Gun lighter man lawfully killed

[Pert_UK]

"A verdict of lawful killing has been returned by the jury in the inquest of a man shot dead by police while carrying a lighter shaped like a gun.

Derek Bennett, 29, was hit four times by two marksmen in Brixton, south London, on 16 July 2001. The officers said they thought the gun was real...

He died after armed officers opened fire when he grabbed John Knightly, 53, and held the "weapon" to his head. The Inner South London inquest heard Mr Knightly wriggled free at which point Mr Bennett turned the novelty lighter on police and tried to take cover behind a pillar as they fired six shots at him.

Doctors had recommended the former psychiatric patient be committed to a mental hospital under the Mental Health Act just a week earlier."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4098351.stm

I believe that the UK is currently banning replica firearms in order to stop this sort of thing happening.....Not sure how I feel about that really - in this sort of case, although the man's mental illness makes it a tragedy, I don't really think that you could expect any other result.

[jody]

1. What would have happened to a private citizen if they used a club

to kill the person?

[Pert_UK]

2. Depends...

If they were defending themselves it would be fine. It would be somewhat more complicated if a random bystander got themselves involved and bashed the guy's head in.

Of course, there would be serious questions asked about what somebody was doing wandering around with a club in their pocket.....

[jody]

3. "Wandering around with a club in their pocket" to exercise their

inalienable right to defend self and protect property.

[JeebusB]

4. The UK recognizes no such right. n/t

.

[jody]

6. Are you certain that England does not recognize a person's right

to defend her/his life?

That's a different question from recognizing a right to own a firearm.

[iverglas]

8. oh no!

And the moon is made of green cheese, once again!

Maybe, if I expect some gentle readers to get the point, I really should start making statements that are not merely as false, but also as insulting, as the statement responded to.

How 'bout:
"The UK recognizes no such right."
Yeah, and JeebusB is a big old gurl!

Oh darn, that may be insulting ... but it can't be false, given how JeebusB's profile used to say just that ...

Maybe: yeah, and yanks are all morans ... mororns ... whatever.

Whatever. I'll prove/retract mine just as soon as JeebusB proves/retracts his ... hers ... whatever ...

[iverglas]

7. brawk

Inalienable right to defend self and protect property.
Brawk.
Inalienable right to defend self and protect property.
Jody wanna cracker?

http://www.jabberwacky.com/
(Nope, I don't make this stuff up. Jabberwacky initiates the conversations; the "--" is me)

What do you think about the California recall election?
-- but what about the San Francisco handgun ban??
Very clever. I almost thought you were a person.

But no, I was just the inalienable-right-to-defend-self-and-property bot, talking to another bot.


Who is this "self" that "they" are always wanting to defend, anyhow?

And when did "inalienable" come to mean "not subject to limitation, in the public interest, on acts purportedly carried out in the exercise of"?

And if it did come to mean that without my noticing, how come ya can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre??

"Inalienable" means incapable of being sold, transferred, relinquished -- or bought, or stolen, or expropriated.

It does NOT mean not to limitation on the exercise of. Somebody get Jody a dictionary.

[Pert_UK]

28. It's crazy, I know.....

but in the UK we've decided that we're the kind of society where we don't really want each other wandering round armed to the teeth. We like living in a society where one doesn't feel the need to arm oneself before leaving the house, and as such certain weapons are banned entirely, others can't be carried unless you have a good reason.

In the UK, a good reason for carrying a knife is that you are reasonably likely to require it in order to perform some duty (e.g. fishing, camping, lending it to a friend etc.).

As such, you could carry a baseball bat down to the park for a game of softball, but you couldn't just generally have one on your person because you'd risk being charged with carrying an offensive weapon.

Moreover, you've done that thing again haven't you? The one where you assume that bearing arms / self-defense actually IS an inalienable right, it's just that some countries such as err......well most of them actually, somehow manage to overlook this "self-evident" right.

What you're saying is, "This is a right that the UK fails to recognise", whereas the actual case is that the UK doesn't consider bearing arms to be a right. It's not that we're too stupid to see it, we've thought about it and decided that it isn't.

[jody]

38. Pert_UK you make an assertion that begs for an answer. You say

"we've decided that we're the kind of society where we don't really want each other wandering round armed to the teeth."

