Fazer Owners Club - Unofficial
General => General => Topic started by: celticdog on 04 January 2017, 01:50:12 pm
-
A drug dealer was shot by police in a planned operation. Local MP's calling for calm etc...
All the would be gangsters out there need to realise that the biggest gang in town rightly is in fact the Police.
I feel for his family, but if you want to play gangsta expect to get shot.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-38505164 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-38505164)
-
Couldn't agree more. Pisses me right off how everyone gets up in arms when some "innocent" offender gets shot dead.
At the end of it the police dont just show up, get out the car and shoot. The suspects are always given multiple chances to do as they are told and obviously refuse so they get what they deserve.
I don't know about you but if I was (for some reason) strolling down the street with a weapon and the police showed up pointing guns at me i'd do as I was damn well told!!
The story's always the same. The person shot was always 'a great guy' or a 'promising young student' and never associated with gangs. Just always 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'
strange that, isn't it?
-
".... suspects are always given multiple chances to do as they are told...
That's not completely true. It depends on the intelligence, if the police believe they may have a firearm, there have been a few well know instances where the police have just shot first, without shouting a command or seeing a gun.
Although I do agree, drug dealers with guns deserve everything they get, regardless of the colour of their skin.
-
In the most recent case, it looks like an unmarked police Merc forcibly stopped the guys Audi. Chances are they thought the guy was about to shoot someone so, in these cases, no warning would be given, they would neutralise the gunman.
From the news yesterday, it looks like they did indeed find a gun in the car. the only question now is did the guys prints get on it pre or post mortem? :pokefun
-
the biggest gang in town rightly is in fact the Police.
Yeah well, that just might be the problem.
-
Quote from the online Guardian from the twats fucktard dad
"Yassar Yaqub, who was acquitted of attempted murder in 2010 when the case against him fell apart at court, was two years ago treated for shotgun wounds when a gunman targeted him outside his family home. Neighbours and former associates painted him as a drugs kingpin who bought high-powered sports cars with the proceeds of crime, and his friends described him following his death as “no angel”.[/size]But his father insisted that his son had “never been convicted of any drugs or firearms offence” and suggested that he attracted interest from the police due to the people he associated with."............aaaaaahhhhhhh fuck off dad you mad mullah :grumble
-
Did you not watch the Mark Duggan documentary? If you want the police to ambush and shoot dead minor criminals, I suggest you go visit the Philippines.
-
the biggest gang in town rightly is in fact the Police.
Yeah well, that just might be the problem.
Yeah, well you just might be a consistently argumentative bastard for arguments sake?
Who knows?
-
Quote from the online Guardian from the twats fucktard dad
"Yassar Yaqub, who was acquitted of attempted murder in 2010 when the case against him fell apart at court, was two years ago treated for shotgun wounds when a gunman targeted him outside his family home. Neighbours and former associates painted him as a drugs kingpin who bought high-powered sports cars with the proceeds of crime, and his friends described him following his death as “no angel”.But his father insisted that his son had “never been convicted of any drugs or firearms offence” and suggested that he attracted interest from the police due to the people he associated with."............aaaaaahhhhhhh fuck off dad you mad mullah :grumble
I'm with you on this one, he thought he had it all and is now dead at 28 through unnatural reasons as a direct result of his way of life.
One less scumbag ruining the kids on the streets and profiting from it.
-
As Billy Connolly said about suicide bombers, the world is just another fucking wanker short.
-
Couldn't agree more. Pisses me right off how everyone gets up in arms when some "innocent" offender gets shot dead.
Yeah, and Jean Charles de Menezes was foreign, so he must have been guilty of something and the Police would never have fed false stories to the media and lied about what happened...
-
Crikey, by the way these tossers are speaking and acting you'd think they'd just shot Phillip Schofield or the like. :rolleyes
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/575502/m62-police-shooting-huddersfield-Mohammed-Yassar-Yaqub-dad-dad-protest-demand-justice-mark (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/575502/m62-police-shooting-huddersfield-Mohammed-Yassar-Yaqub-dad-dad-protest-demand-justice-mark)
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/575166/M62-police-shooting-Huddersfield-Mohammed-Yassar-Yaqub-gun-incidents (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/575166/M62-police-shooting-Huddersfield-Mohammed-Yassar-Yaqub-gun-incidents)
-
The times we live in unfortunately , due to the increased threat of terrorism if the Police think you have a gun they will shoot to kill .
-
Support Police shoot to kill? Be very careful what you wish for. The IPCC investigation will probably find (again) that the victim posed no threat at the time. Of course the police make mistakes. What they are not good at is admitting them.
-
The trouble with being an armed plod is you are damned if you shoot and damned when you don't.
If they had not opened fire and the guy in the car did have a gun and shot a copper the world would be in uproar asking wht the armed plod didn't neutralise the treat before an innocent person got shot.
-
Shoot first ask questions later...
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_586df7c2e4b00729cab30968 (http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_586df7c2e4b00729cab30968)
-
Innocent people in society do not carry guns , at least not in the UK.
Yeah, and Jean Charles de Menezes was foreign, so he must have been guilty of something and the Police would never have fed false stories to the media and lied about what happened...
This was when London was on high alert after the 7/7 bombings and yes this was a bloody disgrace, 7 shots to the head and 11 shots fired in all. But sadly the world we live in today !!!! Always a shame when someone totally innocent is killed especially by the police, but what about the innocents of Tunisia, Paris, Brussels, Nice, Berlin etc.
-
:agree
mistakes happen and shouldn't need to be covered up. In the UK we see far less gun crime than in other countries (OK not all other countries) and our intelligence services do a great job in foiling attacks by going in heavy handed to prevent innocent people getting hurt.
There are many many more armed situations where plod/security services have quickly and quietly taken armed people into custody than you will ever hear about. You only hear about the "poor innocent Ramjam, would never hurt anyone" type incidents because its a bit hard to hide a bullet riddled car on a busy motorway while they do the necessary follow up investigations.
I mean, having shot the git, why not get the car shifted out of the public eye and into a warehouse somewhere rather than spend nearly 24 hours taking photos etc of the scene? the reason, they need to cover their arses in case "poor innocent Ramjams" family want to take matters further.
what they should have done is shift the car and just list the git as "missing" having fed him into a crematorium furnace overnight. That will make the family wait 7 years for any insurance pay-out too :)
-
Taking a life is an important decision, and sometimes it is necessary. Their rules are quite clear. As said, what the police are not very good at is admitting mistakes. They cover up, conspire and lie.
-
Support Police shoot to kill? Be very careful what you wish for. The IPCC investigation will probably find (again) that the victim posed no threat at the time. Of course the police make mistakes. What they are not good at is admitting them.
I didn't say I support the Police shoot to kill policy , the Police carry out the orders of the liberal elite who feed us the bullshit that we live in a free society .
-
Police firearms is a job I wouldn't want but no one is above the law (if you fuck up then you should pay the consequences, isn't that what the authorities tell US?)
There's plenty of anecdotal evidence of Plod getting it wrong then lying to cover up (Hillsborough/Orgreave immediately come to mind, I'm all for getting rid of baddies and I won't lose any sleepover this lad but it will be interesting to hear what happened. Go watch The Mark Duggan programme if you haven't seen it.... and to say Menezes was unlucky coz London was on high alert....well...lets just hope one of your family is never unlucky
BTW the cars cannot be moved as its a crime scene
-
7 shots to the head and 11 shots fired in all.
