted you really don't believe in the rule of law, you believe people should be able to take the law into their own hands, which is the law of the jungle.

The pious hypocrisy of so-called conservatives never ceases to amaze me.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1173305,00.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1356518/posts

As you can see, air weapons aren't popular here right now. We have this strange aversion to seeing dead kids, you see.

An aversion to seeing dead kids isn't strange, a pathological fear of air guns is. From the first article above:

A pellet had earlier struck a 34-year-old firefighter attending a report of a kitchen fire in Cambusdoon Road around the same time. He was uninjured.

If I fall a few feet it is unlikely that I will be injured. If a toddler falls a few feet there is a small chance that he'll be killed. If he'd been hit in the head with a cricket ball there's a chance that he'd be killed as well. In the actual case it appears as if the child was either hit intentionally or because of a reckless indifference to his safety. If I hit baseballs willy nilly toward a group of children and one of them were hurt I'd expect some charges, but I would not expect that the government would try and outlaw or restrict the ownership of baseballs. Punish the deed, not the tool.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Sikander
Punish the deed, not the tool.

They did, you dolt. Airguns aren't banned here.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Sandman
Crime in the UK just isn't bad enough to make armed mayhem an attractive alternative.

Nor is it in Australia.

I think we all marvel at the private hell the yanks have made for themselves with their **** eyed ideas about personal liberty. Even more amazing is the way they defend that hell and seem unable to see a way out of it, which is staring them in the face.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Sikander

If I fall a few feet it is unlikely that I will be injured. If a toddler falls a few feet there is a small chance that he'll be killed.

Another Sikander post that's singularly untroubled by resemblance to reality, I see. Adults are actually more likely to be injured in falls of a few feet than toddlers falling the same distance. Adults snap, kids bounce. As any parent will verify.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant

Ghandi didnt forces the British out of India through force of arms.

Ghandi had little influence on the Brit decision to leave. It was the Indians who took up arms against the British during World War II that caused the British to re-evaluate situation. When they put captured Indian National Army soldiers on trial after the war, there was a huge national reaction in India against British rule. Also the Army became unreliable for the same reason. In contrast to last of Gandhi's protests occurred decades before the birth decision would leave India.

So in truth, the threat of an armed rebellion and not Gandhi was the reason for the British decisions.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


In other words Ted you really don't believe in the rule of law, you believe people should be able to take the law into their own hands, which is the law of the jungle.

The pious hypocrisy of so-called conservatives never ceases to amaze me.

Tell me, Horsey, have they stripped banks and other private businesses of the right to have their own guards to defend themselves against bank robbers and highway men otherwise known to you Brits as a lovable little yobs? Or are the only people stripped of their rights of self-defense little old ladies from the suburbs?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Ned


Tell me, Horsey, have they stripped banks and other private businesses of the right to have their own guards to defend themselves against bank robbers and highway men otherwise known to you Brits as a lovable little the yobs? Or are the only people stripped of their rights of self-defense little old ladies from the suburbs?

Is that a rhetorical question? You seem I worked in retail banking for years, and never once saw a gun-carrying security guard. Business do not have access to firearm-wielding guards. If armed guards are required, the police or army provide them.

While I was working with hundreds of thousands of pounds of cash, had a gunman threatened me there's absolutely no way I'd have pulled a gun. I'd have hit my footswitch that controlled my bullet-proof rising screen instead. They're far better at protection.

So the answer to your question is "yes", and (yet again) the barbarians are not at the gates.

[Ned]

Horsey, all I can say is that I am amazed!

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

So in truth, the threat of an armed rebellion and not Gandhi was the reason for the British decisions.

Utter rubbish, and not notably substantiated with anything approaching a fact, as usual.