E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA gunman who tried to rob a bookmaker in England has died after he was tackled by unarmed customers, police said.
Broadcaster ITV News reported that the man, in his 50s, went into a branch of bookmaker Ladbrokes just before 7 p.m. local time (2 p.m. ET) in Plymouth, England.
Customers disarmed him and held him on the floor, police told the station, and he was unconscious when officers arrived. He was declared dead shortly after.
In a statement, a spokesman for Devon and Cornwall Police told ITV News that “it quickly became clear the man was unresponsive and an ambulance was immediately requested by police who carried out CPR until they arrived.”
“A few minutes later, three paramedics arrived at the scene and continued to carry out further CPR. Around 20 minutes later the man was declared dead at the scene by the paramedics,” the statement added.
Ladbrokes declined to comment, ITV News said.
ITV News is the U.K. partner of NBC News.
Leave a Comment:
Gun-wielding robber? This can't possibly be. Apparently nobody ever told the would-be robber the UK has strict gun control laws. What was he thinking?
Strict gun control laws doesn't mean TOTAL gun restrictions... Just because you have laws to issue some semblance of order among those who own guns doesn't mean that guns are completely restricted.
Check the stats for British deaths vs. American deaths. Then get back to us on how well that works. Oh, that's right. Some type of control DOES work. How 'bout that?
So this would be robber was able to legally own a gun and just decided one day to use it to rob someone? I don't think so. Put all the laws you determine are necessary to ban guns and the bad guys will still find a way to get them - and use them against those that are unarmed.
Stand, Gun crime went down but violent crime soared...Why no guns to defend with
WOW STANDUP JACKOFF!!!!!
Your a regular EInstein!!!!
You should run for pres of USA when Obama's term is over.
OBAMA CREATED A SEVERE CURVE !!!!!! YOUR A VALID CANDIDATE NOW!!!!!!
jackoffs name states it all!!!!!
if you were born in sparta you would have been thrown over a cliff and discarded!!!!!!!
poor book maker...i'll wager...he doesn't try that again...pay me....
BAN STEEL TIP BOOTS! This poor gun-wielding robber would be alive, if boots had no power!
British deaths vs. American deaths doesnt work Stand probably because the populations differ by hundreds of millions. Ironically, most all gun violence in the US is clustered in gun-free zones and places with heavy restrictions.
It will be interesting to find out what kind of gun the robber had. If it had been a rapid firing assault weapon, then he could have easily mowed down the shoppers who attacked him.
I guess the shoppers were lucky the robber couldn't get his hands on a weapon like that because they are ILLEGAL in the UK and millions of citizens aren't stockpiling them like here in the U.S.
Silver, Rapid firing assault weapons are already banned and have been since the mid 80's. People are buying semi-auto in the US
KWhopper,
I was being sarcastic.
And you gun lovers better watch out, because President Obama is gonna pass laws to confiscate all your weapons and force you to gay marry an illegal alien.
LOL
Standup.. there lies the fallacy of your preaching. Mass killers don't ONLY use guns and you're going to have to start banning a lot of things by the time you wind up the list of items used. Knives. bombs (which are also illegal.. and WOW they have a lot of bombings in Europe huh?) and more. so.. when YOU tally up all THOSE deaths.. get back to me. not to mention you'd better figure in Ireland, and Scotland.. (the world's highest rate of serial killers come from Scotland) because you still only have 1/5 of the population of the U.S. The whole "gun control" thing is a JOKE because it's using the type of behavior that has NOTHING to do with guns and EVERYTHING to do with the "need to kill" the means has nothing to do with it.
Oh.. and I lived in Europe. I know the gun control laws well. Kind of freaks a person out when the bomb squad arrives at your next door neighbor's house because they turn out to be one of the most wanted terrorists in France. It was my neighbor. He had plenty of guns too. Illegally. Could have killed me and my husband any day, any time, he said bombs kill more at one time and were easier to make and get all the components for. His nickname was "the butcher" because he'd already killed so many people. You think you're taking guns AWAY? only from people who legitimately follow the law.
Silver, sorry missed it (sarcasm) he will try he will fail
StandUp, hbebe was only be jolly my man!
