London's burning.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Problem with fines is that the money either comes from their illgotten gains or from the taxpayer. Wither a large jail sentence or 50 lashes would suit. Lets shock the cuts with corporal punishment.

[CloudFlare]

The thieves in London were mostly White and Middle Class

Not surprising at all. Frankly, I could've called this. This is "chav" culture, which is extremely difficult to explain if you don't live in Britain or Ireland.

I think you're might be taking the racial makeup from one legal jurisdiction/neighborhood/courtroom and attributing it to the entire riot:

Reporter Andrew Gilligan wrote in the Daily Telegraph: "Here in court, as David Cameron condemned the 'sickness' in parts of British society, we saw clearly, for the first time, the face of the riot: stripped of its hoods and masks, dressed in white prison T-shirts and handcuffed to burly security guards.

"It was rather different from the one we had been expecting."

He added of the

defendants at Highbury Magistrates Court in north London

: "Most were teenagers or in their early twenties, but a surprising number were older.

"Most interestingly of all, they were predominantly white, and many had jobs."

Is this area predominately white?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Introducing guns into the situation only makes it worse,

Worse for who? I never said I was in favor of arming rioters with guns. And if some shopkeepers armed with guns makes it worse for the rioters, well, isn't that the point?

Now, I get the whole cultural argument about Britain not having guns, etc. But I sort of don't get the "property is never worth a human life" crowd. By that logic, kidnappers should always be paid, and in fact not bothered with if they release the victim unarmed, inasmuch as tracking them down could result in the death of the kidnappers if they resist arrest.

Nor does it make any sense to arm bank guards, armored car guards, or anyone, because it's just not worth some thief losing his life to stop him from stealing a few million.

I guess I think it would be odd to tell the bad guys that ahead of time. Because generally, the point of having a weapon in those situations is that it is a deterrent, but the deterrent is pointless if they know you won't use it.

Seems oddly equivalent to just laying down in front of the first bully you find.

[Zoë Sumra]

Worse for who? I never said I was in favor of arming rioters with guns. And if some shopkeepers armed with guns makes it worse for the rioters, well, isn't that the point?

And how many of the rioters - who with one exception appear not to have been armed with guns at all - would have been armed, legally, in a society where small-arms were legal?

Sure, you could have had small numbers of shopkeepers with guns being rushed by rioters... who would have had more guns.

Disarm everyone. Fewer deaths.

[Asarlai]

Worse for who? I never said I was in favor of arming rioters with guns. And if some shopkeepers armed with guns makes it worse for the rioters, well, isn't that the point?

Find a way to make it legal for only responsible people to own guns and this argument might come closer to working.

Now, I get the whole cultural argument about Britain not having guns, etc. But I sort of don't get the "property is never worth a human life" crowd. By that logic, kidnappers should always be paid, and in fact not bothered with if they release the victim unarmed, inasmuch as tracking them down could result in the death of the kidnappers if they resist arrest.

Whatever needs to be done to get the victim back, should (within possibility/reason). The kidnapper should be chased, given that they have already proven themselves to be an intense danger to their fellows.

Nor does it make any sense to arm bank guards, armored car guards, or anyone, because it's just not worth some thief losing his life to stop him from stealing a few million.

I agree, killing someone over money is ridiculous.

I guess I think it would be odd to tell the bad guys that ahead of time. Because generally, the point of having a weapon in those situations is that it is a deterrent, but the deterrent is pointless if they know you won't use it.

Non-lethal weaponry and prison sentences can deter.

Seems oddly equivalent to just laying down in front of the first bully you find.

What do you do to a bully? You punch him in the face, right? Not shoot him in the face, punch him in the face. Non-lethally.