Robbers smash into Apple's flagship UK store in lightning raid

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 90
    dysamoria said:
    I love the predictability of American gun nuts declaring this situation (outside their own country) would be improved with firearms, and then get all equivocal about other objects used as weapons, as if the fact that being able to use a hammer or other object as a weapon justifies firearms everywhere... including places outside the USA that have reduced death by firearms to a huge degree by removing firearms, resulting in greatly reduced mass murder events...
    Exactly. Having Americans making suggestions about gun laws and the ways weapons are used in other countries just makes the rest of the world’s citizens shake their heads in disbelief. 
    What people should be shaking their head in disbelief is the fact the majority of the police in the UK are unarmed. From the recent terrorist attacks, police could have stopped them more quickly, but the fact they were unarmed, they couldn't do anything until armed police showed up. Case in point is the attack last June on London Bridge, the Westminster attack where an unarmed officer was killed, etc. With violent crime on the rise in the UK, more police should be carrying firearms. 
  • Reply 62 of 90
    dysamoria said:
    I love the predictability of American gun nuts declaring this situation (outside their own country) would be improved with firearms, and then get all equivocal about other objects used as weapons, as if the fact that being able to use a hammer or other object as a weapon justifies firearms everywhere... including places outside the USA that have reduced death by firearms to a huge degree by removing firearms, resulting in greatly reduced mass murder events...
    Exactly. Having Americans making suggestions about gun laws and the ways weapons are used in other countries just makes the rest of the world’s citizens shake their heads in disbelief. 
    What people should be shaking their head in disbelief is the fact the majority of the police in the UK are unarmed. From the recent terrorist attacks, police could have stopped them more quickly, but the fact they were unarmed, they couldn't do anything until armed police showed up. Case in point is the attack last June on London Bridge, the Westminster attack where an unarmed officer was killed, etc. With violent crime on the rise in the UK, more police should be carrying firearms. 
    FYI, police were rarely able to stop any attack, armed or not, because almost all attacks were home-brewed to keep you frightened so you can continue to give up your rights.
    ronnsingularityGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 63 of 90
    chiachia Posts: 677member
    boltsfan17 said:
    What people should be shaking their head in disbelief is the fact the majority of the police in the UK are unarmed. From the recent terrorist attacks, police could have stopped them more quickly, but the fact they were unarmed, they couldn't do anything until armed police showed up. Case in point is the attack last June on London Bridge, the Westminster attack where an unarmed officer was killed, etc. With violent crime on the rise in the UK, more police should be carrying firearms. 
    Yes, the fully armed police in the US could have stopped attacks more quickly, just like how in the past two months they've stopped one man killing 8 in New York City, stopped one man killing 26 in Sutherland Springs and stopped one man killing 59 in Las Vegas in addition to maiming countless others.
    edited November 2017 ronndacharsingularityGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 64 of 90
    chiachia Posts: 677member
    UK has crime even after banning guns?? What a surprise!!
    UK should consider banning automobiles next cause clearly that’s what is causing these crime. If there were no automobiles these crimes would never happen.
    Despite all the free access that the US police and citizenry have to guns for "keeping people safe", statistically an individual is far more likely to die of being shot in the USA than in the UK.

    Clearly gun ownership and widespread use by law enforcement in itself doesn't appear to be a solution to providing safety and security.
    ronndacharsingularityGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 65 of 90
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,175member
    chia said:
    boltsfan17 said:
    What people should be shaking their head in disbelief is the fact the majority of the police in the UK are unarmed. From the recent terrorist attacks, police could have stopped them more quickly, but the fact they were unarmed, they couldn't do anything until armed police showed up. Case in point is the attack last June on London Bridge, the Westminster attack where an unarmed officer was killed, etc. With violent crime on the rise in the UK, more police should be carrying firearms. 
    Yes, the fully armed police in the US could have stopped attacks more quickly, just like how in the past two months they've stopped one man killing 8 in New York City, stopped one man killing 26 in Sutherland Springs and stopped one man killing 59 in Las Vegas in addition to maiming countless others.
    They stopped ONE man after he murdered EIGHT. They stopped ONE man after he murdered TWENTY-SIX.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 66 of 90
    boltsfan17 said:
    dysamoria said:
    I love the predictability of American gun nuts declaring this situation (outside their own country) would be improved with firearms, and then get all equivocal about other objects used as weapons, as if the fact that being able to use a hammer or other object as a weapon justifies firearms everywhere... including places outside the USA that have reduced death by firearms to a huge degree by removing firearms, resulting in greatly reduced mass murder events...
    Exactly. Having Americans making suggestions about gun laws and the ways weapons are used in other countries just makes the rest of the world’s citizens shake their heads in disbelief. 
    What people should be shaking their head in disbelief is the fact the majority of the police in the UK are unarmed. From the recent terrorist attacks, police could have stopped them more quickly, but the fact they were unarmed, they couldn't do anything until armed police showed up. Case in point is the attack last June on London Bridge, the Westminster attack where an unarmed officer was killed, etc. With violent crime on the rise in the UK, more police should be carrying firearms. 

