Should firearms be legalised in the UK for householders' protection and Zombie attacks?

Should firearms be legalised in the UK for householders' protection and Zombie attacks?

To buy a shotgun in Britain you need to hold a Shotgun Certificate, and to buy a rifle you need to hold a Fire Arm Certificate.

Rules for Fire Arm Certificate, etc: http://www.marplerifleandpistolclub.org.uk/general/gunlaw.htm

There has long been a debate in the UK about the rights of the householder in cases where a persons property is being burgled.
More recently judges seem to be letting off householders who give burglars a bit of a beating.

We have also had the case of Tony Martin. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3087003.stm
A case which seemed to divide opinion amongst most people.



Movies like '28 Days Later', and 'Zombieland', also compound peoples fears about Zombies which although mostly unfounded cannot be totally dismissed. Were such an attack to take place it is doubtful that most members of the general public in the UK would be able to cope with a full scale Zombie attack.

As such is it about time that we reviewed gun law and gun ownership in Britain and Northern Ireland, as a deterrent against criminality and zombie flesh eating, were such a situation ever to arise?

Unless you're my father-in-law and you can just keep on shooting for days on an end or more with all the guns and ammunition you've got then a gun isn't going to help you much against the zombie attack.

I would be content with increased rights for house owners to defend but the gun thing would have us ending up like the ex_colonies across the pond.

As one a home owner in THE ex-colony (USA)...I say buy as much ammo, magazines to fit the handguns & carbines of your choice. Remember, muzzle safety, and practice, practice, practice!!! At least you can send a few zombies to hell before they get ya'.

Troy, I worry about you. Zombie attacks, no less.

On a more serious note: Here in the ex-colonies the debate rages about whether owning a firearm offers real protection, or is more likely to put a stolen gun in the hands of criminals. On the one hand, the NRA has a point when they say that depending on the police for your protection won't do much good when the bad guys are in your house. By the time the police arrive, the dirty deed is dood and all they can really do is write reports and maybe catch the offender. Even if they catch the bad guy it might not do you much good if you're already dead. If you had a gun, the theory goes, you might at least have a chance to defend yourself. (Maybe, maybe not. If the bad guy already has his gun leveled on you, that would be a mighty bad time to go for your gun.)

On the other hand, the gun-control types make the argument that there's already a surplus of firearms in the street, and your buying another one won't improve matters much in that department.

Personally, I could favor a type of gun control. Teach people how to aim the things, and how to make sure what you're aiming at is something you really want to destroy. Make gangmembers attend these classes too, it might help cut down on the collateral damage when they go gunning for each other. As it is now, some of these goofs shoot like a lawn sprinkler and God only knows where their bullets will go.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Personally, I could favor a type of gun control. Teach people how to aim the things, and how to make sure what you're aiming at is something you really want to destroy. Make gangmembers attend these classes too, it might help cut down on the collateral damage when they go gunning for each other. As it is now, some of these goofs shoot like a lawn sprinkler and God only knows where their bullets will go.

I agree 100%. IIRC in most states guns that aren't hunting rifles have to be registered and there are varying legal hoops to jump through already, so criminals won't use guns they legally own and making it harder to legally buy guns isn't going to have any impact. On the other hand, some sort of proof of competence is already required for other (potentially) lethal things like, for example, cars. Should be the same with guns. All guns.

Also, Troy, using the impeding zombie apocalypse as an argument to loosen gun control is quite likely to backfire ( pun? what pun? )

I believe that gun laws in the UK are overly strict. The vast majority of gun crime is carried out by illegal weapons and since the further restrictions imposed, gun crime has increased.
The present zombie threat is not yet clear but I would prefer to be proberly armed against it.

Bless some water and turn it into a weapon

How about they first handle the 'stabbing issue'. Older guys wanna shoot and younger ones wanna stab! What has the UK come to?

Originally posted by Acorn15:

I believe that gun laws in the UK are overly strict. The vast majority of gun crime is carried out by illegal weapons and since the further restrictions imposed, gun crime has increased.