An innocent man, who posed no threat whatsoever, was executed by the police. And the police told lie after lie trying to cover up what happened.
-
Police firearms is a job I wouldn't want but no one is above the law (if you fuck up then you should pay the consequences, isn't that what the authorities tell US?)
There's plenty of anecdotal evidence of Plod getting it wrong then lying to cover up (Hillsborough/Orgreave immediately come to mind, I'm all for getting rid of baddies and I won't lose any sleepover this lad but it will be interesting to hear what happened. Go watch The Mark Duggan programme if you haven't seen it.... and to say Menezes was unlucky coz London was on high alert....well...lets just hope one of your family is never unlucky
BTW the cars cannot be moved as its a crime scene
Mad Dog What happened to Menezes as I stated in my post was disgraceful, why bring my family into it?? Coming from N Ireland I have seen my fair share of gun crime and violence, yes mistakes are made and sadly they cannot be in made. If the police are found out to lie they should be hung out to dry. Those lying bastards at Hillsborough being one group that springs to mind, justice for the 96.
-
Support Police shoot to kill? Be very careful what you wish for. The IPCC investigation will probably find (again) that the victim posed no threat at the time. Of course the police make mistakes. What they are not good at is admitting them.
You know what, the IPCC will probably remove this known-criminal from blame, but quite frankly if there was a gun about his person or in the vehicle (I believe there was) then I am with plod. People who carry guns and get into all sorts of very illegal activity are probably on borrowed time anyway. Here in Bristol there are frequent drug-gang related killings, often the stiff is implicated in all sorts of crime. I want all these selfish, parasitic, dangerous scumbags off of the streets. They have waived their right to liberty and if shot whilst gun-toting tough luck.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj-85Gd06vRAhWDhiwKHc0gCG0QtwIIHTAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbubipY1RKPo&usg=AFQjCNEaO96bzVerGVomYC9simTK29739g&sig2=bnvBuqjjyPLc0-R8cgtOGw&bvm=bv.142059868,d.bGg (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj-85Gd06vRAhWDhiwKHc0gCG0QtwIIHTAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbubipY1RKPo&usg=AFQjCNEaO96bzVerGVomYC9simTK29739g&sig2=bnvBuqjjyPLc0-R8cgtOGw&bvm=bv.142059868,d.bGg) :lol
-
You know what, the IPCC will probably remove this known-criminal from blame, but quite frankly if there was a gun about his person or in the vehicle (I believe there was) then I am with plod. People who carry guns and get into all sorts of very illegal activity are probably on borrowed time anyway. Here in Bristol there are frequent drug-gang related killings, often the stiff is implicated in all sorts of crime. I want all these selfish, parasitic, dangerous scumbags off of the streets. They have waived their right to liberty and if shot whilst gun-toting tough luck.
The IPCC can only work on the evidence provided. Forensics plus witness statements, and thereby lies the problem. The police themselves are witnesses, and they conspire not to tell the truth. Mark Duggan had threw his gun over a fence, but was shot twice. First wounded then killed.
The police have very specific rules before they can fire. Somebody's life must be in danger. For instance they must believe the victim is about to draw their gun and shoot someone. Believing they have a gun in the car isn't enough.
Yes drug gangs are scum, and they shoot each other. But shooting to kill criminals just to get rid of them isn't right. Otherwise where do you stop? Who decides who it is right to kill, and where do you draw the line? Speeding at 100mph+ is a criminal offense and is putting lives in danger. Perhaps they should be shot?
-
You know what, the IPCC will probably remove this known-criminal from blame, but quite frankly if there was a gun about his person or in the vehicle (I believe there was) then I am with plod. People who carry guns and get into all sorts of very illegal activity are probably on borrowed time anyway. Here in Bristol there are frequent drug-gang related killings, often the stiff is implicated in all sorts of crime. I want all these selfish, parasitic, dangerous scumbags off of the streets. They have waived their right to liberty and if shot whilst gun-toting tough luck.
The IPCC can only work on the evidence provided. Forensics plus witness statements, and thereby lies the problem. The police themselves are witnesses, and they conspire not to tell the truth. Mark Duggan had threw his gun over a fence, but was shot twice. First wounded then killed.
The police have very specific rules before they can fire. Somebody's life must be in danger. For instance they must believe the victim is about to draw their gun and shoot someone. Believing they have a gun in the car isn't enough.
Yes drug gangs are scum, and they shoot each other. But shooting to kill criminals just to get rid of them isn't right. Otherwise where do you stop? Who decides who it is right to kill, and where do you draw the line? Speeding at 100mph+ is a criminal offense and is putting lives in danger. Perhaps they should be shot?
I don't trust the IPCC's judgement on these high profile cases (part of my wider view that I do not trust the judiciary or justice quangos to make judgements without a jury of my peers having the final decision). So I think it should be judged by an unbiased 'jury' with no affiliation to anyone. Did Mark Duggan really cover his face? Unless it's caught on CCTV we'll never know. What we do know is that Mark Duggan was a criminal who died with a gun on his person (beyond refute). Part of the problem is calling this dead guy in Yorkshire 'a victim', sadly he was not, he wasn't minding his own business in a law abiding manner, he had a prolific criminal who had a gun with him. Those of us with a lawful mindset who don't sell drugs or carry guns cannot imagine how he acted or moved in that moment. I really don't think either case was an example of summary execution, plod just followed a procedure and [not] sadly a destroyer of lives got his taken away. If I was an armed copper, and following years of high quality training, a known armed criminal (with presumably no weapons training) failed to do as commanded and then acted in an immediately threatening or unpredictable manner I'd probably pull the trigger too....
As far as I am aware traffic police do not carry guns, and armed police cannot remove their weapons from the vehicle's safe if stopping someone for a traffic offence. I can't see that being americanised any time soon.
-
Drugs should be legalized. For all the 18+ adults. Mafia stays out of business, plus addicts don't do loads of small crimes they otherwise do to get the money for heroin.
As far as police shooting goes, it depends what kind of society you want. Even then, there are several ways to get there, depending on the starting point. I mean, imagine working as a cop. Would you prefer:
a) being allowed to shoot anyone that tries anything suspicious (reaching for glove box, or under arm, or belt...).
b) knowing that the law gives automatic death sentence to anyone that tries to shoot (or stab) a cop, and knowing that the criminals know that you are not allowed to shoot until they shoot first at someone (so they won't panic and shoot you in fear of you shooting them).
One thing's certain - shooting someone can't be taken back. Once they're shot, they're shot. The others live with it, for better or worse.
-
No Mark Duggan didn't die with a gun on his person. He'd already thrown it away when he was shot. That was the evidence provided and the decision of the coroner and the jury. Now if you don't want to believe or trust the IPCC, coroner or jury then that's your right. Fortunately we have law.
-
All you people attacking the police about this and other shootings know nothing at all about what really happened, you were not present at any of them. I would love to see how some of you would react when put in the same position as these police are, no matter how much training they recieve the real thing must be terrifying.
How many police have lost their lives in the line of duty, doing a thankless job for an ungrateful population?
-
All you people attacking the police about this and other shootings know nothing at all about what really happened, you were not present at any of them.
Indeed it took over 25 years to get the truth on Hillsbourgh.
Still no inquiry on Orgreve. The police destroyed many men's lives during the miners stike. They acted like a private army.
Perhaps if people don't trust the police, then maybe, just maybe it's down the the many many times they have operated outside of the law.
Aye as if they are the biggest gang in town.
