You keep barking about how we should have stronger gun control, do we really need it so strict that we attack (and arrest) people with plastic mannequins?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21743028-2,00.html

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...roft_dummy.html

oooooooh, scary.

That's taking it a liiiiiitle too far.


Now, I'm not being racist, I am making a generalisation: How many NATIVE Britons appear in the news to do with gun crime? very few isn't it? So the root of the problem isn't within the people of Britain, which I find quite annoying.

It was a mis-understanding. It happens.

As Debbie said it was a misunderstanding.. but least our police are on the ball so we don't get the terrible shootins

lol... you call that (the above situation) "on the ball"?

It was a daft situation, but I don't think you can use that as a point of debate over UK gun laws.

The police officer thought he saw the outline of a person holding a gun. Keep in mind that UK officers don't carry firearms so he followed his training and called for the armed police. If it *was* a gun man then the officer would have shot and killed.

I think Keith was more pointing out the fact that because of the lack of availability of guns, the situation was handled with a lot less tact that it could (and probably would have) been. Regardless of all that, the part of this story that pisses me off most is that the guy wasn't even released after they realized the situation at hand. And, that he was even taken to jail in the first place. Perhaps cuffed and forced to wait outside until the figured out that the doll was the armed assailant, but jail? For 13 hours? Jesus man...


No properly trained officer shoots to kill. At least, not one in their right mind. Death is a last resort, or at least should be.

As you can see from that article, we have very good and strict procedures for firearm situations. How you can doubt that I'm not sure, instead to use it as an attack against the UK public. No-one was hurt, he won't be prosecuted, it all ended well (excluding the handling of the situation afterwards).

Personally I don't believe in much stricter gun control in the States, so there's no need to make a small attack against every British member on IPS!

It's actually an offensive to carry an imitation firearm in the UK. So if you're carrying anything that looks like a gun, then you're likely to get arrested. This exists because guns are illegal, and it's quite often difficult to tell the difference between a real thing, and a imitation, but also because it covers BB guns/air guns, from which we've had quite a few deaths/injuries over the past few years. That'll be why he was arrested - not that I agree with it. But sometimes our police force are a little zealous, and after all they're only human.

You misunderstood. I said that the police were unarmed and that the police officer would have been shot if it were a person with a gun.

I think I missed off the all-important 'been' in my previous post.

Does that mean I should stop carrying bananas around in my pocket?

Yeah - especially if you're gonna walk into a jewellery store

Years ago someone used a toy cap-gun with the red bit painted black to hold his girlfriend hostage to rob the shop in my village - he was killed by the police. (Just thought I'd mention that because of the point on imitation gun laws)

There was another misunderstanding not long ago as well. But unfortunately the Brazillian in this situation isn't in a position to sue the police.

True, but if you run away from armed police, shouting at you to stop on the underground that less than one month previously had been targeted by suicide bombers you have to be aware that there may be dire consequences.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeexactly!

Worse than that, it was 24 hours after the second attempted attack. Everyone in London was naturally tense and on-edge.

It was none the less, a tragic death.

Surprised about this story - it's in Australia! I live near to where this took place.

The officers came to his house after his phone call and suspected the worst. It was a precaution - I have just been in the police for a week and I'd rather take vital steps to prevent myself potentially being shot. Thank the British people and goverment for accepting that guns are wrong and dangerous therefore tough laws re guns.

It is in Australia? But you live near it It was near Manchester


I'm confused

I should have frased it better - it has reached the Australian media.

The one he wasn't carrying...



But he wasn't. A target that's not moving the whole time you're waiting for the armed police should have been a sign that it wasn't a person holding a gun, too.

I don't know why you're picking a fight with British gun laws. The police officer acted responsibly. Only a week or two ago a police officer in Shrewsbury (where my parents live) was shot on the doorstep while attending a domestic. And that doesn't happen in the UK often. Why are you blaming this officer for edging on the side of caution?

He's not. He's just pointing out, as I said before, that an increased fear of guns caused the officer to react in a way that was completely unnecessary given the situation. Caution is good. Call for back-up fine. Then size up the situation and suck it up when you are wrong. It's ok to be wrong, but over-reacting and then continuing to act like a dick head afterwards makes matters worse. It should have only taken moments after they detained the home owner to realize that the only other thing in the house wielding a gun was a doll. It seems to me that more focus was on the gun than the person wielding it. Which is quite the problem if you ask me

Have to ?
Did he understand English ? Was he running, or did someone just make this up afterwards to make it ok for an unarmed civilian to be executed ?