Yeah, that works too!
And if this happened in the US you would have the family of the would be robber suing the customers for wrongful death for killing the guy. The police would also have probably arrested the customers over the death as well. In the UK they figure the robber got what was coming to him and that is the end of it.
Good point, JS in SD. You are probably right.
Just like the case years ago where a thief sued the owner of a house he was robbing because the man slammed the window down on his back, injuring him, while the robber was trying to climb inside.
StandUpJokeOff,
Check the stats on how gun crime across England and Wales has nearly doubled since their ban and how some cities have seen rises as high as nearly 600% then get back to us on how well that ban has worked.
Yes shootings doubled from 2 to 4 not 20,000 to 40,000 as in the US!
Spot On! Good job customer! It should happen to every robber and gun owner as far as I'm concerned!
JS, it could still happen in the UK to the customer!
So...it doesn't take a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun if you're British.
reily,
Please document your claims to more violence in gun free zones etc.? I think you must have gotten your information from the propaganda on FOX!
lysneypug,
Good point! You wouldn't happen to be Lynsey from Wisc.?
lysneypug,
Good point! You wouldn't happen to be Lynsey from Wisc.?
Dorothy-4258104
Gun violence in the US has decreased by HALF over the past 20 years. But please don't let any facts prevent to from spewing nonsense.
Backcountry,
So that means that the 1,300 murders since Sandy Hook is a decrease over what has happened in the same period in the past! It has to stop!
KayWhopper,
You said, "Stand, Gun crime went down but violent crime soared...Why no guns to defend with"
Please cite that. I don't see it in the crime statistics I looked at. In fact, I see the opposite. I think you are citing old data from more than a decade ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales
clwyd-2621393
If you believe all gun violence in a country of 300 million people with at least that many guns can be completely stopped then you are having issues with reality which makes your opinions on the subject pretty much worthless. Come down out of the clouds with some reasonable solutions to violence and people will be more likely to take you seriously.
tomilvento
The current gun laws in the UK went into place in 1968. Your source only goes back as far as 2002. Do you honestly not see a problem with your "reasoning"??
Following that thought process to its logical conclusion, why don't we just disband the military and learn to throw rocks at tanks and shoot arrows at missiles. You know, like the more civilized, advanced peoples do?
Backcountry,
Banning assault weapons and passing Feinstein's Bill would be a step in the right direction to stopping some of the murders that take place in malls, backyards, Universities and college campuses, schools and in the home! Revoking the 2nd Amendment would also help since it was meant only for Militias and citizens belonging to them!
I honestly did not know it was that far back. That makes your reasoning worse.
So you want to go back to 1968 in another country - 45 years ago - to make an inference to the U.S. today? This was a completely different era in any country, post WWII Britan after a bay boom. With a different set of demographics. and a different set of available weapons. Plus you want to look at a trend and imply a causal relationship without adjusting or examining any other factors. And you don't see a problem with your reasoning?
But on 911 they took over airliners with box knives. Those Brits are a lot braver than we are. lol.
That being said, there are many people today, (myself included), who have a deep, (and a legitimate), distrust of the government (and it's propaganda arm the media).
They believe that it is in the nature of governments to accumulate and to concentrate more and more power over people's lives. More power leads to more control.
It has always been so. As Lord Acton so famously stated, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Meaning that those who are given power over others will use that power.
Even if the government is not specifically intending to do so, it is the nature of large governments that this occurs.
Now the government may espouse their desire to help the citizenry, but when individuals disagree with what the government determines is in their best interest, then those in power use coercion. Sometimes subtle sometimes not so subtle.
This concentration of power and increasing coercion can be gradual (like slowly turning up the heat on a lobster in a pot), or sudden (like dropping him into boiling water).
One need only be a casual student of history to see the process at work again and again and again.
The Second Amendment is *our* guarantee that this loss of individual freedom and increasing control of our lives cannot be done with impunity.
One need only look at what is occurring in Syria today or in Mexico, or any of a dozen other locations around the globe to see examples of what happens when the government controls the people and when the people are defenseless to resist.
Now you may feel that this distrust is not warranted, or that it verges on paranoia. Many might agree with you. However many more, would not.
