However, had the criminals known who they were dealing with; they might not have attacked. Who could be a better friend to a criminal than a gun-banning liberal who suceeded in baning guns?
Someone mentioned bolt cutters for cutting off fingers to remove rings. Totally unneccesary. If you take an ordinary pocket knife (easier to carry), and place the point in the middle of a joint the finger will cut off easily. I used to be a meat cutter and this is how we cut "ox" tails (actually the tail of a stear, but they are called ox for some odd reason).
MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/
Therefore, it is wrong to say that Michael Howard and his cronies are responsible for making the British people defenceless against violent criminals. Their policies were just an extension of an old government bias against the civilian ownership of firearms. It is an offence in Britain to carry any sort of implement that could be used as an offensive weapon. That includes objects like metal pipes and coshes, and of course, airguns, tasers, knives, pepper sprays, CS gas etc.
The British government does not care about protecting the lives of its subjects from criminals, it sees all of its subjects as little better than criminals. It just wants to protect itself from its subjects. Its philosophy regarding gun and weapon control can be summarised by this quote from a famous statist thinker:
"The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed public can't fight back."
Adolf Hitler
Oh, by the way, now the British government is debating licensing airguns!