    Inquiries into all of the UK attacks this year have found that having all police armed would have made little difference to the outcome of the incidents. We do have specialist, trained armed units who were dispatched and were on scene very, very quickly.

    The London police chief visited the US recently to discuss the same subject, and concluded (with advice from US police chiefs) that arming all police leads to more death of the public, not less, as it creates an ‘arms race snowball effect’.

    The UK not only has tight gun laws, it also has strong border controls, so it’s very, very hard to smuggle weapons in.

    Yes, violent crime has seen a small rise over the last couple of years, but that’s due to severe government cutbacks in policing, so fewer police are on the streets, it has no connection to guns whatsoever.

    It baffles me that anyone could equate a robbery - where no one was hurt and a few tech gadgets were stolen - with needing more guns. It’s ludicrous.
    dacharronnsingularitychiaxbitGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 67 of 90
    hexclock said:
    Maybe it’s time to rethink the glass wall concept. For a company that touts the security of it’s devices, it seems to ignore the security of the store fronts. 
    Apple stores are designed to merge the outside with the inside to improve the quality of their customer's experience. Their stores should never cater to thieves. Shoppers are not in danger, the thieves are only interested in the goods, it's to their disadvantage to harm anyone since a more intensive criminal investigation will pursue with a harsher punishment.
    Yes I understand the whole concept but it keeps happening. Perhaps they can develop scooter-proof glass at least. 
  • Reply 68 of 90
    Too bad the UK can’t arm their security guards like the U.S.  The robbery would be over quickly if they would have pulled out a hammer against them.
    Except here the security guards would have been mowed down with an AR15's as soon as they showed up.
    Assault rifles are banned in the U.K, correct?  Don’t know if you all or Y’all like we say down here comprehend what I stated earlier.  I said arm the security guardes or police and not the perpetrators.
    There's no such thing as an "assault rifle". There are semi-automatic or automatic firearms. "Assault rifle" is a propaganda term used by gun control advocates. 
  • Reply 69 of 90
    boltsfan17 said:
    dysamoria said:
    I love the predictability of American gun nuts declaring this situation (outside their own country) would be improved with firearms, and then get all equivocal about other objects used as weapons, as if the fact that being able to use a hammer or other object as a weapon justifies firearms everywhere... including places outside the USA that have reduced death by firearms to a huge degree by removing firearms, resulting in greatly reduced mass murder events...
    Exactly. Having Americans making suggestions about gun laws and the ways weapons are used in other countries just makes the rest of the world’s citizens shake their heads in disbelief. 
    What people should be shaking their head in disbelief is the fact the majority of the police in the UK are unarmed. From the recent terrorist attacks, police could have stopped them more quickly, but the fact they were unarmed, they couldn't do anything until armed police showed up. Case in point is the attack last June on London Bridge, the Westminster attack where an unarmed officer was killed, etc. With violent crime on the rise in the UK, more police should be carrying firearms. 

    Inquiries into all of the UK attacks this year have found that having all police armed would have made little difference to the outcome of the incidents. We do have specialist, trained armed units who were dispatched and were on scene very, very quickly.

    The London police chief visited the US recently to discuss the same subject, and concluded (with advice from US police chiefs) that arming all police leads to more death of the public, not less, as it creates an ‘arms race snowball effect’.

    The UK not only has tight gun laws, it also has strong border controls, so it’s very, very hard to smuggle weapons in.