The Founding Fathers believed fervently that ordinary citizens needed to be protected from an oppressive government. If they had not, then there would not have been a Second Amendment in the first instance.
They were *very* distrustful of the concentration of power into the hands of the few. They set up safeguards against it by diluting that power into different branches and different levels. They tried to define precisely just who could do what, and what things they could not do. They added further protections in the Bill of Rights.
The Founding Fathers, I am certain, would be aghast at the degree to which the government controls the lives of Americans today. Indeed, they went into rebellion over transgressions less onerous than what we today have allowed to be imposed upon us.
Read the Declaration of Independence. Look at the reasons that are enumerated there. They speak of an oppressive government seeking to impose it's will upon the citizenry.
The Second Amendment was NEVER about what type of arms citizens might own or about what the technological developments of the future might bring. It was not about hunting. It was not about home defense. It was not about target shooting. It was about the ability of citizens to oppose and resist the oppression of a tyrannical government.
There are those Americans that honestly feel that this point of view is not applicable to the 21st century; that such concerns are the things of history. They label those like myself, as 'gun nuts' or as paranoid, even dangerous.
If you are one that believes that this distrust is stuff out of a dusty history book, and has no relevance in the 21st century, then I urge you again to look around more carefully.
Those of us that support the Second Amendment feel that it's relevance is as valid now as it was when it was first penned.
@ clwyd2621393,,, You must be a politician or a Communist with a comment like that.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Take away the 2nd Amendment and the First Amendment goes with it. The USA will cease to exist. After that, the stars in a field of Blue will be replaced with a hammer and sickle.
You and Feinstein should pack your bags and move to North Korea.
@ Dav1 - Amen to that.
No it won't because no it didn't! Do you not remember Columbine?? And can we please stop repeating the bull @!$%# coming from the politicians?? There never was a "ban" on assault weapons and there will not be one now because no one is even proposing it. They will only ban NEW weapons that meet their ridiculous definition. Doing nothing about the millions of "assault" weapons already here. Nothing more than the standard "feel good" legislation meant to pacify the sheep.
There you go off into la-la land again
LOL! Wrong! It was meant so that citizens could form militias. How has that changed? It hasn't!
It would be a lot easier to take you seriously if you had a clue.
tomilvento
I made no attempt at "reasoning", all I did was state a fact. Thank you for admitting that you are unwilling to look up even the simplest of facts relating to this issue.
Again, I have made no attempt at "reasoning". However I will point out that what you describe is exactly what the anti-gun people do every day. For Christ's sake, the UK v US agrument was brought up as an anti-gun argument, the post you responded to was itself a response to that comparison. Try to keep up.
phX, The president that screwed with the First Amendment was Bush, with his free speech zones. Other rights trampled by Bush. Fourth, Illegal search (illegal wiretaps and Patriot Act), Sixth Amendment(trial by jury), Eighth Amendment(cruel and unusual punishment-torture). I'm sure I could dredge up more, but anyone with half a brain could see where it goes.
Czech Lev,
While it's illegal for a criminal to have a gun in England, you fail to realize that CRIMINALS simply do not follow the LAWS.
Evil people will always find a way to commit their evil acts regardless of what country they are in or what tools are at their disposal.
Look at the US. More murders are committed with hammers that with the dreaded "Assault Weapons" every year, but anybody can walk into a Lowes or Home Depot and buy a cartful of hammers with no background check at all. CRAZY ain't it.
Bugsy Silva, you're suspended for a week for violating #1 of the Code of Honor - repeatedly.
Backcountry, if laws won't work because people will break them, why not just make murder, theft, arson etc legal. After all, it's clear that our laws against murder just aren't working. Only the criminals will go around killing and stealing, so lets just make them legal.
The other interesting thing is I thought I heard from the NRA that only good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns. We just saw an instance of good guys without guns stopping a bad guy with a (non assault weapon) gun.
Backcountry - you made one massively incorrect statement - it would never be possible to take that person seriously!
Yes, indeed. "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun." Apparently, this is NOT the only way. Too bad this didn't happen in the USA a lot earlier to discredit LaPierre's arrogance. Let's face it, the NRA only opens its mouth to change feet.