Not strict enough in that case, surely?

I suspect we have already had a zombie intake.

One reason the U.S. was given guns because the constitution states that the people have the right to overthrow the government at any time when the government stops serving the interest of the people and people's freedom. It's hard to do that if the government has all of the guns, isn't it?

Gun regulation is required obviously, but a strict "no guns" approach is not right for the U.S. It may be right for some, but not for us.

Regardless of power of the people over government, there is no way we could control the in flow of guns to criminals here. We have a huge border with Mexico, where it's a lot easier to do plenty of illegal things. the UK is surrounded by a giant mote... a little easier to control things.

So, since the UK citizens have a tendency of rolling over for their government and the fact that it's easier to control the in-flow of guns there, maybe it makes more sense for them to not have them.

No such thing as "gun registration" in the USA, you do your NICS check, then fill out your ATF 4473 (if your buying from a FFL), don't forget that the 1986 FOPA which specifically prohibits any government registration, maintaining any government databases, or government involvement in the creation or updating of database information maintained by others......so you aren't on some list someplace for buying that gun. FFL dealer is required to keep all 4473's while in business, and they can be inspected by the Gov.......IIRC, the NICS information is required to be destroyed by the Gov, too.
Of course, buying from another citizen, or at a gun show, cuts down on all the "paperwork".....

Originally posted by parkerjm:

One reason the U.S. was given guns because the constitution states that the people have the right to overthrow the government at any time when the government stops serving the interest of the people and people's freedom. It's hard to do that if the government has all of the guns, isn't it?

Gun regulation is required obviously, but a strict "no guns" approach is not right for the U.S. It may be right for some, but not for us.

Regardless of power of the people over government, there is no way we could control the in flow of guns to criminals here. We have a huge border with Mexico, where it's a lot easier to do plenty of illegal things. the UK is surrounded by a giant mote... a little easier to control things.

So, since the UK citizens have a tendency of rolling over for their government and the fact that it's easier to control the in-flow of guns there, maybe it makes more sense for them to not have them.

Parker, I suspect the "overthrow the government" argument is a trifle thin. Way back when the Constitution was written, government troops had "Brown Bess" muskets and perhaps some early rifles, nearly everything muzzle-loaded and therefore single-shot. The average citizen had squirrel guns and shot guns, and believe it or not that made things fairly even. Today government troops come equipped with automatic weapons that can take down a building, and I have doubts that your average citizen can compete with his hunting rifle regardless of how good he is with it. Gang members might give government forces a warm time of it in urban fighting, but the kind of thing we're all taught about defending your farmhouse against government troops is pretty much a lost cause before it gets started. Unless something happens to restore the balance of power in firearms, I doubt this will change anytime soon.

Originally posted by Thabotizz:

How about they first handle the 'stabbing issue'. Older guys wanna shoot and younger ones wanna stab! What has the UK come to?

It's called natural selection. Give them guns and wait till the screams stop

Originally posted by parkerjm:

One reason the U.S. was given guns because the constitution states that the people have the right to overthrow the government at any time when the government stops serving the interest of the people and people's freedom. It's hard to do that if the government has all of the guns, isn't it?

And now the government has tanks.

Yeah, unless you've got weapons that can take out helicopters and tanks, or even "mere" armored vehicles, you're really not going to stand much of a chance even with the heaviest guns you might be able to obtain legally.

I'm sure some militia type nutjobs would love to get their hands on some tanks

I don't think I class as militia type nutjob and I would love to get my hand on one or more tanks.

Of course it'd probably get boring quite soon. Maintaining them is a nightmare compared to maintaining a car.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I don't think I class as militia type nutjob and I would love to get my hand on one or more tanks.

Yeah, but you probably wouldn't want it so you can make THEM stop stuffing alien implants up your rectum

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Of course it'd probably get boring quite soon. Maintaining them is a nightmare compared to maintaining a car.

