We haven't had a good jewel heist in a while - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8196559.stm
Despite a lack of underground tunnelling, safe cracking, and other cool E36 M3, they still managed to get away with £40m worth of jewellery. That's quite a lot 
.
Thing that caught my eye from that story:
"The haul is thought to be the biggest ever netted in the UK, almost doubling the £23m worth of items stolen in a raid on the same shop in 2003."
The same store? Lightning does strike twice, it seems.
friedgreencorrado wrote: Thing that caught my eye from that story: The same store? Insurance fraud *does* strike twice, it seems.
Fixed that for you.
Wait, they had guns? B-but guns are illegal in the UK! HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?!
therex wrote: Wait, they had guns? B-but guns are illegal in the UK! HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?!
Vinny: What the berkeley do you mean, replicas?
Sol: They look the E36 M3, don't they? And nobody is gonna argue. And I've got some extra loud blanks, just in case.
Vinny: In... Oh, in case we have to deafen them to death?
walterj wrote:therex wrote: Wait, they had guns? B-but guns are illegal in the UK! HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?!Vinny: What the berkeley do you mean, replicas? Sol: They look the E36 M3, don't they? And nobody is gonna argue. And I've got some extra loud blanks, just in case. Vinny: In... Oh, in case we have to deafen them to death?
Every time they replay that story on the news the music from the opening scene plays through my head...
What the berkeley do I know about diamonds?
therex wrote: Wait, they had guns? B-but guns are illegal in the UK! HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?!
are guns really illegal in the UK?
nope... Are they restricted use, handguns yes.. Rifles and shotguns are everywhere..
M3h http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gM22IQrmZnGbPyby5gfBqH_2rIaQ
ignorant wrote:therex wrote: Wait, they had guns? B-but guns are illegal in the UK! HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?!are guns really illegal in the UK? nope... Are they restricted use, handguns yes.. Rifles and shotguns are everywhere..
Sorry, handguns are illegal in the UK...HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?
"anything to declare?"
"yeah. Stay the berkeley out of England"
(or something to that effect)
Joey
fiat22turbo wrote:friedgreencorrado wrote: Thing that caught my eye from that story: The same store? Insurance fraud *does* strike twice, it seems.Fixed that for you.
ROFL! Yer a suspicious guy, fiat22. But I'll bet you never get taken for a sucker, either... 
Not suspicious, just cautious ;)
oh and I've been suckered before and probably will again :)
therex wrote:ignorant wrote:Sorry, _handguns_ are illegal in the UK...HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?therex wrote: Wait, they had guns? B-but guns are illegal in the UK! HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?!are guns really illegal in the UK? nope... Are they restricted use, handguns yes.. Rifles and shotguns are everywhere..
Incorrect again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_%28Amendment%29_%28No._2%29_Act_1997
They're not illegal, just massively restricted.
ignorant wrote:therex wrote:Incorrect again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_%28Amendment%29_%28No._2%29_Act_1997 They're not illegal, just massively restricted.ignorant wrote:Sorry, _handguns_ are illegal in the UK...HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?therex wrote: Wait, they had guns? B-but guns are illegal in the UK! HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?!are guns really illegal in the UK? nope... Are they restricted use, handguns yes.. Rifles and shotguns are everywhere..
hmmm, if i cant go down to my local pawn shop, plunk down my $50 and walk out with a Parker 380 that'll blow up in my hand the first time i try and use it, i'm just not happy ..at all...
ignorant wrote:therex wrote:Incorrect again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_%28Amendment%29_%28No._2%29_Act_1997 They're not illegal, just massively restricted.ignorant wrote:Sorry, _handguns_ are illegal in the UK...HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?therex wrote: Wait, they had guns? B-but guns are illegal in the UK! HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?!are guns really illegal in the UK? nope... Are they restricted use, handguns yes.. Rifles and shotguns are everywhere..