-
Slappy did you watch the Mark Duggan documentary? If you had you would know what really happened. No I wouldn't want to do the police's job. But police marksmen are all volunteers, and they are highly trained. They have to follow rules, but then again they are human and make mistakes. What they mustn't do is lie about it.
-
All you people attacking the police about this and other shootings know nothing at all about what really happened, you were not present at any of them.
Indeed it took over 25 years to get the truth on Hillsbourgh.
Still no inquiry on Orgreve. The police destroyed many men's lives during the miners stike. They acted like a private army.
Perhaps if people don't trust the police, then maybe, just maybe it's down the the many many times they have operated outside of the law.
Aye as if they are the biggest gang in town.
The flipside is all the coppers killed or maimed in the line of duty off of the top of my head Ronan Kerr, Keith Blakelock, Yvonne Fletcher, Fiona Bone, Ian Broadhurst, Chris Roberts and Stephen Jones (driven over by a thug near here). It's easy to call them a private army, but it's a tough job and they are at the front line of what can be quite a challenging boundary between order and lawlessness. Those poor coppers shot in Greater Manchester weren't a gang they were just 2 WPCs trying to keep their community safe. I'll always side with the old-bill, most of us know a copper or two and they are putting themselves on offer everyday they work.
-
No Mark Duggan didn't die with a gun on his person. He'd already thrown it away when he was shot. That was the evidence provided and the decision of the coroner and the jury. Now if you don't want to believe or trust the IPCC, coroner or jury then that's your right. Fortunately we have law.
'He'd already thrown it away' and in the heat of the moment, how did the old-bill not know if he had another one up his sleeve or in his belt? I'm glad i'm unlikely to ever be in that position, but if I was I probably take no chances. If he'd never got involved in illegal firearms he may well still be alive. Just thank goodness he was never yours or my nextdoor neighbour.
-
It's easy to call them a private army, but it's a tough job and they are at the front line of what can be quite a challenging boundary between order and lawlessness.
I did not call the police a private army. But they did appear often during the miners strike to be acting as a private army, inciting violence and acting against the ordinary people they are supposed to serve. They destoryed a great many innocent people's lives during that dispute.
Indeed I don't know what happened in this instance, and I do hope the police got it right.
But unfortunately for the police, and very much so for the many good and proffesional officers etc within the service, is that the history of the force and it's often poor decisions, wrongful actions and charges inevitably undermines public trust in the force as a whole.
I'll always side with the old-bill
I believe in justice, not blind alligence. The police like all of us, should (generally) abide by the law.
-
No Mark Duggan didn't die with a gun on his person. He'd already thrown it away when he was shot. That was the evidence provided and the decision of the coroner and the jury. Now if you don't want to believe or trust the IPCC, coroner or jury then that's your right. Fortunately we have law.
'He'd already thrown it away' and in the heat of the moment, how did the old-bill not know if he had another one up his sleeve or in his belt? I'm glad i'm unlikely to ever be in that position, but if I was I probably take no chances. If he'd never got involved in illegal firearms he may well still be alive. Just thank goodness he was never yours or my next door neighbour
You would not want to borrow his torque wrench and forget to return it. :eek
-
how did the old-bill not know if he had another one up his sleeve or in his belt?
They didn't. But their intelligence said that he was transporting one gun on behalf of another criminal, and it must have been seen to have been thrown away. The video and other evidence in the documentary showed that. Anyway, if they were allowed to shoot everybody who 'might have a gun', there would be dead bodies all over the place.
Anyway, to make my point again, I'm not suggesting that this latest one or the previous fatalities were shot on purpose without reason. What the police must do is follow their own clear rules of engagement and not lie to cover up when they don't.
-
I'll always side with the old-bill
I believe in justice, not blind alligence. The police like all of us, should (generally) abide by the law.
I'd side with the old-bill, it's not allegiance. I'd side with Arsenal if they are playing Chelsea, but my allegiances lie elsewhere. Most coppers have scrupples, must smack dealers don't even have basic morality.
-
how did the old-bill not know if he had another one up his sleeve or in his belt?
They didn't. But their intelligence said that he was transporting one gun on behalf of another criminal, and it must have been seen to have been thrown away. The video and other evidence in the documentary showed that. Anyway, if they were allowed to shoot everybody who 'might have a gun', there would be dead bodies all over the place.
Anyway, to make my point again, I'm not suggesting that this latest one or the previous fatalities were shot on purpose without reason. What the police must do is follow their own clear rules of engagement and not lie to cover up when they don't.
I can't imagine any operational briefing where plod are given intel that they consider cast-iron. As I said put in that position with no idea if there is another gun about his person, any false moves might be very definitive.
I can't excuse the deceit, seeing as plod is now under massive scrutiny perhaps instead of changing facts they stick to the exact details. I hope that they don't get hung out to dry by the judiciary though.
-
To be fair, I don't think 'the police' do themselves any favours. Apparently there were no cameras in any of the cars or on any of the policemen. They really don't like being filmed during these operations do they.
-
To be fair, I don't think 'the police' do themselves any favours. Apparently there were no cameras in any of the cars or on any of the policemen. They really don't like being filmed during these operations do they.
How would you like to be monitored constantly in a high stress environment where every word you say and every action you take is then picked through after the event by people with an agenda to put the blame on you?
As for Mark Duggan and every other criminal out there who has carried a gun or other weapon,they do it for a reason, to intimidate or to cause injury or death. If you carry a weapon then expect the police to do the same, or would people prefer unarmed police to have to face armed criminals?
Mistakes have been made by the police as they are not infallible, and they will make mistakes in the future but the witch hunts against them do not help in anyway, too many times they are vilified by people not with truth and justice and an open mind but by people with a political agenda.
As for them being the biggest gang in town, you had better hope it stays that way because when the drug dealing, murdering scum become the biggest gang who is going to hold an inquiry into them?
-
My niece has recently passed her firearms course with the Met.
She'd fekkinn shoot me so any scumbags dont stand a chance :)
-
lew, apologies ref your family but it was a general sweeping statement in reply to your answer ie if it was Your (as in the "Royal Your") family then I think most people would be looking for answers, especially as we're all law abiding but I could've phrased it better :rolleyes
The coroner in the Duggan programme dismissed his ability to throw the weapon due to injuries sustained to his arm though its possible he threw it en route before leaving the car but 3 different cops all gave conflicting evidence as to they all found the gun and the gun was in 3 different places. The coroner more or less called them liars. What is strange given their high training is that the ammo they're using is not suitable or the cop chose the wrong weapon to fire.
He was that close to Duggan that the bullet from his "rifle" passed straight through and hit his colleague behind Duggan, miraculously lodging in his radio but cop 2 thought he'd been shot and dropped into shock. For me, this is a wrong tactic and maybe a pistol should've been used or a lighter round. Imagine the outcry if the 2nd cop or a member of the public had died due to the bullet travelling on. Its a balance of stopping power v bullet trajectory (the idea being the bullet stays within the body but has the impact to take down the target without going through the target and continuing...hope that makes sense....Police marksmen have the ability on their range simulator to see the person drop then watch the trajectory/path of the round eg if a cop opens up in an airport, they can see the consequences of a rogue round in a built up area)
There was an innocent guy in London a few years back with a table/chair leg in a carrier bag and someone blew it in as a man with a gun, he was shot dead and uproar followed. Look at the cool response from the armed cops when those 2 cunts had killed Lee Rigby, they charged the Police and the Police (must've been shitting it) took their legs out. A calm operator doesn't have to shoot to kill,
I'm all for taking out the baddies but unless its done legally we'll just turn into a South American state where Police death squads operate
-
Many years ago (before Dun Blane) I held a firearms licence and had a couple of pistols. One of these was a S&W .357 Magnum.
