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

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 90
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,046member
    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 the UK, we actually worry about innocent bystanders. 


    Armed security guards do have to go through training so it's not like you would be arming some person who has no clue how to use a gun. 
    Yes, and that works very well. 

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/security-guard-shoot-himself-accident-black-man-blame-imagine-lie-brent-patrick-ahlers-minnesota-a7948246.html

    A few weeks training is no substitute for years of law enforcement experience, thorough physiological vetting and the rigorous training that firearms officers in this country have to get through before being given a sidearm. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 82 of 90
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,046member
    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. 
    I have no idea what difference it makes, but thanks for sharing. 
  • Reply 83 of 90
    I wonder why the Brits refer to scooters as mopeds?  American readers think of mopeds as underpowered 49cc motorcycles that can also be pedaled (and haven't had any real presence on our roads since the 80's).  The vehicles used in these raids are the size and weight of "real" motorcycles.  I expect a traditional moped would have a hard time breaking through a glass wall.
    Probably, because a lot of people here refer to a "scooter" as a kids toy - it's like a skateboard with a t-bar handle up front, what are these called in the US?

    "Moped" is instantly recognised as a motorised two-wheeled vehicle, generally smaller and much less powerful than a full-sized motorcycle and able to be driven from the age of 16 without passing any test beforehand.

    The things used were scooters (the motorised kind) technically though haha.
    edited November 2017
  • Reply 84 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.
    "Here" in the U.S. the perpetrators could easily outgun your security guards because we like to arm our criminals with military style assault weapons.
    The guns you can buy here are nothing like military weapons. An AR15 is no different than a semi auto .22 hunting rifle. You obviously can't buy the assault weapons the military uses. 
    ROFL...  An AR15 is now a hunting rifle?   That's either stupid or funny.  I'm not sure which.
    singularityronn
  • Reply 85 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. 
    An American gun nut making the man's point about American gun nuts...  (Shaking head in disbelief)
    ronn
  • Reply 86 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. 
    ROFL... 
    (I hope you are just trying to spread propaganda rather actually believing that rot)
    singularityronn
  • Reply 87 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?

    Well. given that she was an 82 year old woman doing her gardening, who was attacked from behind by a young schizophrenic who thought he could hear demons, sadly I doubt anything could have saved the poor woman.

    Just take a looks at some hard facts about how guns in the US 'save lives'.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081


    ronn
  • Reply 88 of 90
    chia said:
    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.
    I’m in favor of laws which recognize and support individual constitutionally protected rights. The right to bear arms is one worth protecting. People who are violent or mentally unfit would be quickly dispatched by others defending themselves from unwarranted attacks if more were open carrying. A person’s mental fitness isn’t for others to determine, only the ability to defend oneself from irrational violence makes sense.
  • Reply 89 of 90
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,230member
    A person’s mental fitness isn’t for others to determine, only the ability to defend oneself from irrational violence makes sense.
    How the fuck?! So psychologists and psychologists shouldn’t exist, nor should we have any institutions to study and treat those with mental illness?
    ronnsingularity
  • Reply 90 of 90
    chia said:
    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.
    I’m in favor of laws which recognize and support individual constitutionally protected rights. The right to bear arms is one worth protecting. People who are violent or mentally unfit would be quickly dispatched by others defending themselves from unwarranted attacks if more were open carrying. A person’s mental fitness isn’t for others to determine, only the ability to defend oneself from irrational violence makes sense.
    Most mass murders are carried out by the so called sane people that you want to have walking around with assault rifles strapped to their back.   How stupid is that?

    But, the right continues the delusion that most murders are carried out by blacks and crazy people.
    singularityronn
Sign In or Register to comment.