That's one version of events, but there are others.



Exactly. And in view of what happened with this, it seems only right and proper that the officers involved are disciplined and / or sacked. Which of course is unlikely but you never know.

I think you are missing the point. Of course the focus was on the gun because hand guns are illegal in this country. Anyone seen with one would automatically be breaking the law and would be presumed to be up to no good. I don't see anything wrong with what happened. The police officer thought he saw a gun, called for back-up and arrested the guy. Sounds like standard procedure and seems sensible. If mistakes were made then at least they took the cautious route. Apologies should be made and the situation should be finished. Understandably the man was upset but they had to be certain. No one was hurt.

Actually, I think you are missing my point. Yes, especially given that guns are pretty much illegal in your country, anyone notice wielding a weapon should be presumed up to no good. From what it sounds, the officers followed the proper protocol for a person wielding a weapon. Even initially detaining the man was ok to a certain point because for all they know he ditched the gun when they knocked down the door. That's not the problem. The problem began when the entire focus of the arrest was to the gun being there, not the person wielding it. After they detained the man, they were still harassing him about the gun. They even detained him for 13 hours when even a short sweep of the house would have turned up the doll pictured above. I'm sure they even tore up the man's house in order to find a gun that never existed. All of this because they were more focused on the gun rather than the person wielding it. If they had taken the time to speak with the man before simply throwing him in the slammer for a crime he never committed and not ignoring his claims that they "had the wrong house", none of this would have gotten to the point of embarrassment.

Anyway, erring on the side of caution is fine and mistakes happen. The thing I find most disturbing is the treatment of the man even after they "finally" discovered the doll. Instead of taking the hit, apologizing immediately for the misunderstanding, and releasing the man, the story makes it appear as if they continued to detain and ridicule the man and officer. That is just plain ridiculous.

I agree with the Spokeswoman. By not answering the door you're not co-operating and the police then need to take more action. Sure, they've noticed the doll but because he did not co-operate suspicion arises and I assume they would need to search the house and properly interrogate the man to ensure that everything was on the level - And it's hard to tell how much time this would require.

Yes, he's been through hell and thoroughly deserves an apology, but taking the necessary precautions was the right move.

Digi: It seems we're going to go in circles here. The problem did begin because of the gun because there should be no gun in the first place. It was their job to be thorough when searching for the gun because one officer believe there was one. You seem to be suggesting that just because the resident of the house said there was no gun they should simply take his word for it. That is naive as you will know police officers come across people who lie all the time to avoid being penalised. The officers had to be thorough.

Another thing, what if the police officer really did see a gun and it just happens to be a coincidence there is a Lara Croft dummy in the house? You and I don't know whether it's a real gun that was seen or not. There is nothing conclusive from the media reports.

I posted a reply to this earlier, and it didn't appear - so either my internet is being annoying again, or I'm in the Mod Queue

I resent your implications within this post to be honest MF. It seems like you're launching a personal attack on 'us' "U.K.ers..." because of the actions of one our police officers who was doing his/her job! We have strict gun control policies here in the UK, it suits our way of life, and our nation and because of that we have less homicides of any nature per capita, than you have gun homicides, per capita. We're happy with how that works, and we're accepting that mistakes occasionally happen - although obviously we'd rather they prevented them.

I'm sure your police force isn't infalliable either. Do you remember the UCLA Police Force tasering a student fairly recently? Or is that O.K?

Indeed, say the police walk into the house and spot a doll holding a gun, assume that's it so walk out. 24 hours later the guy walks into Manchester University and shoots dead 20+ students. Whose held responsible then?

Anyone can use a single case study to demonstrate the silliness of a particular law. Laws can never account for every single case of every single human being that might happen. The argument comes down to what results overall. Using allegorical evidence is hardly the cornerstone of a good argument. For every case study like this from Britain I'm sure its possible to find one for American gun laws.

It's because I am.

Every story that pops up over here about someone dying or being hurt from a gun related incident, a lot of you come in saying that we need stricter rules and regulations, and that it will solve our problems. Well, it could (as we've stated in the other spots on this forum that the idea was brought up), or it can lead to things like this. People being arrested for half a day because of a plastic figure.

Precautionary actions are fine, but you don't think this was excessive?

That's the point I'm raising. I never said our system was infallible, but from a large amount of reples to other threads that focus on gun violence in the US, we're led to believe that yours is.

Whereas in the US, you just need to ask for a cop's ID.