Around the same time I worked at Gatwick airport and had to attend an anti-terror training session at the police station. This was when airports were one of the few places you would openly see armed police. During the session they talked about the weapons they used and the ammunition. Their advise at the time was if a situation occurred in the terminal buildings, get behind the plant pots as their ammunition was "soft" and low charge for the sole intention that it would not pass through the targeted terrorist and would splinter up causing massive internal injuries preventing the terrorist from doing anything other than dropping down dead.
I must admit, I did take the piss a little as my .357 was a genuine S&W model whereas the plod version was a cheap copy into which they were not allowed to use the magnum cartridges as they were deemed too powerful :rollin
the MP5 they used at the time, and derivatives are still used now, have a significant range/accuracy advantage over a pistol with a 6" barrel so are the favoured weapon and the one used at all times unless they run out of ammunition on the MP5. Unfortunately, even the low powered ammo they use can still pass straight through a body at close range and unless it hits a bone, exits out the read of the body in one piece. It's a risk worth taking unless you are in a densely populated situation.
-
Mark Duggan wasn't carrying the gun in order to harm others. He was a minor criminal transporting the gun from one major criminal to another. The police intelligence knew this. He was posing no threat and didn't deserve to be shot dead. What the inquest also discovered is that he was shot twice. Once in the arm, then again in the chest. The first shot disabled him, then why the second?
Yes being an armed policeman is very stressful and I wouldn't want to do it. But there are very good policemen and not so good ones, as in every job. It's the cover ups that's the problem.
Thank goodness for tasers, otherwise things would be a lot worse. Most of all, thank goodness we're not American!
-
Always "double tap" incase the first one doesn't do the intended job.
-
I was gonna say can you imagine being a policeman in a country where civilians are allowed to carry guns, that's gotta be a nightmare, yet it still doesn't seem to stop the crime rate at all.
-
BB, I never got my licence as Dunblane ended pistol ownership but was close to buying a Colt Python 6" .357 magnum. I've shot various pistols privately then rifles in the TA and was close to a few SF guys and like you I'm switched on to ballistics. The MP5 is a great gun but when you're shooting yer mate as well as a suspect then you have to wonder
-
This is me with a magnum three-fifty-seven.
I spent a lot of time working in Chicago and regularly played with guns, with many of my colleagues carrying guns all the time around the office.
-
I think Mark Duggan was shot with a G36 - 5.55/45.
I would have thought an mp5 would have been easier to carry and shoot. I don't know why they would use the G36?!
-
Mark Duggan wasn't carrying the gun in order to harm others..
How do you know that for certain? He was carrying a gun, there was always the possibility that he was going to use it. If not why was it a replica that had been converted to fire live ammo?
-
If you're interested in police marksmen, I've just read Tony Long's book which is quite an interesting read and covers many of the details around most of the high profile shootings.
-
Tony Long was on tv not long ago discussing his work, very interesting. He went public and got all sorts of crap off people
-
If he was going to use the gun, why did he throw it over the fence as he got out of the car?
-
the Minimum, the Maximum, and the Fuck I'm---C**T got what he deserved.
-
If he was going to use the gun, why did he throw it over the fence as he got out of the car?
Is this a serious post?
Also describing Duggan as a 'minor criminal' in a in earlier post is outrageous. Minor criminals commit minor crimes, carry a gun (with or without intent, and no legitimate reason) is serious.
Don't people have to be responsible for their actions anymore? Straight out of the Shami Chabrabati school of liberal apologism.
-
If he was going to use the gun, why did he throw it over the fence as he got out of the car?
Is this a serious post?
Also describing Duggan as a 'minor criminal' in a in earlier post is outrageous. Minor criminals commit minor crimes, carry a gun (with or without intent, and no legitimate reason) is serious.
Don't people have to be responsible for their actions anymore? Straight out of the Shami Chabrabati school of liberal apologism.
I agree with the last statement by pilninggas.
I don’t know the details of the crime or the specific offence/case.
If you carry a gun how is any police officer meant to know what your intentions are.
Even if it’s a replica gun how is the officer meant to know.
We are not talking school playground stuff here, the police put their life on the line, he or she possibly has a spouse and children at home who love and rely on him. They may also only have a second to make the decision.
Point a gun or verbally threaten to shoot a policeman with a gun and expect to get shot, if you not prepared to accept that you will probably die, don’t carry a gun.
It’s not unlike the sh-t you hear on the TV News most weeks of the year:
This is hypothetical by the way, I have not done it yet.
He strangled his wife when the state of his mind was emotionally unstable, upset and confused or he was in a state shock, well he may have been emotionally unhinged, confused, or his mind in a state of shock, or any other term you might like to use, but, he still strangled her, he took her life, he is guilty of the crime.
It might seemed hard because we don’t know how he had been (Hypothetically) provoked or what she had done but he still took her life.
Pilingggas said “Don't people have to be responsible for their actions anymore?”and he is spot on.
-
I agree with tommy, if you carry a gun or get in a car with people with guns then you have made a choice and that choice is you risk getting shot by firearms officers.
Flip it around and if that person went on to shoot an innocent child , the outcry would be that police are not tackling gun crime.
I worked in south London as a bus driver and had a gun pointed at me and knives more than once and I can tell you it's fucking scary and the area I worked (Stockwell ) had a child get shot and crippled in crossfire from a gangs shooting at each other.
Gun crime is not something to be treated with mamby pamby attitudes
-
Yes it was a serious post. Obviously I was the only one who watched the documentary. He was being used as a gun courier. Serious criminals use them all the time because they know they are under observation. Often they use kids. They're not major criminals, and more than likely don't even know how to use it. Watch the documentary and then you'll know the facts.
-
I agree with tommy, if you carry a gun or get in a car with people with guns then you have made a choice and that choice is you risk getting shot by firearms officers.
Flip it around and if that person went on to shoot an innocent child , the outcry would be that police are not tackling gun crime.
I worked in south London as a bus driver and had a gun pointed at me and knives more than once and I can tell you it's fucking scary and the area I worked (Stockwell ) had a child get shot and crippled in crossfire from a gangs shooting at each other.
Gun crime is not something to be treated with mamby pamby attitudes
Hear! hear! two other voices of reason.
-
Yes it was a serious post. Obviously I was the only one who watched the documentary. He was being used as a gun courier. Serious criminals use them all the time because they know they are under observation. Often they use kids. They're not major criminals, and more than likely don't even know how to use it. Watch the documentary and then you'll know the facts.
If you believe that any documentary will report the facts exactly as they are, then more fool you.
-
Yes it was a serious post. Obviously I was the only one who watched the documentary. He was being used as a gun courier. Serious criminals use them all the time because they know they are under observation. Often they use kids. They're not major criminals, and more than likely don't even know how to use it. Watch the documentary and then you'll know the facts.
If you believe that any documentary will report the facts exactly as they are, then more fool you.
Documentaries can be edited to suit the agenda of the editor / producer / production company
Courier or not he was carrying a gun knew,criminals with guns and knew what guns do/can do and was no choir boy I wonder if opinions would be the same if the gun that was " thrown over the fence " was picked up by a kid and used to shoot another innocent child. He didn't give shit when he did that like he didn't give a shit what the gun carried might do.