    Yes, violent crime has seen a small rise over the last couple of years, but that’s due to severe government cutbacks in policing, so fewer police are on the streets, it has no connection to guns whatsoever.

    It baffles me that anyone could equate a robbery - where no one was hurt and a few tech gadgets were stolen - with needing more guns. It’s ludicrous.
    I recall a recent incident in which a man wielding a machete beheaded a woman in England. Think that woman would've been better off if she had been armed or not?
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 70 of 90
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,175member
    boltsfan17 said:
    dysamoria said:
    I love the predictability of American gun nuts declaring this situation (outside their own country) would be improved with firearms, and then get all equivocal about other objects used as weapons, as if the fact that being able to use a hammer or other object as a weapon justifies firearms everywhere... including places outside the USA that have reduced death by firearms to a huge degree by removing firearms, resulting in greatly reduced mass murder events...
    Exactly. Having Americans making suggestions about gun laws and the ways weapons are used in other countries just makes the rest of the world’s citizens shake their heads in disbelief. 
    What people should be shaking their head in disbelief is the fact the majority of the police in the UK are unarmed. From the recent terrorist attacks, police could have stopped them more quickly, but the fact they were unarmed, they couldn't do anything until armed police showed up. Case in point is the attack last June on London Bridge, the Westminster attack where an unarmed officer was killed, etc. With violent crime on the rise in the UK, more police should be carrying firearms. 

    Inquiries into all of the UK attacks this year have found that having all police armed would have made little difference to the outcome of the incidents. We do have specialist, trained armed units who were dispatched and were on scene very, very quickly.

    The London police chief visited the US recently to discuss the same subject, and concluded (with advice from US police chiefs) that arming all police leads to more death of the public, not less, as it creates an ‘arms race snowball effect’.

    The UK not only has tight gun laws, it also has strong border controls, so it’s very, very hard to smuggle weapons in.

    Yes, violent crime has seen a small rise over the last couple of years, but that’s due to severe government cutbacks in policing, so fewer police are on the streets, it has no connection to guns whatsoever.

    It baffles me that anyone could equate a robbery - where no one was hurt and a few tech gadgets were stolen - with needing more guns. It’s ludicrous.
    I recall a recent incident in which a man wielding a machete beheaded a woman in England. Think that woman would've been better off if she had been armed or not?
    I recall a recent incident in which a man wielding firearms mowed down 26 men, women, and children in Texas. Think they would've been better off if the US had reasonable laws, like thorough background checks and a digitized federal database?
    ronnsingularitychiajonparadise
  • Reply 71 of 90
    creek0512 said:
    Too bad the UK can’t arm their security guards like the U.S.  The robbery would be over quickly if they would have pulled out a hammer against them.
    The only things more guns would bring is more gun violence.
    So we’re the security guards supposed to pull out their hammers to defend themselves?  Hammers can be used as a deadly object too.  Just like knives, swords, cars and mopeds. 

    I would love to see security guards with swords.  That would be classy.
    That’s funny 
  • Reply 72 of 90
    chiachia Posts: 677member
    Soli said:
    chia said:
    Yes, the fully armed police in the US could have stopped attacks more quickly, just like how in the past two months they've stopped one man killing 8 in New York City, stopped one man killing 26 in Sutherland Springs and stopped one man killing 59 in Las Vegas in addition to maiming countless others.
    They stopped ONE man after he murdered EIGHT. They stopped ONE man after he murdered TWENTY-SIX.
    Soli, I'm not sure you understood the ironic delivery of my post.  I was illustrating that the mass routine arming of US police is no more effective in preventing these mass murderers than the largely routinely unarmed British police.  It's also of note that the French despite having a routinely armed police AND paramilitary service have suffered more attacks with greater casualties in the past two years than the UK with equivalent sized populations.  In any case the situation in the UK is that there are many armed police officers on duty in the UK right now; they each go through specialist firearm training courses in addition to their ordinary police training.  Speaking from observation in London, It has become routine to see them at major government buildings, transport hubs, sporting events etc.  There are also many in special rapid response vehicles on duty 24 hours a day.  It is a similar situation for other major cities across the UK.
    Solironn
  • Reply 73 of 90
    chiachia Posts: 677member
    I recall a recent incident in which a man wielding a machete beheaded a woman in England. Think that woman would've been better off if she had been armed or not?
    I've read just today that sadly once again in the USA a toddler has shot dead another innocent with their father's gun carelessly left in the domicile.  Has the health, safety and life expectancy of the innocent been better off for having a gun in the house?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/13/man-arrested-after-a-3-year-old-shot-and-killed-a-1-year-old-with-his-gun-police-say/?utm_term=.808eb76641f8
    ronn
  • Reply 74 of 90
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,175member
    chia said:
    Soli said:
    chia said:
    Yes, the fully armed police in the US could have stopped attacks more quickly, just like how in the past two months they've stopped one man killing 8 in New York City, stopped one man killing 26 in Sutherland Springs and stopped one man killing 59 in Las Vegas in addition to maiming countless others.
    They stopped ONE man after he murdered EIGHT. They stopped ONE man after he murdered TWENTY-SIX.
    Soli, I'm not sure you understood the ironic delivery of my post.
    My apologies.