I think Mr. LaPierre's arrogance was discredited when it came to light that he evaded the 1969 Vietnam draft by having his family doctor write a letter stating he has a "nervous disorder."
Incredible irony that the outspoken executive vice president of the NRA who proposes we all be armed to the teeth with assault weapons to ward off attacks from foreign invaders, is afraid to go into battle for his own country. Seems he would have been itching to use those high powered military weapons against the enemy.
Silver, maybe he got cured. and assault weapons have been banned to the general public
KWhopper,
Yes, perhaps Mr. LaPierre was cured of his nervous disorder. (The day the war ended?)
But to be sure, we'd like him to release his medical records ... the LONG form, please.
How about his doctor's credentials and sanctions history, too?
I, for one, would be satisfied with an independent psychiatrist's credentials.
But as for his family doctor (if the guy is still living), then I am afraid we will have to rule him out as being a biased witness.
I met a man years ago who told me he evaded the Vietnam draft by having a doctor friend lay him on an x-ray table and twist his body so it would appear he had curvature of the spine.
It is remarkable the lengths some people went to in order to dodge the draft.
Honor to fight in Vietnam for a corrupt U.S. government? Google up "Pentagon Papers" and see that the U.S. government continually lied to the American people about its need to support a parade of corrupt South Vietnamese leaders. Millions of Americans protested U.S. involvement in Vietnam and history has proved the validity of their cause. The U.S. government continues to lure naive young people to be killed and mangled fighting in misbegotten wars which can't be won by appealing to their "patriotism", "courage" or "sense of duty". "My country right or wrong" is not the creed of Free Men who control their own destiny. An Honorable Warrior rests his decision about who he will fight upon his own conscience; blindly following the command of corrupt rulers is the destiny of Slaves. The true spirit of American Freedom is the courage to oppose the government if it attempts to subvert the Truth and the Constitution.
Silver - You so boldly demand the records of a PRIVATE citizen but yet you seem to not care to know anything about the history of your president! Perspective, that's what everything is really about, isn't it?
Why is it bad for Wayne Lapierre to get a medical exemption from the draft, but perfectly fine for Bill Clinton to join the ROTC dept and then leave the country, admit that he sought the Rhodes Scholarship to avoid his ROTC commitment, go to a hostile country and then bad mouth the US?
As for disarming an armed man, yes it can happen, but I'm betting it took more than a couple people to do it. This was a guy in his 50s who may have never fired the firearm that he had. I'm betting the result might have been a bit different if it had been one of the crack head gang bangers from the inner city.
Steven Kage,
You dishonor the memory of the 50,000 American men and women who died serving in the Vietnam War. Sounds like you are a draft dodger too. Very sad.
CountryBoy,
Calm down. Go back and re-read my post. I asked for the LONG form of LaPierre's medical records. Try to understand the meaning of that request and why I said that ... come on ... it will dawn on you eventually.
Lt. Scrounge,
I never said it was okay for Bill Clinton to dodge the draft, even though he did it legally instead of lying about it.
The point of my comments about LaPierre evading the draft is the IRONY of it.
Seems Warlord Wayne would have been chomping at the bit to get his hands on those big military weapons and shoot the enemy -- just like he is recommending everyone else in America should do.
Steven Kage- #2.7 Well said. There's not many days that go by I don't recall those memories.
He is not dishonoring their memory. He is simply stating that the Vietnam war was waged to support a corrupt government, and yes, the Vietnam war was not very successful. But that does not in any way make the sacrifices of our vets any less meaningful. It was a different time, and our government was not truthful to us.
Brilliantly stated. No intelligent person could ever debate that, as loyalty is never owed to tyrants... Ever.
Yea, La Pierre had a nervous disorder, otherwise known as cowardice, the same one that Rush Limbaugh had, not to mention Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfelt. And we can't forget Mitt Romney.
Not everyone is skilled in unarmed combat and it's nowhere as easy as it looks on TV. I'd say that everyone (except the deceased robber) was exceptionally lucky that it ended the way it did.