Simple don't associate with guns / gun runners / gun users don't get shot
Or it's a good excuse for some scumbags to go on a rampage for some new TVs and set bonfires and smash honest hard working people's property
-
Yeh Yeh Yeh, all documentaries are fixed. So did you actually watch it? The documentary reported facts based on police evidence, video evidence, witness evidence, inquest evidence, the decisions of the inquest jury. I'd rather take my position based on those facts rather than subjective uninformed opinion.
As to whether he 'deserved it' well if you think also a kid transporting a package where he might even not know what's in it deserves to be shot and killed, because the police know it's a gun 'just in case they use it', then I would suggest some people need to examine their morals.
Also, I'm glad I'm not a motorcycle courier.
-
If he didn't know what it was why throw it over a fence ?
No I didn't watch it I will admit it didn't interest me but I've had a gun pointed at me ( could have been a replica but it looked real ) because someone wanted a free bus ride which was a pound then maybe it was a gun that he couriered that was in my face , all for a £1 bus ride !!!
I worked many years ago at kings college hospital A&E and I've seen more people shot than most, I've then picked the dead ones up from the resus trolley and put them on a trolley and then into a fridge in the mortuary so maybe my view of people that carry guns , traffic guns and gun crime is a bit more personal than most.
-
Don't you just love a calm and reasoned adult debate about issues that effects each and everyone of us in society.
Well it may not actually effect us (as yet) but as someone earlier said if the police get knocked off the top of the pile as the biggest gang on the block it might just effect us soon enough. Hey I get the feeling we might be turning into a mini USA, if he/they carry a gun then so should I to protect myself. We seem to follow the USA in every other way, 40 years ago we were a nation of 10 or 11 stone guys, now most people are fat bastards, like our buddy's across the pond.
I bet that rattles a cage or two. :lol
-
I'm not saying he didn't know what it was in the Duggan case. I'm saying that the police didn't know that, and the documentary showed that he did not pose a threat when he was shot. It was a mistake by a police officer, and then they conspired to cover it up.
On the subject of turning into America, perhaps we should aim to be more like Japan http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38365729 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38365729)
-
Don't you just love a calm and reasoned adult debate about issues that effects each and everyone of us in society.
Well it may not actually effect us (as yet) but as someone earlier said if the police get knocked off the top of the pile as the biggest gang on the block it might just effect us soon enough. Hey I get the feeling we might be turning into a mini USA, if he/they carry a gun then so should I to protect myself. We seem to follow the USA in every other way, 40 years ago we were a nation of 10 or 11 stone guys, now most people are fat bastards, like our buddy's across the pond.
I bet that rattles a cage or two. :lol
Noooooo tommy anything but emulating our American cousins .... well all have to ride Harley's believing they're good anything but that :'(
Where did I put that gun so I can end it all :2guns
-
Shoot first ask questions later...
[url]http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_586df7c2e4b00729cab30968[/url] ([url]http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_586df7c2e4b00729cab30968[/url])
Yeah but she asked for it, selling her wares around Buck House, (I've seen the Tea Towels) growing all sorts of 'plants' in the multiple green house in her back garden, she gets driven around in really expensive motors and has a gang of heavies around her at all time that are carrying pieces of hardware. Thinks she is untouchable.
I saw the video clip that was edited off the end of her Christmas speech when she finished off saying 'I'm a bad assed mother f----r so dont mess with me and my family' well there you have it unrefutable evidence, I rest my case. She will get her comupence.
I think she is great really xx it is people like the Queen that make Gt Britain GREAT. BIG hug for the Queen. Yeahhhhh!
-
Sorry about the last post, I had not had my morning meds, I am much better now :lol
-
All back on our meds. The weekend is here. Off our soapboxes and back on our bikes 😀
-
All back on our meds. The weekend is here. Off our soapboxes and back on our bikes 😀
Amen to that Mark
Medication taken
Soapbox put away
Bike out
-
Many years ago (before Dun Blane) I held a firearms licence and had a couple of pistols. One of these was a S&W .357 Magnum.
Around the same time I worked at Gatwick airport and had to attend an anti-terror training session at the police station. This was when airports were one of the few places you would openly see armed police. During the session they talked about the weapons they used and the ammunition. Their advise at the time was if a situation occurred in the terminal buildings, get behind the plant pots as their ammunition was "soft" and low charge for the sole intention that it would not pass through the targeted terrorist and would splinter up causing massive internal injuries preventing the terrorist from doing anything other than dropping down dead.
I must admit, I did take the piss a little as my .357 was a genuine S&W model whereas the plod version was a cheap copy into which they were not allowed to use the magnum cartridges as they were deemed too powerful :rollin
the MP5 they used at the time, and derivatives are still used now, have a significant range/accuracy advantage over a pistol with a 6" barrel so are the favoured weapon and the one used at all times unless they run out of ammunition on the MP5. Unfortunately, even the low powered ammo they use can still pass straight through a body at close range and unless it hits a bone, exits out the read of the body in one piece. It's a risk worth taking unless you are in a densely populated situation.
In my country (and most of Europe for all I know), 9 mm parabellum is the standard police pistol cartridge. Decent penetration, but not too much noise, flashing, and low risk of over-penetration (and hitting people behind obstacles). USA have a different policy as far as I know, using cartridges with better penetration, being able to go through a car door, arm, then through the chest to the heart.
Pistol ammo will hardly split up and cause massive internal injury - it's a moot marketing point IMO. High power cartridges from long barrels - yes, but not pistol ammunition. Unless you pierce the heart, or the brain/upper spine, "dropping dead" time depends on the target's mentality. However, I understand that airport police would use the ammo with minimal over-penetration ability, not for the purpose of criminals "dropping dead" more quickly, but to minimize risk of the police shooting injuring other people.
Personally, I'd love to see a law giving life sentence to anyone caught with a firearm, even if not doing any crime. Preventing firearm use to everyone, including the police (so criminals don't fear being shot at, and for that fear doing something even more stupid). Army and special task force to deal with terrorism and a few armed criminals. Maybe I'm too naive, but I think it would work.
-
The vast majority of police officers and police forces would rather not have to carry arms. Society in the UK is making that choice more and more difficult every waking day. There is gun crime practically every night in and around the major cities and towns the length and breadth of the land.
Get caught carrying a gun 10 years jail minimum. Point and use a gun at the police, you have crossed the line and that should be 20 years minimum. Shot and kill a police officer life with no chance of parole.
-
The vast majority of police officers and police forces would rather not have to carry arms. Society in the UK is making that choice more and more difficult every waking day. There is gun crime practically every night in and around the major cities and towns the length and breadth of the land.
Get caught carrying a gun 10 years jail minimum. Point and use a gun at the police, you have crossed the line and that should be 20 years minimum. Shot and kill a police officer life with no chance of parole.
Probably find that the common denomination with most of these street people with guns is drugs.
That's where society is going down the pan, it's a booming business, but where there's a big demand then these people will be around to supply it, and protect themselves and their business in the process.
-
Darrsi, I agree entirely with what you say, so how about the Government remove the middle man and legalise drugs. The money raised by the sale of drugs could used to prop up the failing NHS.
-
Darrsi, I agree entirely with what you say, so how about the Government remove the middle man and legalise drugs. The money raised by the sale of drugs could used to prop up the failing NHS.
Haha, another can of worms entirely.
