Is Plymouth in London then?
Significant incident Plymouth
- Thread starter mattyg
- Start date
Is Plymouth in London then?
What...?
People like you really need to stop watching Hollywood films!
Even if he was armed the probability of him being able to un-holster remove safety take aim and kill before being shot is vanishingly small!
https://www.wibw.com/2021/07/08/police-california-man-shoots-kills-armed-home-intruder/
First thing that came up on Google, happens a lot.
That's not the same, people who shoot burglars have significant pre-warning and time to prepare!
Some lunatic hell bent on killing walking down the street with a weapon loaded and ready to go is MUCH harder to react to
yes you would but if you look at countries where they are easy to get you are far more likely to be in need of one
This wouldn't have been possible even before the handgun ban.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,283
- Location
- Cornwall
Seeing the picture of the kid and her dad in the picture on BBC with his wife and son cropped out is heart breaking 
Of course but that is just an emotional response. Clearly having everyone armed does not work.
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
Sigh as usual a tragic and avoidable situation results in people going after firearms and shotguns again because its the low hanging fruit of the problem. Gun owners and guns arent the problem its a extremely small minority who have access to them due to failings in the system from both a mental health perspective and licensing.
If the story of his fmaily asking for mental support is true then this is a failing by the NHS and his GP as they are legally required to report the concerns to the police and they will take custody of his firearms either until they deem fit or remove them completely if they revoke his license.
The second and most important failing here is the police. When doing the background checks they are required to check things like social media platforms for concerns about gun ownership and if they had checked his youtube channel 100% they wouldnt have granted him a license or revoked his license. His youtube channel was created 20th Jul 2016, licenses last for 5 years, worst case scenario he was granted AND renewed his license in the timeframe from his channel being created to the time he shot these people which means at least at renewal they should have picked up on his incel videos on youtube if they werent on his channel when he first created it. Alternatively the license was granted relatively recently in which case they again 100% should have picked up on this stuff and his demeanor in the interview/ security checks.
If the story of his fmaily asking for mental support is true then this is a failing by the NHS and his GP as they are legally required to report the concerns to the police and they will take custody of his firearms either until they deem fit or remove them completely if they revoke his license.
The second and most important failing here is the police. When doing the background checks they are required to check things like social media platforms for concerns about gun ownership and if they had checked his youtube channel 100% they wouldnt have granted him a license or revoked his license. His youtube channel was created 20th Jul 2016, licenses last for 5 years, worst case scenario he was granted AND renewed his license in the timeframe from his channel being created to the time he shot these people which means at least at renewal they should have picked up on his incel videos on youtube if they werent on his channel when he first created it. Alternatively the license was granted relatively recently in which case they again 100% should have picked up on this stuff and his demeanor in the interview/ security checks.
It's common sense, if you can't see that the scenarios are significantly different then I'm not gonna waste my time explaining it as you have clearly already made your mind up!
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 May 2008
- Posts
- 3,151
- Location
- Bristol
Honestly some of the comments in this thread…. Some of you really need help….
Your RELATIVE, comes in with a gun, which is unusual, but you still don't expect a family member to start shooting you up. Even if you were armed, you probably are not going to start blasting at that person without some other threat (I.e. they start shooting, or make heavy active threats). You may even just try to calm them down.
This is not straightforward at all. This is not a simple intrusion, where the threat is extremely clear. Time is needed to figure out what the heck is going on.
In my mind, being armed wouldn't have stopped this.
This is not straightforward at all. This is not a simple intrusion, where the threat is extremely clear. Time is needed to figure out what the heck is going on.
In my mind, being armed wouldn't have stopped this.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 16,728
According to the goverment there over 500,000 firearm licenses as of 2019. I don't think that qualifies as "very few"
https://assets.publishing.service.g...ificates-england-wales-2018-2019-hosb0919.pdf
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Nov 2019
- Posts
- 4,325
You can really sympathise with a guy who can murder a 3 year old??
That's pretty shocking I must admit.
To be honest I'd consider that as very few. Sure 500k is a lot of people but there're almost 70mil people living in the country so that's less than 1% of the population.
Well the tiny minority of the population that is gun owners.
People have tried suggesting reasonable adjustments and sport gun owners are stomping their feet saying its inconvenient.
Sport/fun gun ownership just cost lives.
It's no skin of 99% of the populations nose to demand all guns be banned.
An industry can be set up where incredibly well vetted people store guns in a police station and provide services to farmers
Outside of that nothing at all. No FARC no shotguns.
Nothing.
It wouldn't affect practically any voter.
Lobby groups may say please save our industry with gun clubs alowed to hold a stock people can rent for use.
Maybe even their own if we store it.
But the position of the electorate may well be "we don't want our children dying for your Sport, or your convenience".
If there was a referendum do you honestly think the 1%(?) Of the population that owns guns for fun would win?
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Apr 2021
- Posts
- 216
Theres two things that should be considered here. One, the attrocity of his act is awful yes. But two his mental state, and him as a person. My post obviously relates to two and shouldn't be twisted to be something is isn't. You know better than that.