And tanks tend to have terrible gas mileage, filling up once would probably give them a heart attack

Bah, if it gets to the point where you need to overthrow your government, legality is moot. There is no need for them to be widely available during normal times.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Yeah, but you probably wouldn't want it so you can make THEM stop stuffing alien implants up your rectum

I don't think the nano bots need rectal entry to reprogram my brain. I've watched Star Trek; I know how the Borg operate. Resistance is futile. Unless you're human. Oh wait, I am human.

Originally posted by Macallan:

And tanks tend to have terrible gas mileage, filling up once would probably give them a heart attack

Plus you can't really drive any faster than about 70-80km/h. On the plus side you can drive through buildings at this speed to some extent.

Originally posted by Redem:

Not strict enough in that case, surely?

Depends who you target, the innocent householder or the gun-toting criminal.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Yeah, but you probably wouldn't want it so you can make THEM stop stuffing alien implants up your rectum

I don't think the nano bots need rectal entry to reprogram my brain.

Yeah, but it's traditional

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I've watched Star Trek; I know how the Borg operate. Resistance is futile. Unless you're human. Oh wait, I am human.

That's what THEY want you to think

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by Macallan:

And tanks tend to have terrible gas mileage, filling up once would probably give them a heart attack

Plus you can't really drive any faster than about 70-80km/h.

If you put them on a train, otherwise you're going to ruin your tracks really fast

Originally posted by Redem:

Bah, if it gets to the point where you need to overthrow your government, legality is moot. There is no need for them to be widely available during normal times.

Yeah, I'm sure that the second the revolution starts, we'll all get guns passed out to us, which were all made all at once for the revolution by all of the private gun companies that continued to improve their weaponry even though they weren't able to turn any profit.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

oday government troops come equipped with automatic weapons that can take down a building, and I have doubts that your average citizen can compete with his hunting rifle regardless of how good he is with it.

That is a good point. On the other hand, many people out there have M16s and AK-47s and other military grade assault rifles. They are currently legal (after Bush allowed the assault rifle ban to drop) for civilians without a full auto trigger. Maybe more of us should look into getting those?

Zombie attacks? This is just an excuse for the trigger happy fella. Quit playing those kinda games man!

Originally posted by parkerjm:

Yeah, I'm sure that the second the revolution starts, we'll all get guns passed out to us, which were all made all at once for the revolution by all of the private gun companies that continued to improve their weaponry even though they weren't able to turn any profit.

Revolutions don't start overnight. At least, not the successful kind. If you're rolling out of bed on the first morning to go shoot people, you've lost already.
As for gun companies' profits, fuck 'em. They profit from making weapons, I have no sympathy.
For the rest, manufacturing, smuggling weapons into the nation or obtaining them from sources inside the nation is one of the things revolutions start out doing.

Not that it matters, anyway, the idea of the people overthrowing their government through force of arms is farcical. In reality, it would happen via political means. The armed nutters would just provide a background noise for the process. The day of successful revolutions by small arms is over.

Originally posted by Redem:

They profit from making weapons, I have no sympathy.

I am not asking to have sympathy, but profits lead to more money for R&D, which leads to new weaponry, new kinds of weaponry and improvements in existing weaponry. Unfortunately, weapons have a very important role in this world.

Should firearms be legalised for household protection?
Yes, imo every household should have a gun of their choice (within the boundary of the law) to protect.
Using the word 'protect' a lot of questions/issues crossed my mind.
- will women be allow to use it against a violent husband/spouse/boyfriend?. With the case of domestic violence on the rise...
- in the case of burglary attempt. I have heard of countless burglaries attempt leading to the death of homeowners.

Originally posted by TroyMclure:

More recently judges seem to be letting off householders who give burglars a bit of a beating.

burglars get more than a beating if caught in naija(before the arrival of the police).
Most houses now have electricuted barbed wire on their fences.
I dont pity burglars that die in action for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by Macallan:

If you put them on a train, otherwise you're going to ruin your tracks really fast

Like I said, maintenance nightmare. ;P

Originally posted by parkerjm:

I am not asking to have sympathy, but profits lead to more money for R&D, which leads to new weaponry, new kinds of weaponry and improvements in existing weaponry. Unfortunately, weapons have a very important role in this world.