I've had this discussion with friends before and i've found that people tend not to look at the bigger picture.
For starters legalising drugs will play even more into dealers hands that will undercut any government run shops selling weed, for example.
Then you get people who have the impression that it will just be some mad free for all, when in reality you will get employers doing random drug testing due to a zero tolerance at work. Same as the police will step up again being even more alert for drug drivers which will result in long term bans.
If anything, the only real people who would benefit would be the ones that aren't working.
All theory of course, and some people, as always, will think i'm talking shite, but that's the way i see things.
There is no real straightforward answer, because as i said earlier the demand is so great that the police will never ever control it as things stand right now.
Also, which drugs should become legal?
I've got a few mates who rarely know what time of day or night it is, don't know the meaning of punctuality and are useless at work, and they just smoke the weed.
I know other people on the harder stuff that turn into absolute monsters when they're on a mission.
There is no easy answer unfortunately.
As for the NHS, they're going downhill fast due to the influx of people coming into the country and using the system without putting anything into it in the first place.
-
Haha, another can of worms entirely.
I've had this discussion with friends before and i've found that people tend not to look at the bigger picture.
For starters legalising drugs will play even more into dealers hands that will undercut any government run shops selling weed, for example.
Dealers would be first to petition for banning the drugs again. They're not into selling weed at the price of growing and harvesting. If the drugs weren't illegal, they'd be cheaply produced and mafia has no interest in honest work with small profit.
This way: false moral of "fighting drugs" image is "sold".
Mafia makes money.
Agencies have income that isn't taxed, nor controlled.
There's more crime, people are more easily scared.
And drugs are widely available across Europe.
Then you get people who have the impression that it will just be some mad free for all, when in reality you will get employers doing random drug testing due to a zero tolerance at work. Same as the police will step up again being even more alert for drug drivers which will result in long term bans.
If anything, the only real people who would benefit would be the ones that aren't working.
Holland's experience in legalising weed hasn't backfired for all I know - correct me if I'm wrong.
I'd do the same for all the other drugs.
All theory of course, and some people, as always, will think i'm talking shite, but that's the way i see things.
There is no real straightforward answer, because as i said earlier the demand is so great that the police will never ever control it as things stand right now.
They'd control it as much as they can control other legal high demand articles: tobacco, alcohol, petrol, bread, meat...
Also, which drugs should become legal?
I've got a few mates who rarely know what time of day or night it is, don't know the meaning of punctuality and are useless at work, and they just smoke the weed.
I know other people on the harder stuff that turn into absolute monsters when they're on a mission.
There is no easy answer unfortunately.
All the drugs. You are responsible for what you do. But legalising them would help addicts not need to do crime for getting the drugs.
If a grown man wants to kill themselves - government shouldn't force them to live. Help, yes, but not force.
If a man wants to loose their freedom of choice, he shouldn't be forced to do otherwise - because that's their choice!
As for the NHS, they're going downhill fast due to the influx of people coming into the country and using the system without putting anything into it in the first place.
How much money is spent this way on "figthing drugs"?
Police equipment, numbers, overtime hours, higher level of drug related small crimes done by addicts...
I think legalising would turn out quite well for all but the mafia.
-
Legalising drugs will not stop the crime of those that want money to buy them.
It will stop the crimes relating to those selling the drugs though. Plod wont need to chase the dealers, the dealer may even pay taxes on their sales and as the drug trade is legal, the dealers will have less reason to arm themselves apart from to protect themselves from junkies after a fix with no cash. Sort of sorts itself out if you look at it that way, as the junkies will kill themselves with the drugs or get shot trying to steal the (now) legal drugs and plod can just turn a blind eye.
-
Society in the UK is making that choice more and more difficult every waking day. There is gun crime practically every night in and around the major cities and towns the length and breadth of the land.
Don't forget that the UK is one of the biggest arms exporters in the world, we'll sell to practically anybody. And our government doesn’t really give too much of a fuck what those weapons get used for.
So let’s just say that will all the shit we sell, combined with all the shit other countries sell, well it’s inevitable some of that stuff will end up creeping back in. You could call guns on the streets of the UK as a form of collateral damage.
As for drugs. Round here there is a small but steady stream of house break ins. Most of them are opportunist, and if you do pop out and forget to lock the back door or close all the windows and return to find you have been turned over you can just about guarantee you’ve been screwed by the local junkies. Just give em their shit for crying out loud. And clean shit that won’t then have them clogging up the NHS.
-
I'm fairly straight thinking where house burglars are concerned......just hang the bastards if found guilty! Even more so if they do it as a profession rather than just being desperate for money for drugs.
Job done.
-
I'm fairly straight thinking where house burglars are concerned......just hang the bastards if found guilty! Even more so if they do it as a profession rather than just being desperate for money for drugs.
Job done.
Agree
It's One of the worst regularly committed crimes that makes people scared to go back to their own home and unsafe when there .
Cut their hands and feet off if you can't hang them.
Plus junkies will still steal to buy legal drugs didn't legal highs prove that , thinking legalising it will solve the problem is just tosh
-
I'm fairly straight thinking where house burglars are concerned......just hang the bastards if found guilty! Even more so if they do it as a profession rather than just being desperate for money for drugs.
Job done.
Agree
It's One of the worst regularly committed crimes that makes people scared to go back to their own home and unsafe when there .
Cut their hands and feet off if you can't hang them.
Plus junkies will still steal to buy legal drugs didn't legal highs prove that , thinking legalising it will solve the problem is just tosh
On the plus side to the argument, i think it's quite sad the amount of news that has been made by people dying from taking legal highs.
Some of this shit blatantly says "Not For Human Consumption" plastered all over it, but because it says "legal" some naive people think "it can't be that bad".
Petrol's legal, but i wouldn't drink a pint of it.
The people that take this crap and suffer the consequences are either very easily led or just a little bit too stupid for their own good.......or on drugs.
So if drugs were made legal, regulated and tested for safety then that's only a positive thing, which i'm told is standard practice in Amsterdam (my mate lives there).
-
From what I understand of it drugs are still illegal in holland, you can smoke in cafes but you can't smoke it anywhere and their rubbish bags are nicked regularly so the butts can be scavenged for tiny bits, class a drugs cannot be sold but in certain places they have a relaxed attitude to try to ensure users safety so they can test their cocaine or ecstasy shit to make sure it's good shit not bad shit before they take it.
I could be mistaken I am more than I'm not but the problem here it's the way the junkies pay for them by committing crimes.
-
From what I understand of it drugs are still illegal in holland, you can smoke in cafes but you can't smoke it anywhere and their rubbish bags are nicked regularly so the butts can be scavenged for tiny bits, class a drugs cannot be sold but in certain places they have a relaxed attitude to try to ensure users safety so they can test their cocaine or ecstasy shit to make sure it's good shit not bad shit before they take it.
I could be mistaken I am more than I'm not but the problem here it's the way the junkies pay for them by committing crimes.
The thing about your proper junkies, is what fucking use are they to anyone?
They ponce off the state, beg in the street, will nick anything that isn't nailed down and you wouldn't want to even consider employing them.
I think they're up there along side burglars in my opinion, in fact they probably are the burglars anyway.
There's some crackhead who pops his head in my local every now and then, trying to sell really random stuff, and i often wonder what poor sod has just fallen foul of the thieving gits dirty hands. He needs stringing up for everyone's sake as well.