Shame on you, you're being dishonest. Even under the very link you posted, the following can be found:
Wikipedia said: The act was created in response to the Snowdrop Petition following the Dunblane Massacre. The previous Conservative government had followed the recommendations of the Cullen Report on the massacre and introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 that banned "high calibre" handguns, greater than .22 calibre (5.6 mm). This new (No. 2) act further banned the private ownership of all cartridge ammunition handguns, regardless of calibre. The only handguns still allowed following the ban were: * Antique and muzzle-loading black powder guns * Guns of historic interest whose ammunition is no longer available ("Section 7.1" weapons) * Guns of historic interest with current calibres ("Section 7.3" weapons) * Air pistols * Guns which fall outside the Home Office definition of "handguns".
The handgun "regulation" as you put it, is so far-reaching and draconian that their own Olympic Athletes must practice their sport outside the country. I'm pretty sure that "Illegal" is a decent synonym for "effectively illegal" in most reasonable people's minds. By your logic, cocaine isn't illegal in the United States, just "massively restricted".
Furthermore, I would hardly say that rifles and shotguns are "everywhere" as the licensing requirements are also arbitrary and capricious, and the number and type of ammunition is rigidly controlled.
Besides, I wasn't referring to rifles and shotguns in this context, as the jewel thieves in question used handguns in their heist.
Draconian, Definition: Exceedingly harsh; very severe, cruel.
How is it harsh, severe or cruel to reduce the amount of "people" sic who have access to handguns for illegal uses.
aussiesmg wrote: Draconian, Definition: Exceedingly harsh; very severe, cruel. How is it harsh, severe or cruel to reduce the amount of "people" sic who have access to handguns for illegal uses.
Um, because they were "exceedingly harsh" in doing so, by making every use of a handgun an illegal one.
aussiesmg wrote: Draconian, Definition: Exceedingly harsh; very severe, cruel. How is it harsh, severe or cruel to reduce the amount of "people" sic who have access to handguns for illegal uses.
Oddly enough, they haven't reduced the number of people who have access to handguns for illegal (meaning related to committing crimes) purposes at all. They have, however, dramatically increased the number of people who no longer have access to guns for legal purposes.
therex wrote:ignorant wrote:Shame on you, you're being dishonest. Even under the *very link you posted*, the following can be found:therex wrote:Incorrect again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_%28Amendment%29_%28No._2%29_Act_1997 They're not illegal, just massively restricted.ignorant wrote:Sorry, _handguns_ are illegal in the UK...HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?therex wrote: Wait, they had guns? B-but guns are illegal in the UK! HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?!?!are guns really illegal in the UK? nope... Are they restricted use, handguns yes.. Rifles and shotguns are everywhere..Wikipedia said: The act was created in response to the Snowdrop Petition following the Dunblane Massacre. The previous Conservative government had followed the recommendations of the Cullen Report on the massacre and introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 that banned "high calibre" handguns, greater than .22 calibre (5.6 mm). This new (No. 2) act further banned the private ownership of all cartridge ammunition handguns, regardless of calibre. The only handguns still allowed following the ban were: * Antique and muzzle-loading black powder guns * Guns of historic interest whose ammunition is no longer available ("Section 7.1" weapons) * Guns of historic interest with current calibres ("Section 7.3" weapons) * Air pistols * Guns which fall outside the Home Office definition of "handguns".The handgun "regulation" as you put it, is so far-reaching and draconian that their own Olympic Athletes must practice their sport outside the country. I'm pretty sure that "Illegal" is a decent synonym for "effectively illegal" in most reasonable people's minds. By your logic, cocaine isn't illegal in the United States, just "massively restricted". Furthermore, I would hardly say that rifles and shotguns are "everywhere" as the licensing requirements are also arbitrary and capricious, and the number and type of ammunition is rigidly controlled. Besides, I wasn't referring to rifles and shotguns in this context, as the jewel thieves in question used handguns in their heist.
There isn't a huge calling the UK for weapons for self defense. My personal observations lead me to believe that if given the choice.. A massive majority of UK residents wouldn't want a gun for defense. They don't need them.
