Ducati Sporting Club UK > General > Idle Chat > All those in favour of capital punishment, say I.....

[Paul James]

The banning of handguns after Dunblane was a cheap, pointless political knee jerk reaction by the labour party to gain votes. It has achieved precisely nothing in terms of safety to the general public as hand gun crime has increased dramatically, an automatic pistol is now seen as a fashion accessory in some cultural groups.

What it has in fact achieved is the loss of a perfectly legitimate pastime for those who enjoyed target shooting, ironically at the last Olympics our pistol shooters took gold medals but now have to go abroad to practice. The further irony is that our disastrous misfortune in "winning" the Olympics for London will mean that some form of compromise will have to be reached if the pistol shooting is to take place. As the owning and carrying of handguns by the general public is illegal in this country by rights we should not have been eligible to apply to host the games.

You can ban what you like, guns, knives, screwdrivers, any other pointy things but it still won't work. You should be able to carry a knife, the problem only arises when it is used to harm others, which would happen far less often if the law was applied more positively. We have seen a plethora of unworkable, pointless, complex legislation under this government none of which is necessary if the judicial system applied the basic original laws rigidly.

As to the death penalty there are numerous occasions when it would not deter a total nutcase drugged out of his skull but a lot less people would carry guns in the commision of calculated crime if they thought they might pay the ultimate price if they killed someone.

Surely if the threat of the death penalty existed and saved some innocent lives it would be justifiable ? You'll never see a return to hard labour or life meaning life in terms of a jail sentence, the judiciary are just too soft for that.

[MJS]

Originally Posted by philthy

Of course it's different.

Society expects a police officer to put his or her life on the line for YOU and your family.

Most of us would rather that the average policeman on shift did not carry a firearm when dealing with criminals. That means that we expect them on occasion to face up to someone with a firearm without any real defence except the uniform.

If the criminal serves say 7-10 years max for murdering the police officer, then quite frankly he may as well put the officer into a bodybag and take his chance. If he thinks he will hang then he just might give up his weapon. And quite frankly if he still goes ahead and kills the officer then he should forfeit his life in return.

And that should go for the whole gang involved, not just the one who pulls the trigger. Gun crime is endemic and the only way we will put a brake on it is to show criminals that the ordinary man in the street is in charge and not the bully with a gun in his hand.

I'm sorry Urban but it's people with liberal attitudes who have allowed the criminal to take over from the man in the street, and it's about time that we redressed the balance.

Sorry Phil,

Not sure I can agree with you here. Yes, I fully take your point that we expect Police to stand up and protect us with nothing more than their uniform to protect them, and despite all complaints we constantly hear, I'm grateful to them for the work they do, and I'm happy to live in a society where I'm not afraid of the Police themselves, but I have to ask, does the death penalty work as a deterrant? I think not.

Take the US as an example - it's been cited further on in this thread - Everyone has the right to bear arms, and plenty of people carry weapons, and there is also the death penalty to act as a deterrent, so why do people still kill each other? Do they stop on the brink of pulling the trigger and think, oh hang on, I might get a lethal injection for this? Some might, but then they are more than likely the ones who wouldn't do it in the first place. The fact is, in the US, they regularly execute people, so the death penalty is hardly acting as a deterrent.

It may well be people with liberal attitudes who have allowed the criminal to take over from the man in the street, but that has nothing to do with the killing people - prison is a soft option for most crimes these days. Proper sentancing, life meaning life, and old-fashioned tough conditions inside I am all in favour of, but please don't try to suggest to me that anyone has the supreme authority to order the taking of another human life.

Martin

[Guido]

Well I did I type a big long response to this but the site crashed when I hit 'submit' so now I'm even more worked up than when I read the post......

[rcgbob44]

Providing there is non contestable evidence, DNA etc, Kill them.

I would be quite prepared to offer my services to exterminate kiddy fidlers, one bullet should do the trick after the others have been placed in the knees, anckles, wrists, elbows etc!!..................sorry forgot the hot poker in the nether regions first.

[andyb]

Originally Posted by Henners

The way it was is that you had to satisfy you local Chief Constable that you had a legitimate reason for having a gun and you had to keep it secure in your property - the only reasonable excuse was that you were a full member of a licenced gun club and could only use your gun on certified shooting ranges. You could be visited by your local police at any reasonable time and all your security arrangements checked along with an assessment made of your attitude and suitability to retain your licence.