When and how did UK society actually decide that law abiding UK citizens should not be allowed to keep and bear arms?

If so, then what is the process to change that law and is a simple majority sufficient to allow RKBA to UK citizens?

I assume a revolution like 1776 would not be required to assert a citizens rights.
:hi:

[Pert_UK]

39. Well, it's not as simple as I made out but.......

Essentially yes, the Government did at some point remove an individual's right to walk around armed. Don't know when that was I'm afraid. However, I suppose that the point here is that the way society decides things is by democratically electing a government that most reflects its views. Certainly this isn't perfect, but it's the best way we have and it's all that we have.

UK citizens can still keep some arms (non-auto shotguns, single shot hunting rifles IIRC) and use them in the pursuit of sport. However, since a couple of massacres occurred (Hungerford and Dunblane) in which legally held weapons were used to kill a large number of innocent people, the vast majority of people came to the conclusion that certain weapons (semi-autos, handguns) represented too large a risk to people in general when in the hands of the public. At least one large petition was started, the media reflected public opinion by calling for a ban and the government responded to events and public opinion by banning handguns and semi-auto weapons.

As per every other law in the UK, in order for it to be overturned it would require either a vote in Parliament, or be ruled illegal. The law would be reversed in Parliament if public opinion swung round to thinking that RKBA was a good idea to such an extent that politicians had to reflect that opinion by enacting a new law to allow and regulate private firearms ownership.

But (and I'll say it again), the "R"KBA isn't a self-evident, inalienable right that we just refuse to recognise, we refuse to recognise that it's a right at all. 99.99999% of the time we don't (as individuals) need guns and we don't want them. If we all had access to them 100% of the time we believe that society overall and people as individuals would be generally more likely to be harmed.

[jody]

40. You say "Essentially yes, the Government did at some point remove

an individual's right to walk around armed." Are the UK people the source of that government's power to restrict RKBA?

If so, cannot the people reserve certain powers to themselves when they grant limited power to their government?

It seems to me that "inalienable" is just another way of identifying powers retained by the people when they grant limited power to a government that they freely form. In that sense, an "inalienable right" is whatever the majority of people believe.

The neat thing about the U.S. experiment with Democracy is that the majority agree that certain rights are off limits to government even though only a minority of our citizens actually exercise those rights.

A few of our state constitutions make such statements in their declarations of rights, e.g.
Alabama Constitution
QUOTE
That all men are equally free and independent; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
AND
That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.
UNQUOTE

[iverglas]

41. too bad more people don't take Van23's advice

http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html
European Convention on Human Rights

http://www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm
Human Rights Act 1997 (UK)

Read 'em.

Are the UK people the source of that government's power to restrict RKBA?

If so, cannot the people reserve certain powers to themselves when they grant limited power to their government?

Brawk.

What the fuck is this supposed to mean?

I think I'll reserve the power to print currency. Anybody else?

The neat thing about the U.S. experiment with Democracy is that the majority agree that certain rights are off limits to government even though only a minority of our citizens actually exercise those rights.

The really neat thing about the US experiment with constitutional government is that it wasn't anything new, it was just a variation on, and arguably an improvement on, stuff that had already been done. Like, some guys in a bit of eastern North America invented freedom of speech, and limits on the powers of government to interfere in the exercise of it, in 17-something-or-other. I don't think.

The neat thing about the rest of the world is that we didn't come to a dead stop in the 18th century and mummify our societies; instead, we continued the process, so that now a bunch of us have a bunch more rights than people in the US do. *And* functioning liberal / social democracies.

I just find myself unable to figure out what is being said most of the time in situations like this. "Rights are off limits to government"? That doesn't even make a stitch of sense. Particularly in the mouth of someone in a jurisdiction where the state routinely violates the right to life, just for starters, of members of the society in question.

If "everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate", what's all that death penalty stuff? Not to mention laws against perjury and advertising snake oil to cure cancer ...

I mean, *I* know what they are (all except that death penalty one). They are justified limitations on the exercises of the rights in question, the rights themselves remaining intact. Just like most laws are. Including laws governing the possession and use of firearms.

Whatever. Brawk. Inalienable right to defend self and protect property. I'm still waiting for my introduction to Mr./Ms. Self.

[Pert_UK]

42. Well, yes, no and maybe.....

Yes, the UK people are the government's source of power.

"If so, cannot the people reserve certain powers to themselves when they grant limited power to their government?" - no, not really......and I don't really see how it's possible or practical to do so. How do the "people" decide on what is and isn't an inalienable right? They don't, surely a reasonably small number of selected individuals make that decision, which seems (to me at any rate) to be effectively selecting people to decide what the elected people can or can't do.

My government recognises the UN Declaration of Human Rights - it didn't require an armed population to force it to do this, this process didn't require that the people (or the people's selected group) formed this list of untouchable rights and then handed over power to another group of elected officials with the caveat that they couldn't infringe these rights.

"The neat thing about the U.S. experiment with Democracy is that the majority agree that certain rights are off limits to government even though only a minority of our citizens actually exercise those rights." - well maybe, but that's not really the point (for me at any rate). For example, IMHO freedom of worship should be maintained even if only a tiny minority of people were actually religious and exercised that right. What I'm arguing for here is that owning a gun shouldn't be considered in the same way.

What I'm basically saying is, IMHO, something that isn't a right has somehow sneaked into the BoR or the 2nd Amendment due to a number of reasons (most probably that it seemed sensible and proper in that historical context, and the authors didn't forsee a situation when it wouldn't be sensible and proper).

In the UK the majority agree that certain rights are off limits to government even though only a minority of our citizens actually exercise those rights. But in the UK the majority don't see how guns are even vaguely relevant to a discussion of human rights. In the UK we elect the people who we think best represent our views (god help us) and let them get on with it....our track record is that Governments have actually improved the safeguards against people's rights being abused, for example by signing up to the UN declaration of human rights, setting up the Data Protection Act, installing standards in public office and investigations, and only last week the Law Lords were able to tell the government to change some legislation that because it did actually infringe the human rights of about 10 people (purely on a technicality).........

So in conclusion, I think you're wrong to assume that necessarily you have to limit what governments can and can't do up front.....apart from anything else, surely if the government would just trample all over human rights without giving a shit if it were so inclined? I'm not convinced that the BoR gives you any more protection than I've got enshrined in the laws of the UK.

I'm not saying that the BoR was a bad idea, I'm just saying that I don't believe it is 100% necessary to ensure good government, or that it does necessarily protect the public from abuses. I also fail to see how you get to the BoR or similar without the public delegating their power to another group to form the BoR, which is essentially losing the direct connection between the people and the BoR anyway.

[jody]

43. You cover a variety of issues but one statement bothers me. You said

"I think you're wrong to assume that necessarily you have to limit what governments can and can't do up front." I'm not sure what statement I made that you interpret as that assumption but it was not my intent.

You say "IMHO freedom of worship should be maintained even if only a tiny minority of people were actually religious and exercised that right." I agree but that's just two opinions, however when that number grows above a majority, then the people can tell government to keep its nose out of religion.

It seems to me that if the people are the source of all government power, then when a government is formed that automatically includes a decision to grant all or less than all the people's power to the government. That is a result of asserting that all power resides in the people.

We can discuss what power or rights are retained by the people but isn't that one of the factors that defines a particular group, e.g. a society that chooses to be a theocracy or one that decides each citizen will be allowed to bear arms to defend self and property.

I've got to go now to visit my family. I'll catch up later.

[enfield collector]

5. "is that a club in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?"

[Jack_DeLeon]

9. I dont exactly see any problem here...

[iverglas]

10. nah, one more dead crazy guy

... who would perhaps still be alive if stupid, pointless, unneeded objects like cigarette lighters that appear to be functional firearms, to a careful and experienced observer at a small distance, were not on sale.

Who cares?

Not a "liberal", certainly.

[Retired AF Dem]

12. I have no use for crazy guys

Or are they morons? (see I can spell) I was walking out of a Walmart about two months ago carrying $440,000 and change when some moron outside the store yelled at me to "stick them up" and was pointing something at me (turned out to be a wrench) He must of thought it was very funny until he was looking down the barrel of my .45. I doubt he knew how close he came to getting shot. He also didn't think it was funny when my driver called the police and he was arrested for attempted armed robbery. There are so many pro abortion poster people out there and in my job I meet them everyday.

[Jack_DeLeon]

13. I agree with you...

We have a population problem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2841021

So why worry about what the crazies and the morons do to get themselves killed.

[iverglas]

14. so what the fuck was that all about?

Who knows? Who cares?

Not I.

[Retired AF Dem]

21. Kind of like

bringing up speed limits and autobahns on a gun control forum. You don't care? who really cares that you don't care? Not I.

[iverglas]

23. not at all alike

"Kind of like
bringing up speed limits and autobahns on a gun control forum."

You see, an incident involving a stupid and/or reckless and/or antisocial individual wielding a wrench, as recounted by you, is a very faulty analogy indeed for an incident involving a mentally ill individual wielding an item designed to look exactly like a functional firearm, as recounted in the post that is the subject of this thread.

If you are still unable to grasp the concept of reasoning by analogy, or of the ways in which speed limits are analogous to limits on the use of firearms as matters of public policy (and the actions of a stupid / reckless / antisocial individual are not analogous to the actions of a mentally ill individual), do let me know. Meanwhile, your attempt to reason by analogy (leaving me with the impression that you do know what reasoning by analogy is) falls quite flat.

[iverglas]

15. oh, btw

some moron outside the store yelled at me to "stick them up" and was pointing something at me (turned out to be a wrench) He must of thought it was very funny until he was looking down the barrel of my .45.

I guess we've found our poster child for the responsible, trustworthy, perspicacious concealed firearm carrier.

Somebody points a wrench at you, pull your pistol. No, surely that never happens ...

[Retired AF Dem]

19. The light bulb kind of reminds me of the one over Beavis and Buttheads hea

Armored truck guard walks out of a store carrying a large sum of money when some moron yells stick them up while pointing a metallic object at him. What would you have done, kiss him? Concealed carry has nothing to do with this since the pistol is carried in the open.

[iverglas]

22. gosh

"Armored truck guard walks out of a store carrying a large sum of money ..."

Somehow I missed that bit of info in the original message.

"... when some moron yells stick them up while pointing a metallic object at him."

I dunno. If someone is already pointing a firearm at one, isn't reaching for one's own firearm kinda likely to get one shot? Didn't that make it rather an odd thing to do? Might I surmise that the firearm was pulled after it was realized that the thing in the other party's hand was not a firearm? If not, and given how going for it would seem to have been precisely what would have got one shot had the wrench been a firearm, how do I interpret this tale as one likely to inspire confidence in me that people who carry firearms around do not make silly mistakes under pressure?

What is the purpose for which you carry a firearm on the job? I know what it is where I'm at:

FIREARMS ACT
Authorizations to Carry Restricted Firearms and Certain Handguns Regulations

PART 1
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS RESTRICTED FIREARMS OR
PROHIBITED HANDGUNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 20 OF THE ACT

... Lawful Profession or Occupation

3. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation are where

(a) the individual's principal activity is the handling, transportation or protection of cash, negotiable instruments or other goods of substantial value, and firearms are required for the purpose of protecting his or her life or the lives of other individuals in the course of that handling, transportation or protection activity; ...

Do you carry your firearm to protect your/others' life/lives? Or do you carry it to protect the property you are guarding? That is, are you authorized to cause the injury or death of a person solely in order to prevent the loss of property?

I would infer from your description of drawing your firearm in response to someone yelling at you and pointing something at you that you at least think that you are authorized to injure or kill someone in order to prevent the loss of property, given how foolish it seems to be to draw a firearm while someone is pointing (what you think is) a firearm at you if the purpose is to protect your life.

In any event, you apparently had a point when you wrote that post:

"I have no use for crazy guys
Or are they morons?"

I'm not entirely sure what it was, since there is a large difference between "crazy guys" and "morons". The opening post was about a "crazy guy". The individual whose actions you described seemed rather clearly to have been a "moron". (I dunno; was he found unfit to stand trial? Not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect?) So what did your post have to do with the topic of discussion?

And what might your feelings about morons have to do with the notion that crazy guys are deserving of protection, and that one arguably legitimate way of protecting them is to prohibit the sale of pointless items designed to look like functional firearms?

Who knows, eh?

[Retired AF Dem]

25. I have heard this before

I carry a firearm to prevent or stop an attack on myself. We do not carry firearms to protect the money. I figure someone with your knowledge, experience and training would know this.

[iverglas]

26. so what did you miss this time?

"I carry a firearm to prevent or stop an attack on myself. We do not carry firearms to protect the money. I figure someone with your knowledge, experience and training would know this."

That was in response to:

What is the purpose for which you carry a firearm on the job? I know what it is where I'm at: <followed by an excerpt from the law that states what it is where I'm at>

I plainly did know what the purpose for which people who guard large amounts of money carry firearms is where I'm at. So oh look, you were right.

As far as what the law is where you're at -- well, first I'd have to know where you're at, I think. How on earth could I know why you carry a firearm if I don't know where on earth you are? There are Walmarts everywhere.

I have learned that these things may vary. Where I'm at, for instance, using force that causes injury or death is only justified to repel an assault, and then only so long as reasonable and necessary force is used, etc. etc. That isn't the case where some people here are at; if they shoot a burglar on sight, their act is regarded, prima facie, as justified. So I did the gosh-darned sensible thing. I ASKED.

So we've established why you carry the firearm. If only we'd established why you pointed it at someone. If he'd really been holding a firearm himself, wouldn't you likely have been bleeding?

[Billy Ruffian]

20. look up some US laws on the permitted use of deadly force

RetiredAFDem (if I'm getting the attribution correct) was threatened with imminent harm. Quite justified in drawing his weapon. If the goblin had continued his advance, shooting would also have been justified. (based on the description of the incident only)

[iverglas]

24. how's about you do it

And then substantiate your own statement. Asking me to do your work for you doesn't quite cut it.

You could always just try relating your statement to what I said. I'm failing to see a relationship, myself.

You're probably not getting the point, so I'll help you.

Whether someone used a firearm in a manner that a responsible, trustworthy, perspicacious individual would use a firearm is not the same as whether s/he was justified in using it.

[MrSandman]

16. Genuine DGU with no shots fired?..nt

[Pert_UK]

29. Cool, yeah, so let's just send them off to camps, eh?

What about kids? Any use for them? How about if a kid decided to point one of these at a cop and got shot for it (as I believe happened not so long ago in the US)?

Tell you what, why don't you let us know which types of people you DO have a use for?

[Retired AF Dem]

30. You just dont understand my mindset

This young woman is much better at explaining on how people in my job think.
http://www.storywrite.com/Story/865237

[iverglas]

31. mmmmm ... nope

That was a pretty piss poor explanation, is about all I can say.

A woman with a lousy driving record, who now says "I became a person who cannot stand people" and goes on to demonstrate what an obnoxious and unpleasant person was apparently lurking beneath her mild-mannered retail clerk exterior, drives an armoured truck and carries firearms. Yup, that's a mindset I want to understand. (Oh, and a woman who treats another woman badly is not "sexist", a journalism graduate might be expected to know. But it's hardly surprising to find a woman with her evident mindset dissing other women herself.)

And what any of it has to do with the duty of protection owed to mentally ill individuals, I still haven't figured out.

Nobody was blaming the cops who shot the guy with the handgun-looking lighter, I assume you've noticed. Nobody was saying they had a poor mindset, or shouldn't have had firearms.

The point is that making handgun-looking lighters available to people who are mentally ill and at risk of using them in a manner that causes other people to, quite reasonably and justifiably, shoot them, is a breach of the duty of protection we owe them. It is also a breach of the duty of protection that we, collectively, owe every other member of the public at large, since many other people will be at risk of harm when things like this event occur.

So while I find your mindset obnoxious and unpleasant, I can't think of why it would lead you to oppose restrictions on the sale of handgun-looking lighters. Surely you will be at less risk of needlessly harming someone else (not necessarily the crazy/stupid person who prompted you to fire) if you aren't at risk of facing someone threatening you with a cigarette lighter that looks for all the world like a handgun.

If the individual you described as aiming a wrench at you had been aiming one of those things instead, how might the story have ended? I'm sure you wouldn't give a damn if you had killed him, even if no one more deserving were hurt in the process; but just think of all the forms you would have had to fill out.

[Pert_UK]

33. BEEYOOTEEFULL!

:toast:

Merry Christmas Iverglas, I wish I could be quite so comprehensively dismissive!

P.

[Retired AF Dem]

36. What forms?

I'm not a cop anymore I dont have to fill out any forms. Also there is no debate, the police had no problems with my actions neither did my company. When it comes to how I respond to situations on the street what I dont need is advice from a one time member of the victims are us we deliver club.

[Pert_UK]

37. I think Iverglas is just puzzled by the fact that.......

both you and the author admit that a specific job has turned you (understandably) into intolerant individuals who find the general public to be little more than inconveniences, and that therefore in your opinion it doesn't matter if the mentally ill get killed if they appear to pose a threat to you.

Given that you're a self-confessed intolerant person, driven there by your work, wouldn't it make MORE sense to question the validity of your own opinions?

Nobody here (as far as I can tell) is suggesting that police shouldn't have shot that mentally ill guy in that specific situation. Most people are saying that this is because the police thought he posed a genuine threat, and others are debating how sensible it is to allow the mentally ill access to convincing replicas of firearms.

DUers are generally debating this as an understandable tragedy that shouldn't have happened. You seem to be debating it from the standpoint of, "People are assholes, this guy's life means nothing to me so what's the big problem?"

Personally, I don't think this is a useful or appropriate position to take in this debate.

[Retired AF Dem]

44. If people do stupid things

they run the real possibility of getting themselves killed. Hell there is even a web page for these kind of people. What I get tired of is I have a job, it is only a job, I don't do this job to fuck with you, piss you off or make you late for work, I do it to pay my bills and have extra spending money. Just about two hours ago before I typed this I was filling a small ATM in a drug store. The entire time I was filling the machine there is a guy standing right behind me sighing, stomping his foot and making a general nuisance of himself. Finally I handed him a piece of paper and a pen and asked him to write down the address of his work place so on my next day off I could come to his work place to rush him. He got the message and walked away. I don't hate people, but there are so many that annoy me. I don't consider myself an intolerant person, I'm only intolerant toward idiots, and if I'm not mistaken most people are.

[Pert_UK]

46. I'm actually not sure why I'm arguing with you.......

I like the way you write and you do make intelligent points that need to be considered in the debate, and I do actually agree with you that the majority of the general public do seem to be desperately stupid (hence the Bush majority and evangelical Christianity).

I think that if the guy who got killed in this case had merely been a bit of a twat then I wouldn't really have waded in at all, but because he was mentally ill I didn't feel it appropriate to dismiss his death so easily as being purely his own fault, with the availability of replica firearms having nothing to do with it.

Anyway, thanks for your input. Have a good Christmas.

P.

[Retired AF Dem]

47. I know I'm an asshole

wife has been reminding me for thirty years. I also wish you and yours a merry christmas.

[Romulus]

48. *ROFL*

good one - I've got to remember that!

[Retired AF Dem]

45. Iverglas

I think she is one of the brightest and best writers in DU. I know I come off as a illiterate compared to her. I also believe she has forgotten that survival is a basic instinct that overrides all the laws she likes to link to. Survival comes first, then all the legal eagles can Monday morning quarterback afterwords.

[DoNotRefill]

11. They better ban bars of soap too...

and wood....yeah, you can make a replica handgun out of wood, too...

[iverglas]

17. y'know, I'm going to have to stop being disappointed

These little inanities seem to be the rule rather than the exception, unfortunately.

Anybody been killed while committing a crime or act of violence with a bar of soap or piece of wood that s/he intended to look, and that did look, like a functional firearm, lately?

[DoNotRefill]

18. Nope...

but history is rife with cases where crimes were committed with "look-alike" guns that were made out of things like soap carved to look like a gun and then coated with shoe polish.

[Pert_UK]

27. Are you deliberately trying to look as stupid as possible?

I mean, really...........

This is equivalent to suggesting that anyone who wants to ban guns must therefore want to ban metal, because guns are made out of metal.

Banning something that looks like a gun does not mean that you ban anything that can be made to look like a gun.

[Mark H]

32. Suicide by cop.

[Pert_UK]

34. Thanks for your helpful contribution to the debate

It's important that we don't miss this side of the story....

:eyes:

P.

[iverglas]

35. Phew

I just couldn't think of a suitable response in this case, ponder as I might.

Lucky you happened along when you did ...