    chia said:
    I recall a recent incident in which a man wielding a machete beheaded a woman in England. Think that woman would've been better off if she had been armed or not?
    I've read just today that sadly once again in the USA a toddler has shot dead another innocent with their father's gun carelessly left in the domicile.  Has the health, safety and life expectancy of the innocent been better off for having a gun in the house?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/13/man-arrested-after-a-3-year-old-shot-and-killed-a-1-year-old-with-his-gun-police-say/?utm_term=.808eb76641f8
    😔😡
  • Reply 75 of 90
    chia said:
    I recall a recent incident in which a man wielding a machete beheaded a woman in England. Think that woman would've been better off if she had been armed or not?
    I've read just today that sadly once again in the USA a toddler has shot dead another innocent with their father's gun carelessly left in the domicile.  Has the health, safety and life expectancy of the innocent been better off for having a gun in the house?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/13/man-arrested-after-a-3-year-old-shot-and-killed-a-1-year-old-with-his-gun-police-say/?utm_term=.808eb76641f8
    Are you comparing a poorly secured gun in a person's home to the beheading of a woman in the UK? One has nothing to do with the other. You're diverting.

    I'll repeat the question: Think the woman in question would've been better off if she had been armed or not?
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 76 of 90
    SoliSoli Posts: 6,175member
    chia said:
    I recall a recent incident in which a man wielding a machete beheaded a woman in England. Think that woman would've been better off if she had been armed or not?
    I've read just today that sadly once again in the USA a toddler has shot dead another innocent with their father's gun carelessly left in the domicile.  Has the health, safety and life expectancy of the innocent been better off for having a gun in the house?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/11/13/man-arrested-after-a-3-year-old-shot-and-killed-a-1-year-old-with-his-gun-police-say/?utm_term=.808eb76641f8
    Are you comparing a poorly secured gun in a person's home to the beheading of a woman in the UK? One has nothing to do with the other. You're diverting.

    I'll repeat the question: Think the woman in question would've been better off if she had been armed or not?
    Your'e the one that decided to use that example and make a silly assertion that everyone should be armed.

    Here's the same question format right back at you: Do you think the children in question would've been better off if the adult was better trained in firearm safety?
    edited November 2017 chia
  • Reply 77 of 90
    chiachia Posts: 677member
    Are you comparing a poorly secured gun in a person's home to the beheading of a woman in the UK? One has nothing to do with the other. You're diverting.

    I'll repeat the question: Think the woman in question would've been better off if she had been armed or not?
    They're both death by weapon in the hands of another.
    It is hypothetical conjecture whether the woman would have been better off if armed: I recall the reporting of that incident and she was attacked by someone found to be mentally unwell, a rare horrifying incident two years ago  that can happen anywhere in the world.
    Nicholas Salvador detained over woman's beheading
    In contrast it is unheard of to hear of someone being killed by a young child or toddler with a gun or otherwise in the UK; sadly people are regularly killed by children accessing guns, poorly stored or otherwise in the USA.

    The wide availability of guns to US citizens fails to achieve an overall homicide rate as low as that in the UK whose citizens have very limited access to guns.  The restriction to access may not be the reason behind the far lower homicide rates but the US figures show widespread gun availability isn't the answer to achieving those lower rates.

