Best security system of 2008 award goes to - a tatoo parlor!

[SUBMAN1]

Too funny! Apparently it works good:

-S

Best Security System (2008)

Freaky's Tattoo and Body Piercing

Most criminals won't act if they think there's a chance that they could be caught or killed. Armed with this knowledge of basic human instinct, Freaky's Tattoo and Body Piercing has developed a cheap and inexpensive security system: a handgun and brass knuckles sitting out on the counter. If you ask whoever's working there who left their piece out, they'll tell you it's for security. And would-be robbers should think twice about trying to grab the gun: There's probably another one under the counter.

http://westword.com/bestof/award.php?oid=749367

[Letum]

oh for the days of heads on sticks round the city walls eh?

I would rather not conduct life at knife point.

[silentrunner]

better still a mg42 on the counter.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

oh for the days of heads on sticks round the city walls eh?

I would rather not conduct life at knife point.

I love this answer, coming from a country that has out of control violent crimes. Lets all follow the role model!

-S

[STEED]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I love this answer, coming from a country that has out of control violent crimes. Lets all follow the role model!

-S

RUBBISH.

Our government is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, crime figures have fallen under our labour government and the streets have never been safer.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by STEED

RUBBISH.

Our government is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, crime fugues have fallen under our labour government and the streets have never been safer.

Hahahaha! Don't worry Steed, there is hope in that the laws may be changed over there. Just so you know, the reason they say crime has gone down in the UK is they changed the way they collect statistics. Nice.

Here is a pretty good article from MSNBC on defending in general in the UK. There is a campaign going on to get the laws changed so that you can defend yourselves:

Defending the home

Thanks to strict criminal laws, working conditions in Great Britain are the safest in the Western world—that is, if your profession is burglary. On the other hand, if you’re a law-abiding citizen quietly staying at home, you’re at much greater risk in the nearly gun-free United Kingdom, than in the gun-happy United States of America.

In late October, teacher Robert Symonds, who lived in the London suburb of Putney, was stabbed to death in his home by a burglar. Last week, in Halifax (near Manchester), 71-year-old priest Father Ingwell was stabbed several times by a burglar. The same week, burglars in the fancy London neighborhood of Chelsea stabbed banker John Monckton to death. Terrifying home invasion burglaries are not rare events in England. Overall, Great Britain has a higher violent crime rate than the United States, and a higher burglary rate. Significantly, only about one-eighth of American burglaries take place while the victim is home, whereas over half of all British burglaries do.


One reason that British burglars are so much bolder than their American cousins is that only about 4% of British homes legally possess a gun, whereas about half of American homes do. British police administrators require guns at home to be stored unloaded in a safe, and that ammunition be in a separate safe. No American jurisdiction has such extreme “safe storage” requirements. As a result, an American burglar who breaks into an occupied home faces a significant risk of getting shot.

As I detailed in an article in the Arizona Law Review, when an American burglar strikes at an occupied residence, his chance of being shot is about equal to his chance of being sent to prison. According to a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are about half a million incidents every year in which an American burglar is scared away by a victim with a firearm.


Putting aside the issue of guns, the British homeowners are still at a terrible disadvantage. For example, if 300 pounds of what the British call a “yob” (or what Americans call “white trash”) kicks down a woman’s front door, and begins pummeling her with his fists, her only hope might be to fight back with a kitchen knife. In America, the woman’s use of the knife would be plainly legal. In Britain, the woman would be presumed to have illegally escalated the confrontation (the yob was just using his fists, and she escalated by using a deadly weapon). The government could put her on trial for attempted murder, and she would have to prove to the jury that she responded “proportionately” to the attack.


The Daily Telegraph has been waging a “right to fight back” campaign, which “calls for the public to be given an unqualified right to self defence against intruders in their own homes.”


As a sign that even the police bureaucracy is recognizing the intensity and breadth of the public’s feelings, Metropolitan (London) Police Commissioner, Sir John Stevens now says that British law should be changed so that any use of force, including deadly force, is presumed reasonable and lawful in the home. The government would bear the burden of proving such force unreasonable in particular cases. “The message it sends to the would-be attacker is, ‘Do not think you can come into people’s homes and people will not defend themselves with the right type of force that’s necessary.’ At the moment it seems it’s the other way round.” As Police Commissioner in London, Stevens in the highest-ranking police officer in the U.K.

The Conservative Party has also agreed.