It's the military contracts that lead to R&D of new weapons, not the civilian ones.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Parker, I suspect the "overthrow the government" argument is a trifle thin. Way back when the Constitution was written, government troops had "Brown Bess" muskets and perhaps some early rifles, nearly everything muzzle-loaded and therefore single-shot. The average citizen had squirrel guns and shot guns, and believe it or not that made things fairly even. Today government troops come equipped with automatic weapons that can take down a building, and I have doubts that your average citizen can compete with his hunting rifle regardless of how good he is with it. Gang members might give government forces a warm time of it in urban fighting, but the kind of thing we're all taught about defending your farmhouse against government troops is pretty much a lost cause before it gets started. Unless something happens to restore the balance of power in firearms, I doubt this will change anytime soon.

Oh Yeah???
Is that why the US government with all its heavy artillery and high-tech weaponry is having trouble taking down a few insurgents living in caves?

Guerrilla warfare doesn’t need heavy ammo

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

Is that why the US government with all its heavy artillery and high-tech weaponry is having trouble taking down a few insurgents living in caves?

Guerrilla warfare doesn’t need heavy ammo

Please let us know when the guerilla get anywhere near overthrowing the US government.

Our military has been trying to be decent about the thing, believe it or not, and that slows progress when attempting to take out guerrillas too. If we really unleashed our firepower in an all-out, no holds barred assault, could there be any doubt about the outcome? Unfortunately that would result in truly monstrous civilian casualties and we have a vested interest in trying not to let that happen. So, it's a slogfest where we check our swing lest we do more harm than good.

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Parker, I suspect the "overthrow the government" argument is a trifle thin. Way back when the Constitution was written, government troops had "Brown Bess" muskets and perhaps some early rifles, nearly everything muzzle-loaded and therefore single-shot. The average citizen had squirrel guns and shot guns, and believe it or not that made things fairly even. Today government troops come equipped with automatic weapons that can take down a building, and I have doubts that your average citizen can compete with his hunting rifle regardless of how good he is with it. Gang members might give government forces a warm time of it in urban fighting, but the kind of thing we're all taught about defending your farmhouse against government troops is pretty much a lost cause before it gets started. Unless something happens to restore the balance of power in firearms, I doubt this will change anytime soon.

Oh Yeah???
Is that why the US government with all its heavy artillery and high-tech weaponry is having trouble taking down a few insurgents living in caves?

Guerrilla warfare doesn’t need heavy ammo

I saw that movie too.

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

Oh Yeah???

Is that why the US government with all its heavy artillery and high-tech weaponry is having trouble taking down a few insurgents living in caves?

Guerrilla warfare doesn’t need heavy ammo

Indeed, because the US is not acting like the kind of government that requires being overthrown. They're trying not to kill innocents, not great at it, but they're trying.
We're talking about a hypothetical police state wannabe, no? The kind that shoots first and then tortures the survivors to get the answers they want later.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I would be content with increased rights for house owners to defend but the gun thing would have us ending up like the ex_colonies across the pond.

What ? Like Bigger Better and Badder? Than Weakass Europe?

Originally posted by Redem:

Indeed, because the US is not acting like the kind of government that requires being overthrown. They're trying not to kill innocents, not great at it, but they're trying.
We're talking about a hypothetical police state wannabe, no? The kind that shoots first and then tortures the survivors to get the answers they want later.

hypothetical???
Are we forgetting The Third Reich?
If I recall correctly, they had quite a bit of trouble fighting the various resistance groups in Europe at the time

Yes, hypothetical. Unless you are trying to claim that the US is akin to the Third Reich now, then we are discussing a hypothetical future where the US government moves towards tyranny. Of course, in that case you're simply grossly wrong.

I would personally relax those gun laws, but only in one respect: Air rifles. Did under-18s used to be allowed to have air rifles? I had one when I was 14, as did several of my friends. We shot cans for practice, rabbits for the pot and each other for fun (my own 1st rifle was great for this since it couldn't even break denim at close range.) I want the same experiences to be available for my own children.