    The widespread availability of guns allows criminals and the dangerously mentally unwell to own guns.  By your rationale are they not as entitled to being armed for defending themselves from attack as any other citizen?

    If you don't find it acceptable for criminals and the dangerously mentally unwell to be armed then you approve of some level of gun control.
    If you find it acceptable for those groups to be armed then you accept the risk of those groups using their weapons upon the unsuspecting innocents.
    edited November 2017 singularity
  • Reply 78 of 90
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,169member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Too bad the UK can’t arm their security guards like the U.S.  The robbery would be over quickly if they would have pulled out a hammer against them.

    Yes, because what the situation needs is an armed rentacop shooting in what he hopes is the general direction of the criminals. 

    In in the UK, we actually worry about innocent bystanders. 


    Actually the security guards were chased/attacked

    i guess folks like to keep their security vulnerable 
    I guess folk prefer to have a relatively gun-free culture so that children aren’t strafed down in churches. 
    SolichiasingularityGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 79 of 90
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,169member
    Too bad the UK can’t arm their security guards like the U.S.  The robbery would be over quickly if they would have pulled out a hammer against them.
    Except here the security guards would have been mowed down with an AR15's as soon as they showed up.
    Assault rifles are banned in the U.K, correct?  Don’t know if you all or Y’all like we say down here comprehend what I stated earlier.  I said arm the security guardes or police and not the perpetrators.
    Our police force is armed. We just arm them with guns when  there is a suspected threat, otherwise it’s pepper spray and tasers (which have unfortunately proven fatal to folk with heart conditions) As for arming security guards?

    https://pilotonline.com/news/local/crime/petitions-call-for-prosecution-of-security-guard-who-killed-/article_9da0d62d-33bf-57a5-9e7b-10998ff92d76.html

    Not always a good idea. They often lack the necessary training and/or a cool head. 
    edited November 2017 Soli
  • Reply 80 of 90
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,169member
    boltsfan17 said:
    dysamoria said:
    I love the predictability of American gun nuts declaring this situation (outside their own country) would be improved with firearms, and then get all equivocal about other objects used as weapons, as if the fact that being able to use a hammer or other object as a weapon justifies firearms everywhere... including places outside the USA that have reduced death by firearms to a huge degree by removing firearms, resulting in greatly reduced mass murder events...
    Exactly. Having Americans making suggestions about gun laws and the ways weapons are used in other countries just makes the rest of the world’s citizens shake their heads in disbelief. 
    What people should be shaking their head in disbelief is the fact the majority of the police in the UK are unarmed. From the recent terrorist attacks, police could have stopped them more quickly, but the fact they were unarmed, they couldn't do anything until armed police showed up. Case in point is the attack last June on London Bridge, the Westminster attack where an unarmed officer was killed, etc. With violent crime on the rise in the UK, more police should be carrying firearms. 

    Inquiries into all of the UK attacks this year have found that having all police armed would have made little difference to the outcome of the incidents. We do have specialist, trained armed units who were dispatched and were on scene very, very quickly.

    The London police chief visited the US recently to discuss the same subject, and concluded (with advice from US police chiefs) that arming all police leads to more death of the public, not less, as it creates an ‘arms race snowball effect’.

    The UK not only has tight gun laws, it also has strong border controls, so it’s very, very hard to smuggle weapons in.

    Yes, violent crime has seen a small rise over the last couple of years, but that’s due to severe government cutbacks in policing, so fewer police are on the streets, it has no connection to guns whatsoever.

    It baffles me that anyone could equate a robbery - where no one was hurt and a few tech gadgets were stolen - with needing more guns. It’s ludicrous.
    I recall a recent incident in which a man wielding a machete beheaded a woman in England. Think that woman would've been better off if she had been armed or not?
    No. 

    By the time the man attacked her, she would have to pull the gun from her purse, release the safety, aim and shoot. And this is assuming that in a state of panic she would not hit someone else. 

    Oh, and if she had a gun, the chances are he would have a gun as well. The reason these terrorists use vans and machetes is because it’s still quite hard to get hold of a gun in this country without attracting attention. 

    The problem with many of the attacks in London is that the terrorist leaves the van and is running through crowds. Even with armed police present (and in some cases they were present), they would not fire into a crowd of people to hit a moving target. 

Sign In or Register to comment.