-
From what I understand of it drugs are still illegal in holland, you can smoke in cafes but you can't smoke it anywhere and their rubbish bags are nicked regularly so the butts can be scavenged for tiny bits, class a drugs cannot be sold but in certain places they have a relaxed attitude to try to ensure users safety so they can test their cocaine or ecstasy shit to make sure it's good shit not bad shit before they take it.
I could be mistaken I am more than I'm not but the problem here it's the way the junkies pay for them by committing crimes.
The thing about your proper junkies, is what fucking use are they to anyone?
They ponce off the state, beg in the street, will nick anything that isn't nailed down and you wouldn't want to even consider employing them.
I think they're up there along side burglars in my opinion, in fact they probably are the burglars anyway.
There's some crackhead who pops his head in my local every now and then, trying to sell really random stuff, and i often wonder what poor sod has just fallen foul of the thieving gits dirty hands. He needs stringing up for everyone's sake as well.
Here here
With you all the way
-
Legalising drugs will not stop the crime of those that want money to buy them.
It will stop the crimes relating to those selling the drugs though. Plod wont need to chase the dealers, the dealer may even pay taxes on their sales and as the drug trade is legal, the dealers will have less reason to arm themselves apart from to protect themselves from junkies after a fix with no cash. Sort of sorts itself out if you look at it that way, as the junkies will kill themselves with the drugs or get shot trying to steal the (now) legal drugs and plod can just turn a blind eye.
Millions... billions of profit are made on drugs.
Legalizing them would make the price drop to 1/100 of the current price. You could grow poppy and produce high quality heroin in your own back yard, practically. :)
Vast percentage of small crime that targets ordinary people in my country comes from addicts desperate for quick cash for a fix. One fix of heroin costs about half a whole day's wage now. If it were a lot cheaper, or growing your own were allowed, those desperate poor sods would probably be more productive than the Japanese! :)
Many rich junkies live long with drug abuse. Like decades. Have jobs, kids. Lowering the price would allow most people to do so.
Giving people education and choices is the best way to fight addiction. Lots of propaganda is targeted at how dangerous drugs are, while kids know they are nice, you get high. I'd make propaganda saying: yes, you will get high, it will be great. The price you pay is your freedom of choice, you will loose it. Heroin - 99% you're hooked for life. It will feel great, but it will be the only thing you will ever want and seek and do until you die.
This video was interesting for me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8L-0nSYzg)
-
Make drugs legal and all that will happen is that the Tobacco and Alcohol companies will switch production to drugs as they have nothing to lose, governments will lose tax money so they will just heavily tax drugs instead and then all the do gooders will be telling you that you should just have so many drug hits a week and that governments should tax them even more. Drug dealers will then just produce more crappy shit and undercut the taxed legal drugs, just as they do now with alcohol and drugs.
Interesting that people want to legalise drugs but they seem to forget that governments all over the world are trying to restrict alcohol and cigarette use which are legal to use and buy.
-
Make drugs legal and all that will happen is that the Tobacco and Alcohol companies will switch production to drugs as they have nothing to lose, governments will lose tax money so they will just heavily tax drugs instead and then all the do gooders will be telling you that you should just have so many drug hits a week and that governments should tax them even more. Drug dealers will then just produce more crappy shit and undercut the taxed legal drugs, just as they do now with alcohol and drugs.
Interesting that people want to legalise drugs but they seem to forget that governments all over the world are trying to restrict alcohol and cigarette use which are legal to use and buy.
Agree , and I also think comparing Britain to other countries like holland is mis guided , we have a culture here of binge and under age drinking that is not present in other countries , if you legalise drugs you run the risk of binge drugging or overdosing and many other problems that I don't think anyone proposing or supporting it has thought through. For example in the last 10 years since the laws on cannabis were "relaxed" you see more and more teenagers using it openly on the streets and it's almost become socially acceptable. skunk has grown more prevalent, more people are growing it in homes and and there has also been a rise of mental health problems caused by smoking cannabis. imagine the problems we have in Britain today with alcohol use ( check out A&E on Saturday nights ) then imagine the same attitudes of those people with cocaine , heroin , ecstasy , speed , lsd
-
Make drugs legal and all that will happen is that the Tobacco and Alcohol companies will switch production to drugs as they have nothing to lose, governments will lose tax money so they will just heavily tax drugs instead and then all the do gooders will be telling you that you should just have so many drug hits a week and that governments should tax them even more. Drug dealers will then just produce more crappy shit and undercut the taxed legal drugs, just as they do now with alcohol and drugs.
Interesting that people want to legalise drugs but they seem to forget that governments all over the world are trying to restrict alcohol and cigarette use which are legal to use and buy.
Cigars and alcohol are highly taxed in my country, but not nearly enough to make black market highly profitable enough to be massive.
Also, the prices are not as high as they are for drugs, so you don't see people stealing things to get cigars and alcohol. Even the lowlifes that are addicted to alcohol.
Legalizing drugs will not influence the profit of cigars and alcohol in a big way. You don't quit smoking (and drinking) when you use drugs, quite the contrary.
Last time USA tried to make alcohol illegal was a great time for mafia, great business.
Restricting and controlling use is one thing, making it prohibited and illegal might sound similar, but it's far from it.
-
Still reckon the best way is to legalise drugs, yes some scroat will always find something else and will still mug and rob regardless, but those who can afford to get there fix just might go down to the Chemists and buy their fix there.
Also while on the subject about legalising things in the UK, it really is time to legalise Prostitution, again cut out the middle man, Hookers get regular check ups and some may even pay tax on their earnings. If it stops one rape because someone who is need of a shag can safely kerb crawl knowing that the old bill will not lift him while getting his or her jollies why not. Only down side of this for me is my days as a Gigolo are well behind me, get a hard on these days and it scares the crap out of me as I think it is rigor mortis setting in, and please don't mention Viagra as I have a heart condition :'(
-
Never bothered too much about sex, rather have a few chocolate hobnobs and a pot of tea, funnily enough my wife prefers me to have hobnobs as well. :D
-
Cigarettes and alcohol are highly taxed in Britain as well but premises are raided every day because they are selling illegally imported stuff that are highly dangerous to health, Just making something legal will not stop the criminal gangs, they have too much to loose.
-
Cigarettes and alcohol are highly taxed in Britain as well but premises are raided every day because they are selling illegally imported stuff that are highly dangerous to health, Just making something legal will not stop the criminal gangs, they have too much to loose.
Nothing to do with being dangerous for your health, the government just don't like loosing out on tax money
-
Cigarettes and alcohol are highly taxed in Britain as well but premises are raided every day because they are selling illegally imported stuff that are highly dangerous to health, Just making something legal will not stop the criminal gangs, they have too much to loose.
Probably because of profit. If taxes were comparable to the rest of europe, there would be no smuggling, wouldn't be as profitable.
Same goes with drugs - make the price low enough so black market can't have a big enough profit margin, and the black market isn't interested in it.
-
Cigarettes and alcohol are highly taxed in Britain as well but premises are raided every day because they are selling illegally imported stuff that are highly dangerous to health, Just making something legal will not stop the criminal gangs, they have too much to loose.
Probably because of profit. If taxes were comparable to the rest of europe, there would be no smuggling, wouldn't be as profitable.
Same goes with drugs - make the price low enough so black market can't have a big enough profit margin, and the black market isn't interested in it.
Why would the government lower prices on something that can cause mental illness, medical problems, laziness, unpredictable behaviour, crime and random violence, or ultimately death? We already have booze and cigarettes for that, so i can't really see them adding another problem to the equation.