No-one has ever said the UK system is infallible. It isn't. We've had a mass shooting, back in the mid-90's. We've had other gun incidents since. We aren't saying use our system, and your problems are over. We're saying our system results in fewer deaths, and it works for us and our situation.

Like the example Rikki pointed out, I'm sure we could find a lot more examples due to US police incompetence. We do not need cops blazing round with handguns everywhere to keep peace and security all the time, and it works. Over here if you see an armed officer wondering the streets of London they are not as approachable, in comparison to someone who is unarmed.

Also, why are you stereotyping all UK people on this forum into one group? It's immature and offensive to some. People are different, so you cannot talk from the point of view of your whole country; many believe there should be stricter laws and many believe if that if everyone on the VT campus had a gun not as many would have died. Everyone is entitled to different opinions, and just because they may conflict to your own does not mean that they're wrong.

As I stated before, personally your system is going to be due to heavy criticism because of recent events, but that does not mean to say it does not work in the US. Personally I'm for leaving the US system as it currently is.

No we don't, we seem to leave the many thousands of other stories each year be, because there's so many of them each day. That is what a lot of us are getting at.

The US can't solve the problem with the vast amount of people dying daily due to guns because in the USA, guns are your right but here in the U.K guns are wrong hence why we have media coverage over the littliest of gun incidents because it's not usual here and that's why we have a better chance of walking down our streets without the high risk of being shot at. In the US if there is a mental person who is not known to the authorities and decides to make theirself known, they would probally be shot dead - that is not right at all.

Some of you do. For those that felt 'grouped into the title' and 'stereotyped' oh well. It was a blanket statement to get attention, and jab those that think absolute gun control is the answer to everything that goes wrong over here.

Exactly. I think your gun control is too strict, and if it were more lax something like this situation would not have happened. Why am I catching so much flack over posting my opinion?

Because it's different than most of yours?


So I can't do the same thing? I see something that jumps out at me, I can't post it because so many other things are going wrong daily?

Well if you would like an intellectual debate I suggest not using 'jabs' to gain attention, and instead start a spark by creating a topic arguing your own opinion. You're not getting flack because of your position, you're getting it because of your approach to a debate.

I think we all respect each others opinions, however different they may be.

Nope, it's because you're being immature, and a pain in the arse for the sake of it - and trying to prove a point. You're fighting a losing battle here, because you aren't backing up your arguement with any facts, statistics or anything other than a chip on your shoulder.

I'm afraid I don't comprehend your logic that if gun controls were less strict, police would somehow be more blasé about a suspect holding a gun at them, despite it turning out to be a model. So what, if police get called to a house in the US, and they see the outline of someone holding a gun at them, they walk off? Or would they go and investigate possibly resulting in the arrest of the homeowner, until it was sorted out?

The two points seem completely at odds to each other. And despite that, we were discussing a proven trend in the US, you're trying to pin an argument on a single incident.

Instead we would have hundreds of deaths caused by gun crime each year.

No way. I do not want more people getting hold of guns in this country. The fewer, the better.

In any case I think your argument in this particular situation is weak. This could just as easily have happened in the US if instead of a gun, there was a dummy holding an illegal weapon - say a rocket launcher. So should then the US relax rules over who can buy rocket launchers?

I guess we are accustomed to our way of life. Many Americans feel safe carrying guns but I would personally feel very uneasy having one around with me. It just seems extreme.

Of course you can, but to say something as ridiculous as all of us posting at every gun incident is a bit silly. There will have been hundreds of gun incidents in the US since this whole argument started up and we don't all jump at every chance. Just as you've done with this entire topic you've chosen one point, one case and tried to turn your whole argument on that which is naive.

As many others have said here we think our gun control suits the UK and we do not want to see it more lax as we see guns in a very bad light. We don't feel that we need them for protection or hunting or to overthrow our government (hah!) or any other reason for that matter. That seems like very safe, sound and logical reasoning to the majority of British people.

There was no intention of this turning into a debate, discussion or anything else along those lines. It was meant as a jab, nothing more, nothing less. If I need to come up with statistics every time I want to have a little fun around here it's going to get boring quick.

There is nothing fun in insulting the British because we have reasonable gun laws which save lifes.

Well I think Metal Frog just proved he's immature. If you find it boring, you know where to not go!

So you're admitting to being pathetic, immature AND and a troll?

Which makes it even worse than if you'd actually been trying to prove a point. I didn't realise gun control was such a "fun" topic, anyway.

Well done for proving your immaturity.

Uh, I think this topic is only going one way now, and it appears to be downwards, so I think we'll call it a day...