As for householders carrying firearms - I'm against it. Personally, I don't think it's right to encourage an arms race between burglars and householders.

That said, the economy could use a boost. Another expensive commodity plus paraphernalia might be exactly what's needed. Don't have an age restriction so that all the cool kids could have one; blinged out with diamanté and pink faux fur. I can see the headlines now: "Increased teenage fatalities reduces class sizes".
Maybe I could make a fortune myself with my new product - a gun holster with a pouch for your iPhone.

I've noticed that people who do not have guns don't shoot people.

Apparently not everybody knows that, so I thought I'd mention it.


There are lots of articles around which mention the relationship between gun ownership and gun deaths; but I thought this one worth linking because it shows clear graphic comparisons of homicides in different countries.

I've only every seen one (barely) understandable reason for gun ownership, and that one was a bit kinky.

But gun ownership is not the only factor controlling killing-by-shooting, you have to be somewhat unhinged as well; but then wanting to own a gun does reflect a certain state of mind I suppose.

I don't think the UK should lift their bans on some guns, or very stringent restrictions on the 'legal' ones. Why? Well lets say children under the age of ten were not allowed to eat candy or ice cream. Then some do gooder came into power & thought that was to harsh on the lil tykes. So after all the debates were finished, the do gooder got his way, the law was abolished, & all children regardless of age could eat all the candy & ice cream they wanted at any time they wanted. All was happy on the Island of Poo. Well almost. After one week 60% of all the lil uns were sick with gastroenteritis & other eating related maladies. There were fights when shortages showed up, the parents even got involved in the squabbles. In the end the lil uns couldn't handle their new freedoms, & the law was reinstated much to the delight of all.

The English couldn't handle relaxed gun laws like there are in the USA. The Scots probably could. I'm not 100% sure about the Welsh, but the English, most definitely not> I'd envision that most fatal wounds there being self inflicted during drunken games of Russian Roulette. It would take them years to figure out that they couldn't play the game with a fully loaded weapon

Honestly, they wouldn't know how to respect the gun, & they would end up eventually causing their own extinction!

Better they all just get fat eating sweets! It's less savage, & non-violent.

Yeah - well that last reason for owning guns was one of the daftest.

Want to see the whole list?

"The English couldn't handle relaxed gun laws like there are in the USA." The evidence seems to be there that Americans can't handle them either!

Originally posted by string:

"The English couldn't handle relaxed gun laws like there are in the USA." The evidence seems to be there that Americans can't handle them either!

I would phrase that more like "The English couldn't handle relaxed gun laws like there are in Switzerland, just like they can't in the USA."

The English couldn't handle relaxed gun laws like there are in the USA. The Scots probably could. I'm not 100% sure about the Welsh, but the English, most definitely not> I'd envision that most fatal wounds there being self inflicted during drunken games of Russian Roulette. It would take them years to figure out that they couldn't play the game with a fully loaded weapon Honestly, they wouldn't know how to respect the gun, & they would end up eventually causing their own extinction! Better they all just get fat eating sweets! It's less savage, & non-violent.

That Letterman guy's attempt to be funny is mostly annoying imo. It got better when they started cooking, but there it stopped.

I did not last that long - he seemed too self-interested to be worth watching to the end.

For home burglars I think a nice, loud alarm will do the trick, but if you want something more active, try one of these. It probably will be cheaper than the gun anyways and the police will appreciate the criminal identification hints, not to mention that it can help to keep preachers out of your door (and blame software bugs for that).

As for the zombies, sooner or later you will run out of ammo, so you better hang a sharpened katana on your wall and aim for the legs .