It's pretty disgusting when guys like LaPierre and Ted Nugent who were FOR the Vietnam War (as far as I can tell) went out of their way to dodge the draft.
Yet they love to go on and on about the tyrannical US government and how they're prepared to fight it. Well guys, when it was time for you to fight you ran away (or in Ted's case literally soiled his pants intentionally for days).
I never leave home without a pocket full of M84's...just in case.
Best damn show ever!
Obozo is that you lol sorry couldn't resist nice avatar
No that's Sticky the Clown, hired by Peg Bundy to celebrate Bud's 18th birthday on MWC Season 6 episode 16. Obozo has a much better tan.
Amen one less criminal
here is one for you, The United States wants to make extreme guns illegal!!! but we let inhuman murderers live after they kill using a gun!!! we also let murderers go free, i really dont see the inhuman murderers let their victims go free??? their victims are 6 feet under, and this is where the inhuman murderers should be
ok so i say if you kill inhumanly with a gun, rifle, knife, what ever, we execute right after their trial and bury them with their favorite murder weapon
here is another one for you
i say we hold judges responcible for releasing murderers, pedifiles, rapist back into society and then these criminals repeat their crimes, so we throw them back in jail with the judge who set them free
execute repeat murderers immediatly, and let the judge sit a few years in jail with the big boys, with no pensions, and sell all the judges possetions to pay the victims families
hey guarenteed this will end idiot releases of inhuman murderers and will help control guns because the gun or weapon of the murderers choice will be burried with the idiot
stop coddling murderers they kill cause they dont want to be here on this planet apperantly so lets get them off the planet
its really ironic we let murderers go but the victims o these idiots are gone forever already
this just doesnt make sence to me
eye for an eye for inhuman murderers
Keith , I couldn't have said it better!!!! Maybe shorter Execute the criminals....Well said
When I took a class on criminology in college, the statistics were that 75% of the violent crime was being committed by 25% of the criminals. This was a part of the impetus behind the 3 time loser laws that put repeat offenders in jail for extended sentences. The liberals claim that long sentences, capital punishment and concealed carry don't work. They refuse to face the facts that criminals that are in jail for extended periods, or have assumed room temperature, are far less likely to commit crimes against innocent victims. Criminals fear being shot more by armed victims than they do the police. Estimates are that over a million people a year use a firearm for self defense, even though most never fire a shot. Just the presence of a firearm can switch the balance of power from a large muscular young attacker to the smaller weaker armed intended victim. For well over 100 years the phrase has been that God made men, but Colonel Colt made them equal. Here's a more modern question that I think illustrates the point. When facing one or more attackers armed with knives and clubs, would you rather have an Iphone 5 or a .45 in your hand?
gov of miss paroled a murederer and i seen a couple of weeks ago he was charged in another murder. dont stop with the judges, include the govs also
WOW!!! STANDUPJACKOFF!!!!!!
your a regular Einstein!!!!!
you should run for the Pres of USA when obamas term is over.
OBAMA CREATED A SEVERE CURVE!!!!!!!! YOUR A VALID CANDIDATE NOW!!!!!
Wow, Bugsy. Quite the rant. Having a bad gun day, are we?
Stunned, Both sides of gun control have valid reasons. No one likes to be told what to do. Neither side tried to discuss this matter, They both started pointing and telling each other what they would or wouldn't do. Background checks ok.Mental checks ok, Assault weapons are already banned. Just because they look scary doesn't mean alot. Leave semi auto,mags,registration alone... Execute the criminals
Whopper, no argument with you that there's no real communication between the various factions involved here. That's obvious to the entire world.
Sad fact is, 6yr olds are being slaughtered in your schools, malls, movie theaters, streets and pretty much everywhere else in your country at levels unimaginable to every other first world civilized country. And all the while, you guys are discussing the technicalities of your outdated 2nd Amendment.