And there will always be a black market where drugs are concerned, it's just simple competition and a way to make "easy" money due to the demand.
If the government sells whatever for £20, then the competition will say £15, and the people "most likely" to want it all the time would much rather pay £15 than £20, it's no different to going shopping, everyone loves a bargain, and they couldn't care less where it comes from as long as the cost is kept down.
And bearing in mind, as i said earlier, right now i hear about more people dying on "legal" highs than i do on anything else. So what do you do about all that shit that's killing idiots off, make it illegal???
I would leave that crap as it is, and let natural selection take its place. If you want to take something that says "NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION" on the packet then more fool you, a bit like a bottle of bleach that says "DO NOT DRINK". :groan
-
Slaninar - To make us jealous, how much would a packet of 20 cigarettes cost in your country? also , a pint (500ml will do) of beer?
I believe we are taxed higher on these in this country than any other country in the world. Same with petrol which is currently at £1.18/litre round here.
-
Sort of connected to the way this thread has evolved, there is an article on the bbc news website about a concept that is being considered in Russia about banning smoking for anybody born in 2014 or after.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38571174/young-russians-born-this-decade-face-complete-smoking-ban (http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/38571174/young-russians-born-this-decade-face-complete-smoking-ban)
-
Why would the government lower prices on something that can cause mental illness, medical problems, laziness, unpredictable behaviour, crime and random violence, or ultimately death? We already have booze and cigarettes for that, so i can't really see them adding another problem to the equation.
Just to make some things clear:
Drugs don't cause violence as much as alcohol.
By low prices I'm talking about not taxing too much, not subsidizing prices.
Legal and cheap drugs have two immediate benefits:
1) Mafia looses a very big income.
2) Less crime done by drug addicts - since the drugs aren't outrageosly expensive.
Leaving the drugs illegal doesn't influence the number of addicts, unlike propaganda and fear mongering that is spread about it. There are better ways of decreasing the percentage of drug addicts in a population.
One of the reasons, apart from being a big source of "unseen" income, for keeping the drugs illegal is what you say: people tend to become "lazy". Not good, obedient workers and consumers.
And there will always be a black market where drugs are concerned, it's just simple competition and a way to make "easy" money due to the demand.
If the government sells whatever for £20, then the competition will say £15, and the people "most likely" to want it all the time would much rather pay £15 than £20, it's no different to going shopping, everyone loves a bargain, and they couldn't care less where it comes from as long as the cost is kept down.
This conclusion jumps over some obvious facts. Is there a black market for toilet paper? I'm sure there is, but not nearly as big as armed, as crime propelling - compared to drugs trafficing. If you let people grow poppy and produce heroin in their own back yards, how cheaper (and how to make it cheaper) would mafia prices have to be? And with that profit margin, what dishonest, easy money grabbing man would get into such business?!
And bearing in mind, as i said earlier, right now i hear about more people dying on "legal" highs than i do on anything else. So what do you do about all that shit that's killing idiots off, make it illegal???
I would leave that crap as it is, and let natural selection take its place. If you want to take something that says "NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION" on the packet then more fool you, a bit like a bottle of bleach that says "DO NOT DRINK". :groan
Things like education, making a more humane society, helping people - all good.
However, when someone decides to kill themselves, it should be respected as a free choice IMO. Whichever way they choose. Drugs, jumping off a bridge, racing motorcycles... :)
Drugs and prostitution should be legalized.
And all the nations should start driving properly, on the left hand side, by the way. :)
-
Slaninar - To make us jealous, how much would a packet of 20 cigarettes cost in your country? also , a pint (500ml will do) of beer?
I believe we are taxed higher on these in this country than any other country in the world. Same with petrol which is currently at £1.18/litre round here.
Monthly incomes and prices:
Average pay is about 250 euros per month. School proffessors get under 400. Engineers - 500 to 1000 (over that is rare). If both man and woman earn over 600 euros, with no more than 2 kids, you can live rather decently.
Rent of a small (under 30 sq. m) flat is about 100 euros. Add 80 more for bills. Double that for 50-60 meters.
Pack of cigarettes is under 2 euros. Home made tobacco (illegal, but widespread for high taxes on cigars) is 1/4 the price.
0.5 litres of beer is under 0.5 euros.
Rakija, popular local spirit (yes, it is better than whiskey and vodka!) is still legal to make at home. It is sold for 2 to 4 euros per litre, but home made is best (and free :) ).
Very poor country, hard life. With lots of crime. Used to be a lot better during the "dark communist era". Even better than the western Europe IMO. Now getting worse each year.
-
"...Drugs don't cause violence as much as alcohol..."
Well I dunno about where you live, but to me that statement is almost laughable.
Any very violent crime I see when out and about, or read about, normally involves somebody on drugs, mainly cocaine if truth be told.
Admittedly, they may have had booze at the same time as well, but it's the drugs that make people randomly switch temper.
This is something the media get wrong all of the time, they will nearly always report someone as being drunk because that's what the guilty party will only admit to, plus the arresting officer will see that you look drunk and smell of drink. There's no point of admitting drug use as well to add to your crime if you think you're gonna get away with it.
-
"...making a more humane society..."
This surely would not involve people harvesting their own heroin in their back garden!
That's just another ridiculous comment, the sort of thing a smackhead would say!
-
"...Drugs don't cause violence as much as alcohol..."
Well I dunno about where you live, but to me that statement is almost laughable.
Any very violent crime I see when out and about, or read about, normally involves somebody on drugs, mainly cocaine if truth be told.
Where I live - alcohol is involved in over 90% of violent stupid things.
People smoking weed are usually far from violent.
Heroin addicts, unless tight on cash to get the (expensive) drugs are also calm. It's the high prices that create problems.
"...making a more humane society..."
This surely would not involve people harvesting their own heroin in their back garden!
That's just another ridiculous comment, the sort of thing a smackhead would say!
Shortsighted view IMO.
Drugs is mostly used by people who aren't happy. Or by young people without responsible adults who spend time with them and give good example.
For those "lost", keeping drugs illegal is making it even worse by forcing them into crime (since drugs are both illegal, and, because of that, very expensive).
-
I'm gonna hazard a guess that it's the people that are violent and stupid, but booze brings out the worst in them!
The vast majority of people in my local for instance are quite happy to get boozed up, maybe have something to eat then go and sleep it off without any trouble whatsoever.
But when i see people that are quite blatantly on drugs as well, and they are very easy to spot and hear, even if they don't realise it, then it will be them that start any grief 90% of the time.
-
I work in education and the explosion in legal highs, 6/7 years ago, was horrendous. Loads of kids taking all sorts of shit because it wasn't prohibited. We had to do loads of work to explain that legal does not equal safe, we couldn't keep up. The trouble was many kids were already well deep with substance abuse. The damage done is appalling (even that 'spice' crap has killed a few people). Legalising drugs is not some cure-all. I suspect the kids who were doing m-cat every evening will have mental health problems long into the future.
The idea that if booze and fags are legal, then so should skag, coke and mdma is highly flawed. If alcohol and tobacco came on the scene today they would be banned outright. As it is alcohol probably contributed to the birth of civilisation and tobacco-addiction predates modern lawmaking (and prohibition would be a massive headache, education is killing it off in the UK largely). There are loads of skag-heads around here, a real concern for me is getting knocked off of the bike by one, as loads drive cars while nodding (one killed a cycling couple near here a while back).