Besides reforming the self-defense laws, Parliament ought to reform Great Britain’s gun control laws. Not a word in British gun control statutes actually makes it illegal for a person to own a shotgun or rifle for protection in the home. Instead, police administrators have determined, by their administrative fiat, that Britain’s “subjects” may not possess defensive arms, and that sporting arms must be stored in such a way as to make them useless for home protection in an emergency.


The Blair administration could fix the problem tomorrow, by administrative decree. Alternatively, Parliament could pass a statute affirming that home defense is a “good reason” (the British legal standard) for being granted a gun license. Parliament (or the Blair administration) could also affirm that guns may be kept loaded in the home, while the homeowner is actually present in the home.


The alternative is to continue Britain’s disastrous current policy, whereby the only people who are safe in the home are violent intruders.


The governing Labour Party, however, has done nothing. Instead, it has devoted its energies to ramming through Parliament a total prohibition on using hounds to hunt foxes. To evade opposition the upper house (the House of Lords), which was willing to impose additional restrictions but not a complete ban, the Labour government invoked the rarely-used Parliament Act to bypass the House of Lords.


As one high-ranking Labour MP recently admitted, the fox-hunting ban is less about animal welfare than about urban-based Labour’s class warfare on the rural population. Led by the Countryside Alliance, 400,000 Britons rallied in London against the ban in 2002, and massive civil disobedience hunts are planned on February 19, when the prohibition goes into effect.


Meanwhile, the Labour Animal Welfare Society, having outlawed what the British call “hunting” (chasing hounds with foxes) now aims to eliminate what Americans call “hunting” (shooting wild game with guns or bows). As the LAWS Web site announces, “Hunting down - shooting to go.”


While the hunting ban garnered massive attention, few people noticed the nearly simultaneous action of Parliament enacting the odious Civil Contingencies Act. As detailed by Spy Blog and White Rose (blogs focusing on civil liberties, especially in the U.K.), the Act authorizes the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary to suspend civil liberties, and rule by decree. The Act even allows the ruler by decree to override the protections of the Magna Carta, the Habeas Corpus Act, and the English Bill of Rights.


For centuries, the people of Great Britain fought—literally—to defend their precious and traditional rights from monarchs such as Henry III and the wicked James II. Yet now, the great historic rights of Englishmen have been presumptively surrendered by Parliament, and the media have barely noticed.


A bill passed by Parliament cannot become law without the Queen’s Royal Assent. Although the Royal Assent has not been withheld from a bill in Great Britain since 1708, the Royal Assent was withheld in 1937 from Canadian legislation which the Governor-General of Canada (the monarch’s representative in Canada) correctly identified as unconstitutional.


In an ideal world, Queen Elizabeth II would have withheld her assent from the Civil Contingencies Act, because it is a direct assault on fundamental civil liberties and democratic government. And she would also have refused to assent to the Hunting Act, because it is a mean-spirited assault on the traditional freedoms of rural England. At the least, the Queen and members of the Royal Family could have used their prestige to raise public consciousness about dangers to Great Britain’s ancient liberties.


As the Queen has been derelict, so has the Parliament. Although Parliament is theoretically sovereign, over the last few decades the Parliament has become a supine rubber stamp for the Prime Minister and a small coterie of ruling party leaders. No longer does Parliament resist the demands of Whitehall (the main office of the permanent bureaucracy) for more and more infringements on the rights of Englishmen.


Since the days of Winston Churchill, Americans and Britons have stood shoulder-to-shoulder defending freedom around the world. Like the many Americans who cherish our heritage of Anglo-American liberty, I wish the British Parliament, the British Royal Family, and especially the British public were more vigilant about defending what Lord Scarman called “the pearl of great price,” the traditional rights which for centuries made England one of the world’s greatest exemplars of freedom and self-government. Restoring the natural human right to home defense would be a good first step, but there will be a very long way to go after that.

[Steel_Tomb]

Originally Posted by STEED

RUBBISH.

Our government is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, crime fugues have fallen under our labour government and the streets have never been safer.

Sounds like you took that directly from a Labour PR letter. When you joining the back benchers then? Perhaps the have, statistically speaking... but we all know statistics can be made to say anything! Especially when provided by politicians! I personally think Labour has f**ked up policing big time, not to mention the rest of the country! To much red tap and beuacracy, they spend more time filling forms than actually fighting crime. Then they only fight crime which counts towards Labours much loved "targets". Typical interference by the part of the Government, its the same in the NHS/MoD and just about every other part of civilian life. By keeping such a tight grip on the way things are run means that they are simply strangling any initiative and progress, not the way to run a country!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Just a question, even assuming that crime is high in UK, do you think that allowing anyone to have a gun will help ?