Something needs to be done NOW about this madness. Wake up over there.
stunned, its sad the kids were killed. They were not killed by a law abiding citizen. Thats why mental health exams would help.A Background checks wouldn't have helped in this case. The 2nd admendment isn't about weapons directly its about bad governments which alot of americans are worried about. And thanks for being civil even if we don't agree
Stunned, Also in china Strict gun laws yet a nut with a knife cut a bunch of kids (20 something) It's not the method (guns,knives,etc) it's the madness (mental health) Execute the criminals....just saying
Whopper, the same laws which are designed to protect the weakest in your society prevent you from making life & death decisions based on emotional reaction. Sure, I feel the same as you do when I see such unspeakable acts as we see on a regular basis in the USA these days. Which is why we have laws to stop us from responding on impulse. The question I cannot avoid is why do civilized people feel the need to own machine guns. If your government wants to take over and impose tyranny, there's no way you can stop them with the weapons you can legally purchase. As for all your gun criminals and mentally ill, why not do what the English used to do ... ship them all to Australia. Their laws appear to be working a lot better.
machine guns have been banned since the mid 80's unless you have a FFL which are hard to get. The british tried and failed and they had the advantage also
oy there Kiwi. as a former kiwi.. your complete lack of understanding is partially understandable. bring youself to the U.S.. you'll find that a) food in the U.S. is VASTLY non nourishing b) depression is rampant c) prescription meds are rampant (many of which CAUSE homicidal and suicidal ideation and d) famers and rural areas need the guns in order to protect selves, crops and animals from idiots who think drive by shootings are okay, and robbery is okay. This doesn't happen in a country with predominantly sheep. Depression isn't as big a problem in NZ as in the U.S. and let's pick up some idiot constitution problems in NZ.. OH RIGHT you don't HAVE ONE.. because you're STILL under British RULE... it was GUNS that ran the Brits off here. the U.S. is kind of pround of that. and rightly so.
Stunned, Most americans life and death decisions are made when someone is in your home, trying to hurt someone you love, or take something you own. When they do that they forfeit their rights
If it were Gov't I was worried about I would buy more guns if there were more Right Wing Republicans.
Bugsy, you've been told a million times that you must take your anti-psychotic meds as directed by your doctor, not whenever you feel like it, or not at all. Get back on schedule!
Actually NZ has an uncodified constitution, which offers pretty much the same legal rights and protections as the US constitution while remaining adaptable to an ever changing society.
You're joking, right? NZ has been self-ruling since 1907 and fully independent since 1947. They may still have the Queen as Head of State but the day to day running of the country is done by a New Zealander elected by New Zealanders.
The bottom line is if the Head of State decides, you do!
The right wing chicken s--t ,morons are out in force today, with their illogical arguments.
There is no argument to justify the use of assault weapons in any place other than a secure firing range, where they cannot be permitted to leave. If assault weapons had not been available in Sandy Hook, most, if not all, of the children killed, would still be alive today.
No one is advocating taking your handguns away. You can still carry your excuses for the manhood you now lack. The real men are the unarmed people who took down the gun owner.
Each year, many thousands of people are killed by guns in the US, in comparison for the few who may have been saved by them in a domestic setting. A portion of them are due to accidents, such as children playing with a parents gun. The mass killings are usually due to assault weapons.
I believe a large percentage of gun owners are really gutless wonders, who are afraid of their shadows and need to carry, in order to feel safe.
" If assault weapons had not been available in Sandy Hook, most, if not all, of the children killed, would still be alive today."
If you really believe that, you're as dumb as they come. With that many unarmed targets, there are several guns that would have done the same amount of damage. By the way, he did not use an assault weapon. You are simply parroting a media lie.
And yes, there are liberal nut case politicians who are advocating taking away handguns, such as that wonderful Demon Feinstein from the lovely liberal wasteland of California. And since when do a bunch of liberals who have a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy get to dictate what we "need"? We don't need sports cars that have over 400 horsepower on our roads. Only race car drivers should have a car that powerful. Cars kill people, so let's limit all cars to 50 horsepower and intstall breathylyzers in all cars since there's a handful of people who drive drunk and kill people. Punish everyone for the actions of a few, right? And before you even say it, it isn't what they were designed for, but they kill more people than guns, bottom line.