Also I would add extra prison terms without right to parole for criminals carrying a fire weapon even if not used in the crime, lets say extra 6 months just for carrying a weapon, two extra years for intimidating using a weapon (extra time per shoot to the air) and so on. Dunno if this will be effective, but cutting both thumbs of the criminal before sending him\her to prison sounds a little barbaric in our sissycivilized world. Of course, entering a home and murderingkilling all the unaware inhabitants all the way from grandma to the kids and dog is a waaay more civilized and proper behavior, and such person deserves all our compassion and solidarity. After all, we are sure they will rehabilitate themselves after a couple of years at most, right? [/sarcasm]

Originally posted by Immanis:

...Also I would add extra prison terms without right to parole for criminals carrying a fire weapon even if not used in the crime, lets say extra 6 months just for carrying a weapon, two extra years for intimidating using a weapon (extra time per shoot to the air) and so on.

How about doubling the sentence for the crime, with no remission possible for the part which was added for carrying a weapon.

Originally posted by string:

I did not last that long - he seemed too self-interested to be worth watching to the end.

Oh, I didn't watch for him, but I like Jamie.

Originally posted by Immanis:

As for the zombies, sooner or later you will run out of ammo, so you better hang a sharpened katana on your wall and aim for the legs .

I did in Resident Evil 1 or 2 or so. Good God, I thought I'd saved myself from the dozen or so zombies jumping at me, when suddenly like 3 of them grab my legs all at once due to still coming at me without use of their legs.

I don't think the games scared me anymore after that, so I got bored with them.

Originally posted by string:

How about doubling the sentence for the crime, with no remission possible for the part which was added for carrying a weapon.

Double the sentence AND increase it even further for using (or carrying) a weapon while committing a crime. The point is both punish the crime and make clear the point that using weapons will make it far worse if caught. Also, don't stop in firearms, do the same for any kind of weapon, just pay attention to the relative danger of the weapon involved and the damage caused with it. And remember, the extra time added to the sentence because of the carrying or use of weapons adds to the existing minimum parole time.

Criminals usually are slow to get the point, so make it crystal clear: robbing an empty house 2 years, eligible for parole after 1 year. Carrying a weapon 3 years, eligible for parole after 2 years. Robbing a house with people inside, no harm done, no weapons: 4 years, eligible for parole after 2 years; no harm done, carrying weapons: 5 years, eligible for parole after 3 years; no harm done, threatening to use the weapon: 6 years, eligible for parole after 5 years; no harm done, shooting to the air: 7 years, eligible for parole after 6 years.

Minor firearms injuries should start in 10 years, eligible for parole after 9 years and for the rest use your imagination. Of course, using a firearm to wipe-out a family is slightly lesser offense that premeditated, sadistic crimes so they can opt out from being organ donors, but thats as much as I think I will grant them.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I did in Resident Evil 1 or 2 or so. Good God, I thought I'd saved myself from the dozen or so zombies jumping at me, when suddenly like 3 of them grab my legs all at once due to still coming at me without use of their legs.

You missed the part of keeping running, thats in Zombie infection 101. If for some reason you need to move slowly, try cutting an arm and a leg instead

Originally posted by Immanis:

You missed the part of keeping running, thats in Zombie infection 101. If for some reason you need to move slowly, try cutting an arm and a leg instead

Yeah... except with Resident Evil's ridiculous camera viewpoints you're running to the right one second, the view switches, and then suddenly you're running right back into the arms of the zombies. Anyway, my point being that while initially focusing on legs might be a good idea, shouldn't you ideally kill them too?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Anyway, my point being that while initially focusing on legs might be a good idea, shouldn't you ideally kill them too?

A few things can go wrong there:
1. In most traditions they are already dead, not point killing them again.
2. In most legislations, messing the dead is a punishable crime. If you kill them you can't claim self defense. I won't believe you, dunno others.
3. Depending on the zombie flavortradition you are using, killing them can be a PITA. Besides, dead or alive your priorities should be incapacitating them, and only if they are a serious threat.
4. Strictly speaking, they are not really dead, and you should not kill an unknown living thing without confirming intelligence. Perhaps this is the contact we have been waiting for, you never know.
5. Deliberately destroying the only known individuals of a probable new species endangers the ecological biodiversity and can be punishable by law.
6. Zombies usually fall into the definition of hominid, they probably are a subspecies of homo-sapiens. Killing them may be considered murder and as such is a crime punishable by law.
7. If things go too far, you can be even charged with genocide and crimes against humanity and as such may be prosecuted by an international jury.

well personally I agree with the right to bear arms. Wouldn't want a gun myself, i'm a terrible shot at any rate. Although perhaps I'd agree that making sure people are mentally balanced before giving them a weapon., but then that could be abused too!