The English style of hand gun control is prevalent throughout the Caribbean. End result- extreme enforcement of the laws, where even a single round of ammo puts you in jail. At the same time, gangs and drugs rule many of the streets, especially in Jamaica and Trinidad. A good friend of mine in Trinidad was almost a victem of a kidnapping. Car hit him from behind, they pulled over to check the damage, another car pulled in front of him, blocking him in. They got out with machetes, he got out with a Glock, shot one of them. At about that time the police arrive and arrest him for attempted murder and a variety of firearms violations. He shot a soldier. He had a carry permit. (VERY difficult to obtain there) Took months to clear himself. Scary example of the corruption prevalent in Trinidad. He still carries. Wish I could when I go there. Gameboy does not have to worry about this E36 M3 in "Little Britain" Safest island in the Caribbean.
It seems to me that the end effect of extreme restriction of defensive weapons results in one of two cases: either a massive police presence/intrusion into daily life in order to maintain public safety (England), or in the absence of such policing, a situation as described in the Caribbean nations in which those illegally holding such weapons hold force over the law abiding public. Not really making a political determination here, I'm just sayin'.... 
Did anyone else notice the media player's volume goes to 11?!!
(from memory). "What do i know about diamonds? I'm a boxin' promoter. A successful boxin', that is, until a few weeks ago. What do I know about diamonds? Don't they come from Antwerp?". - Turkish.
ignorant wrote: 1. there are handguns still allowed. Muzzleloaders and antiques etc.. So blanket statments don't work. They're handguns..
I'm not sure I get your point. Blanket statements do work for the most part. I mean sure, I guess you could walk around with a brace of pistols, but here's why people make general statements: Because they're generally true.
Case in point. If I said "You can't get a firearm delivered to your house." Most people would agree that I'm correct. It's not quite true, of course. You can get antique firearms delivered to your house, you can get muzzle loaders delivered to your house, and if you have the appropriate licenses, you can get any gun delivered to your house.
I don't say "Handguns are illegal in the UK except for antiques and muzzleloaders." because for the purposes of the discussion, that's not really relevant. The jewel thieves had modern handguns (that you will agree are illegal in the UK,) and I was trying to demonstrate that such regulations are in fact counter productive. That criminals, by their definition, have little regard for the law and that only law abiding citizens are effected by such, and we can all agree that law abiding citizens aren't the target of such regulations. Instead, what happens, is criminals are emboldened to rob a jewelry store in the middle of the day and trot of with 60 million dollars worth of jewelry.
ignorant wrote: 2. I used to work for a company that was headquartered in the UK. Their main factory was in a rural northern england town. Every farmer over there.. and there's tons of farmers, has an old side by side. There isn't a huge calling the UK for weapons for self defense. My personal observations lead me to believe that if given the choice.. A massive majority of UK residents wouldn't want a gun for defense. They don't need them.
Your personal observations are noted, however, I believe that the reason people (in the UK) don't own guns for self defense is that in order to own a gun, any gun, in the UK you must have "good and sufficient reason" to do so, and the UK authorities do not recognize self defense as a reason to do so. (nevermind the myriad and absurd additional hoops one must jump through) It's a bit like if they outlawed sports cars except for "good and sufficient reason", of which only on-track racing was one. Then you saying that the populace wasn't interested in driving sports cars to work.
It's not the best analogy, but it does have parallels. I hesitate to leave it as it is, because I've no doubt that you'll latch on to this, a weak analogy (ignoring any other point I've made) and begin to argue semantics with me, as it's clear you're not interested in discussing the topic at hand. Many people would agree that firearms are effectively banned in the UK, and yet you insist on pointing out that there are some very few and rare exceptions to that rule. By your same logic cocaine isn't illegal in the United States, because there are some very specific circumstances under which it may be used, and is therefore not illegal, but instead "heavily regulated".
therex wrote: Your personal observations are noted, however, I believe that the reason people (in the UK) don't _own_ guns for self defense is that in order to _own_ a gun, any gun, in the UK you must have "good and sufficient reason" to do so, and the UK authorities do _not_ recognize self defense as a reason to do so.
you really gotta talk to them to understand it. If given the option to own the guns.. I don't think they would. It's a completely different culture.
You'll need to log in to post.