Of course. THis is the very reason that home invasions in the US only have 4% chance that the owner will be home - the invaders specifically try to avoid confrontation due to firearms.

In the UK, that changes to greater than 50% chance the owner will be home, and then a good chance of violence happening to the owner because of it, since they really don't care if you are home or not.

I quote:

According to a study by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are about half a million incidents every year in which an American burglar is scared away by a victim with a firearm.

That is pretty overwhelming evidence of what happens if one is actually home and has a firearm.

I understand the hesitation by UK'rs though. After hearing for 20 years of hearing the lie about how bad firearms are for responsible citizens, you probably start to believe it.

-S

[Trex]

Originally Posted by Steed

Our government is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, crime fugues have fallen under our labour government and the streets have never been safer.

So these 'never safer' streets are why the UK is now banning swords? "Crime's too high, so let's ban guns." (Decades later) "Oops, that didn't work, what else can we ban?"

Sorry, my opinion falls somewhere in the middle here, so I will be dodging volleys from both sides.

I am far from convinced that firearms in homes help prevent crimes. If there was a law compelling everybody to be carrying a loaded weapon at all times, that might reduce crime - or at least make the criminals more polite. Anything short of that... there are more studies and stats than you can point a chromed Kalshnikov at and they all disagree.

On the other hand, there does not seem to be any verifiable correlation between gun crimes and the absence or presence of gun control laws. There are places without gun control that are very peaceful and there are places with stiff gun laws where the violent crime rate is through the roof. The crime rate would seem to ultimately be more a societal thing. Some societies seem to be inherently more violent than others. And therein lies the catch...

Too many people get wrapped around the axle over guns, thinking that they are the problem. Ultimately however, the issue is crime, not guns (or at least it should be). We need to stop treating the symptoms and go after the disease.

Here in Canada, the govt poured $2 billion (only 1,000 percent over budget) into a gun registry a decade ago. If one takes into account the international (western world at least) trend towards a lower violent crime rate (probably caused by an aging population), that boondoggle achieved the square root of Zip divided by the reciprocal of Diddly.

Passing laws that cannot (or will not) be enforced is pointless. Rather than waste big money on something with such a poor track record, it would be far better to putting it towards the root causes of crime and into support for an overworked judicial system.

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I love this answer, coming from a country that has out of control violent crimes. Lets all follow the role model!

-S

How many people gunned down in the good old USA every year?

About 11,000?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

How many people gunned down in the good old USA every year?

About 11,000?

Whats your problem? You are going to pass us on a per every 100K people basis soon. Crimes with guns in the UK are skyrocketing. You can buy a fully Auto AK-47 in London for much cheaper than you can buy it in the states. $700 British pounds last I checked.


-S

[Letum]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Whats your problem? You are going to pass us on a per every 100K people basis soon. Crimes with guns in the UK are skyrocketing. You can buy a fully Auto AK-47 in London for much cheaper than you can buy it in the states. $700 British pounds last I checked.

Tell you what, lets try a little experiment. You tell me how to buy a gun in the UK and
I will follow your instructions, but then cancel the trade at the last minute and inform
the police.

I live in North Yorkshire and can travel no more than 80 miles with ease.

Lets set a deadline of 12 weeks, if I have not found a gun under your instruction by
then then I will only be able to conclude that it is a lot harder than you make out.

I await your instructions.

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Whats your problem? You are going to pass us on a per every 100K people basis soon. Crimes with guns in the UK are skyrocketing. You can buy a fully Auto AK-47 in London for much cheaper than you can buy it in the states. $700 British pounds last I checked.


-S

My problem?

Well your assertion that gun crime is 'skyrocketing' for a start.

Actually gun related crimes have fallen.

Overall firearms offences, including air guns, fell 14% in 2006-07 from 21,527 incidents to 18,489.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm

59 people shot in the UK last year, which is literally 1 in a million, probably less actually.

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by Letum

oh for the days of heads on sticks round the city walls eh?

I would rather not conduct life at knife point.

Oh Yago I do so love how your devious little mind works.....:rotfl: