Why are bullet proof vests so popular in Britain?

[Jerk]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2298593/Bulletproof-fashion-for-London%27s-super-rich.html

Why would they need bullet-proof vests when guns are strictly prohibited?:confused:




They are designed for the super-rich businessman who has everything and is afraid of everyone. Bulletproof leather jackets, which mix style with a reassuring lining of body armour, are going on sale in Britain.


And if all other security fails, there is always the panic room – a secure room with fitted steel-plated walls and reinforced doors where a family can find refuge should an intruder make it into the house. The rooms are increasingly popular among Premiership footballers, celebrities and businessmen who travel a lot, according to a security consultant.

I guess they think that's the best thing to do in a situation where you legally can NOT defend your family. What about the middle class and poor?

[Vaevictis]

Because guns aren't strictly prohibited in Britain.

[StoopTroup]

Because none of them have ever been shot in the head?

[Scott D]

because they are afraid of everyone :P

In other news, sales of Bulletproof cars are going up in Brazil.

[Jerk]

Because guns aren't strictly prohibited in Britain.
Oh...yes they are. You might get permission for a single shot rifle or an over/under bird gun. but that's about it. And you have no right to shoot an intruder in your own home.

[Vaevictis]

Oh...yes they are. You might get permission for a single shot rifle or an over/under bird gun. but that's about it. And you have no right to shoot an intruder in your own home.

(1) Single shot and over/under bird guns are firearms. Hence, firearms are not strictly prohibited.
(2) You can get more than that (albeit not much more) with a firearms certificate. (eg, it's possible to get semi-automatic rifles and shotguns with more than 2+1 configuration with one of these). You have to present justification -- eg, be involved in a hunting activity or sport that requires/benefits from it.
(3) Handguns are, in fact, completely forbidden without a license that is basically unobtainable by the general public.

[yermom]

they are lucky they can still have knives in the kitchen...

the idea that they can't defend themselves vs an intruder boggles the mind.

[Jerk]

(1) Single shot and over/under bird guns are firearms. Hence, firearms are not strictly prohibited.
(2) You can get more than that (albeit not much more) with a firearms certificate. (eg, it's possible to get semi-automatic rifles and shotguns with more than 2+1 configuration with one of these). You have to present justification -- eg, be involved in a hunting activity or sport that requires/benefits from it.
(3) Handguns are, in fact, completely forbidden without a license that is basically unobtainable by the general public.

The point is that people are using firearms over there to kill each other that are unattainable by the public.

And the other point is that there is no justification to defend yourself.

[StoopTroup]

Do they make bullet-proof shoes for the womenz?

[Vaevictis]

the idea that they can't defend themselves vs an intruder boggles the mind.

The law may not officially recognize it, but de facto, you can.

There was an issue awhile ago where somebody broke into some guy's house, the homeowner shot and killed the guy, and the local prosecutor filed charges. He then had to withdraw them after all the public outrage that was forthcoming.

Also, just like over here, you have trial by jury, and it's well established in the common law that the jury can return whatever the hell verdict it likes and that you can remind the jury of this fact. (Unlike over here, where it's established that the jury can return whatever the hell verdict it likes, but in many jurisdictions you can't remind them of that fact, and a judge can remove a juror that is believed to be intent on nullifying.)

Admittedly, it's dicier over there, but it's not quite as rough as some people like to make it.

[yermom]

i'm just saying that it's actually against the law. i would hope that common sense would prevail, but it's still pretty dumb

[Vaevictis]

i'm just saying that it's actually against the law. i would hope that common sense would prevail, but it's still pretty dumb

I fully agree with that.

[StoopTroup]

Us Irish are OK with the Brits Laws.

[MR2-Sooner86]

(1) Single shot and over/under bird guns are firearms. Hence, firearms are not strictly prohibited.
(2) You can get more than that (albeit not much more) with a firearms certificate. (eg, it's possible to get semi-automatic rifles and shotguns with more than 2+1 configuration with one of these). You have to present justification -- eg, be involved in a hunting activity or sport that requires/benefits from it.
(3) Handguns are, in fact, completely forbidden without a license that is basically unobtainable by the general public.

You forgot to add that if you don't take your gun to the shooting range to use it they can legally take it away as you aren't using it "the right way" and they have suspicion you're using it in other ways.

My friend in England told me the government has pretty much taken the guns away. Sure you can get a little but he said it's a joke. There are many people there with handguns he told me. He said even though most things are banned it's very easy to get almost any gun you want if you have "the right connections".

[Vaevictis]

You forgot to add that if you don't take your gun to the shooting range to use it they can legally take it away as you aren't using it "the right way" and they have suspicion you're using it in other ways.

I didn't forget to add it, it just wasn't pertinent to debunking Jerk's assertion that guns are strictly prohibited.

[shaun4411]

itd be cool to ammend their law to allow firearms soley within the confines of one's home. that's it. that would work! and the process by which to get a gun would be fairly rigorous.

[S008NER]

they are lucky they can still have knives in the kitchen...

the idea that they can't defend themselves vs an intruder boggles the mind.


Knives are next..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1572908/Is-Britain-in-the-grip-of-a-knife-crime-epidemic.html

[shaun4411]

people who know karate next...

[StoopTroup]

I thought bullet-proof vests could stop knives.

[jkjsooner]

The point is that people are using firearms over there to kill each other that are unattainable by the public.

And the other point is that there is no justification to defend yourself.

Just a reminder that their murder rate with firearms is miniscule compared to our's. We should be the ones buying the vests.

And, by the way, the vests probably are not worn around the house. We're talking about an attack on a public figure - generally the type of thing that happens too fast to make your own gun very useful. And we're probably also talking about paranoia considering their low murder rates.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I'm guessing it is to thwart the myriad of knife attacks that have been occuring there. They are thinking of baning certain size knives.

[shaun4411]

they arent banning all kinves! just those that could possibly hurt someone.

[OUDoc]

http://www.freewebs.com/1428crystallake/bat3.jpg

[shaun4411]

tht looks like a prison bat

[yermom]

I'm guessing it is to thwart the myriad of knife attacks that have been occuring there. They are thinking of baning certain size knives.

further bans on more certain sized knives

i was hearing talk about banning certain shapes and sizes of kitchen knives

of course places like California and Chicago can get pretty restrictive as well