Like America? - only nowerdays I'm afraid

I think the first question on the form should be, do you want a gun? If you answer "yes" then thats a good enough reason to refuse! (Quote ;Insp Fowler, thin blue line)

[BDG]

Originally Posted by Paul James

You can ban what you like, guns, knives, screwdrivers, any other pointy things but it still won't work. You should be able to carry a knife, the problem only arises when it is used to harm others, which would happen far less often if the law was applied more positively. We have seen a plethora of unworkable, pointless, complex legislation under this government none of which is necessary if the judicial system applied the basic original laws rigidly.

As to the death penalty there are numerous occasions when it would not deter a total nutcase drugged out of his skull but a lot less people would carry guns in the commision of calculated crime if they thought they might pay the ultimate price if they killed someone.

Surely if the threat of the death penalty existed and saved some innocent lives it would be justifiable ? You'll never see a return to hard labour or life meaning life in terms of a jail sentence, the judiciary are just too soft for that.

You saved me a lot of typing Paul, well said.

rcgbob, if you need an apprentice for your next job, just drop me a pm

[philthy]

Originally Posted by Urban996

Sorry Phil,

Not sure I can agree with you here. Yes, I fully take your point that we expect Police to stand up and protect us with nothing more than their uniform to protect them, and despite all complaints we constantly hear, I'm grateful to them for the work they do, and I'm happy to live in a society where I'm not afraid of the Police themselves, but I have to ask, does the death penalty work as a deterrant? I think not.

Take the US as an example - it's been cited further on in this thread - Everyone has the right to bear arms, and plenty of people carry weapons, and there is also the death penalty to act as a deterrent, so why do people still kill each other? Do they stop on the brink of pulling the trigger and think, oh hang on, I might get a lethal injection for this? Some might, but then they are more than likely the ones who wouldn't do it in the first place. The fact is, in the US, they regularly execute people, so the death penalty is hardly acting as a deterrent.

It may well be people with liberal attitudes who have allowed the criminal to take over from the man in the street, but that has nothing to do with the killing people - prison is a soft option for most crimes these days. Proper sentancing, life meaning life, and old-fashioned tough conditions inside I am all in favour of, but please don't try to suggest to me that anyone has the supreme authority to order the taking of another human life.

Martin

Martin

I can't realistically ever see the death penalty coming back and I think we are close enough on all your other sentencing ideas to vote for you as Home Secretary. When can you start?

Phil

[Ains.]

[quote=rcgbob44]Providing there is non contestable evidence, DNA etc, Kill them.QUOTE]

Too right, but there should be three crimes that get the ultimate remedy in my mind.
1. Preditory Paedophiles that murder children for gratification. Those acts are not natural and neither is Capital punishment in some eyes. Justice is served. Anybody going to disagree?

2. Deliberately going out armed and shooting a uniformed person that is going about there normal duty. Police Officer, Firemen, Ambulance personnel. I'll submit to, all traffic and speed trap wardens being fair game.

3. Terrorists, apart from Bobby Sands name any other the others of the H-block hunger striker if you're not a republican. Martyrs are only martyrs if you give 'em publicity, so don't end-ex.

The above must have DNA proven links with the crime. A 1 in 2 billion chance of being wrong puts paid to the old excuse it could have been the wrong person.

Crimes of passion such as Ruth Ellis get life, mercy killings by long married partner of suffiering spouse because the NHS is s.h.i.t.e get compassion and community service until they change the law.
Honour killings are murder full stop they hang!
Crimes such as Peter Sutcliffe and Myra Hindley hang.

Ains.

[rcgbob44]

Paul James has it totally right!

Henners, I still hold an FAC as well as a shot gun licence and I still only put holes in bits of paper and smash inocent clay pidgeons now and again.

The banning of hand guns, by the government, after Dunblane was a knee jerk reaction aimed at getting the vote in a general election and it worked, it also deprived a lot of people of a very pleasant past time and forced many many guns onto the black market for criminals. We must also not forget how many legitimate gun shops that went out of business and how many people lost there livings because of the government.

As to the question of the Olympic UIT shooting, I also think that the uk should not have been awarded the games due to the fact that we cannot train in the Uk in that dicipline.....................although I have heard a rumor that the government might relent and allow ownership of .22 & ,32 caliber guns so that we can train for the games....................mmmmmmmmmm I wonder!!!

[MJS]

Originally Posted by philthy

Martin

I can't realistically ever see the death penalty coming back and I think we are close enough on all your other sentencing ideas to vote for you as Home Secretary. When can you start?

Phil

Not for me - you have to sh@g dodgy looking secretaries if you do that job....