You say many people are killed versus the "few who may have been saved by them in a domestic setting". Most of the time, when people have to use them in a domestic setting, it isn't reported if shots aren't fired. Take the Oregon mall shooter. If he had not shot anyone, it might not have ever hit anything but local news. He shot a couple of people and was stopped by a man with a concealed weapon, at which point he shot himself. But you didn't see that part plastered all over the news, did you? Of course not, because the mainstream media has to promote that limp-eral agenda.
And I love your internet tough guy crap....."you can still carry the excuses for your manhood", "gun owners are gutless wonders".......well since you're so manly, if someone breaks into your home and shoots you, be sure and let us know how you just picked the bullet out and kept on fighting the intruders. Being the epitome of testicular fortitude, I'm sure you could easily handle 3 or 4 guys with guns, right? Most people don't carry to try to be Rambo, we carry to even the odds since most criminals use guns. Common sense kind of dictates that.
"need to carry in order to fee safe"? So are you saying that all these 110 pound women who carry should either "man up" and fist fight a man who is attacking them or just take a good old fashioned rape and not cry about it?
The Second Amendment has done more for equal rights than any law or organization ever has. I thought you libbies were all about equal rights. But speaking of equal rights, libbies were all for gay folks who told the government to stay out of their bedrooms, and you were all for women who told the government to stay out of their uteruses, so don't be critisizing my right to tell the government to stay out of my gun safe.
If a judge lets a murderer free and HE KILLS SOMEONE ELSE. HANG THE JUDGE.
wonder if they got any action...ON THE BET HE DON'T TRY THAT AGAIN...
How could this possibly happen......they have "Gun Control" in England!!! It's exactly what would happen here if more Gun Control Laws are passed in the USA........ONLY THE CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS & WE WILL BE DEFENSELESS!!!
Looks like they defended themselves without guns.
gramps only because there were several people involved what would you tell that mother down in georgia? well?
All knowing one. How do you know one person wouldn't have handled it? Trust me I understand that a gun in the right hand can save lives, but I also know that it can cost lives even well intentioned.
Guns do not kill, people kill. How much more proof than this do people need? This criminal had a gun. The people who may have caused his death did not have a gun. People have been killing people long before gun powder and guns were invented and will continue to do so long after they are outlawed and only the criminals are left with guns. Criminals do not care about laws. This is quite frankly why they are criminals, because they have no regard for laws.
Obama and his gang of gun grabbers know this but to admit it and stop what will eventually be a total ban on all firearms in this country, would not go along with the true agenda. Face it folks, our Second Amendment was written and designed not only to allow us to legally possess guns for hunting, and self defense against criminals, but to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government if the need should ever arise. Now I am not advocating the over throw of our federal government not now nor ever. However history has shown that a government that takes all the guns away from it's citizens eventually rules them by force and the citizens are defenseless since they obeyed the law and gave up their guns. Many states in this country have already (or are in the process of) enacting laws that will consider a federal gun ban and confiscation law unconstitutional and protect their respective citizens. Many law enforcement professionals have gone on record to say that they will also consider a federal gun ban/confiscation law illegal and they WILL NOT enforce it. This should tell Obama and his gun grabbers something and I hope they get the message without it having to go any further. QED!
If gun laws don't work, why have fully automatic machine guns been illegal for decades and why are fully automatic machine guns no longer a problem in the cities of America?
Just wondering.
RealWorldProgressive
They ahave not been illegal you just need to pay a tax to the King and you can have one. They've been out there all these years.
Just saying.
Brits like their bookmakers anyone gets in the way, well..........nuff said Actions almost spoke louder than the report of a good firearm. One way to save court and imprisonment costs, low maintanence for criminals, Works for me
I love this one. Crowd with no guns, kills no-brain coward with a gun. That's how it is supposed to work. You usually don't need a gun, just a little courage. Interesting statistic: out of @30k/yr gun deaths in US, 20k are suicide...
At this point, with many free democracies around the world, it would seem to make sense to observe what policies work and what policies don't in other countries and then follow logical steps to improve our system accordingly. Will anyone ever lobby for that?
Sorry pal, but when someone has a gun and I don't, I try to get the hell away from them, not physically assault them. Lots of idiots wind up dead trying to challenge a gun-toting POS.
And only the criminals will have guns. When there is a will, there sure is a way. I love my right to make a choice to own a gun; to protect my self, my family, my home and my Country.