This is what annoys me with this recent shooting free for all in Cumbria. The guy clearly had something wrong with him, which should have been detected but wasn't. The gun laws wouldn't have done much about that, guns don't kill people, people do... I'm so very sick of reactive apporach to crime, what about looking at what causes crime instead of just building bigger prisons and locking people up for longer, clearly works... I suppose that might lead us to the incoveient truth...

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Originally posted by Immanis:

You missed the part of keeping running, thats in Zombie infection 101. If for some reason you need to move slowly, try cutting an arm and a leg instead

Yeah... except with Resident Evil's ridiculous camera viewpoints you're running to the right one second, the view switches, and then suddenly you're running right back into the arms of the zombies. Anyway, my point being that while initially focusing on legs might be a good idea, shouldn't you ideally kill them too?

According to Quake you can't kill what doesn't live but you can blow it to pieces

Originally posted by street_spirit:

I'm so very sick of reactive apporach to crime, what about looking at what causes crime instead of just building bigger prisons and locking people up for longer, clearly works...

It depends of the way you lock them. I've always find funny the way the US legal system works (not that I know that much about it and my sources are not reliable at all). My understanding is that you are charged individually for different crimes and then you serve more or less the the sum of all charges.

If that is true, is a very silly method and no wonder criminals do what they do without thinking twice. Several petty crimes add each other and before you realize, you will be charged almost the same time of a far more serious crime. In that circumstances, the criminal thinks, "WTF, I'm screwed anyways" and won't hesitate to use violence.

I'm for shorter prison terms giving more weight to the relative danger of the crime. And for a true deterrent, add the monetary value of all the damage caused (including the money it costs to keep him in jail, victim medical bills, cost of funerals and compensation to victim families) and deduct it of his income for life.

That alone would make for a VERY peaceful society.

Originally posted by Immanis:

A few things can go wrong there:

1. In most traditions they are already dead, not point killing them again.

2. In most legislations, messing the dead is a punishable crime. If you kill them you can't claim self defense. I won't believe you, dunno others.

3. Depending on the zombie flavortradition you are using, killing them can be a PITA. Besides, dead or alive your priorities should be incapacitating them, and only if they are a serious threat.

4. Strictly speaking, they are not really dead, and you should not kill an unknown living thing without confirming intelligence. Perhaps this is the contact we have been waiting for, you never know.

5. Deliberately destroying the only known individuals of a probable new species endangers the ecological biodiversity and can be punishable by law.

6. Zombies usually fall into the definition of hominid, they probably are a subspecies of homo-sapiens. Killing them may be considered murder and as such is a crime punishable by law.

7. If things go too far, you can be even charged with genocide and crimes against humanity and as such may be prosecuted by an international jury.

I would like to point out that you're taking these are arguments not to rekill, but that you're simultaneously claiming that, um, reincapacitating is just fine.

Originally posted by Macallan:

According to Quake you can't kill what doesn't live but you can blow it to pieces

Might help with the evidence thing too.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

I would like to point out that you're taking these are arguments not to rekill, but that you're simultaneously claiming that, um, reincapacitating is just fine.

Ejem, I didn't elaborate, but incapacitating methods previously proposed don't require to damage the relevant parts that needs to be functional for point 5. Besides, I implied self defense as a result of a serious threat, under those circumstances you can safely claim self defense. Just don't get overly enthusiast with the slashing.

I think, in the USA they should arm bears.

Originally posted by jimwager:

I think, in the USA they should arm bears.

There is nothing in the Constitution about arming bears. So I guess it would be ok.

Come to that, in the summer Americans could bare arms, also in the winter if the Constitution is healthy.

Now how's that for an attention catcher?