A fellow bee hiver ....morning
The UK put strict controls on guns so that the police are supposed to be the only ones with firearms. So when the law failed and a bad guy is commiting a crime with a gun where were the cops with the guns to thwart this situation? As usual the police are no where around during the crime but will arrive in time to draw chalk lines around the dead bodies.
And they have a lot of experience drawing chalk lines. A lot.
Can I just point out that the murder rate in the UK is the lowest its been since 1978 and the crime rate has been dropping for about 20 years now. Between January 1 2012 to November 25 2012 there were 354 murders in Detroit. The number of murders in Detroit and New Orleans combined is higher than the number of murders in the whole of England and Wales (last year there was 549 murders in England and Wales).
the police could of intervened if their crystal ball wasn't broken that day
The article doesn't mention the type of gun he had. Most likely it was a "hunting" rifle since that and shotguns are about the only thing a person can get in England, unless you're a criminal and don't follow the laws. So, it is not unreasonable to say that a bunch of unarmed people standing around would see this guy coming with the rifle/shotgun and with one person near him to grab the front of the weapon and point it towards the ceiling while others jumped on him.Or perhaps he never raised it from a lowered position. Again the article doesn't really provide much detail so we'll never know unless NBC gives us the "Paul Harvey" part of it later.
So the moral of this story is although it is possible to take out someone with a gun without one he probably wasn't that motivated to use it. Because if he was he would have walked in the door blasting then all those heros would have been diving for cover.
Yea! People beatim to death with their GUMBUTTS!
Let's not forget the Englishman who was sent to jail for defending his property with a shotgun. He'd been robbed several times, and was in the process of being robbed again. No, the police didn't get there in time any other time. So he shot the robbers IN the act IN his home after he'd gotten out of bed from sleep. He's in jail now. It was illegal for him to use a gun. Nevermind the robbers. GUN control put the VICTIM in jaiil.
You're missing the minor point that he's not in jail.
where can i look this story up?
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 I always say!
Just another European happy ending.
Had this armed robber shot just one are all of them I'm sure the story wouldn't be printed, but hey its the UK where no one is allowed a firearm and being unarmed is the normal.
Lesson learned here don't pull a gun unless you can use it, same no data on the gun was mentioned,size,make,rounds ,color or the fact this smells like a fake,planted story to make you anti gun tards feel better about being unarmed and future victims!
So please all you anti gun folks pack up and move to this UK anti gun paradise and STFU about my freedoms to have ,use and carry my firearm already!
Next War the UK will be armed with sharpe wit and shot me here t shirts!
They should ban unarmed people....
Let all the panty wearing gun hating libs come and take my guns,,,please!
They should ban customers!...Customers control!
It is obvious the robber was not very smart robbing a gambling place full of customers. Why this story is in the USA news is rather suprising. The bigger news in the UK was the finding of several weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition hidden in walls apparently after the UK gun ban of 1996. You don't see that story here.
Dunblane, UK
Found: weapons cache hidden days after 1996 Dunblane massacre
"Over 30 shotguns, Rifles and pistols as well as hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
He said: "It was an incredible arsenal - full, absolutely choc-a-bloc with eight shelves of fire arms and ammunition."
Police believe the guns were unregistered and their owner hid them out of fear of losing them in the wake of the Dunblane shootings."
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9821627/Found-weapons-cache-hidden-days-after-Dunblane-massacre.html
I wonder what kind of books they made and did he die of a heart attack "literally"
Someone must have told him how it ends.
@standupjokeoff
Perhaps you should do some research! Many studies done in Europe (Norway,Sweden,UK), some with high murder rate, some with low! RESULT: there is no correlation between murder rate and gun control!!
As for comparing crime rates in England to the US as if the two countries were the same size and population...England pop. 53 million, US pop. 312 million...England is an island and the US is somewhat larger in land mass...but...hey...when did a liberal ever stick to facts when they want to bitch about anything...
No one in their right mind would even compare the UK to the US. It would be like comparing the US to China where 750,000 people a year are killed by Chinese pollution. Al Gore needs to get him a plane ticket over there and help those folks out.