Rioting spreading through London & to other English cities.

But he thinks the issue of parenting is more nuanced than the government has portrayed it. "There's been so much emphasis on outsourcing parenting – pretending schools, Sure Start centres and community organisations are there to look after the kids, rather than reflect that actually parents are still responsible – that I think there's a major concern about how parents have partly felt disempowered by all that, but have also been prepared to take advantage of that disempowerment," he says.

Social programs designed to make their lives somehow better have stripped many of them of any real sense of personal responsibilty and without that, how can they convey the same virtue to their children?

The Left, however has such a vested interest in their social engineering that they can't imagine any solution that doesn't involve more programs and more spending, so they will continue to make excuses for criminal thugs, place the blame on "The Rich," and insist that the latter give up more of their money to spend on programs that disempower the former's parents.
Brilliant.

Ms. Malcolm, professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law, is the author of "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" (Harvard, 2004) and "To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right" (Harvard, 1996).

While I respect the opinions of our British members, unless they were personally threatened by the rioters it don't see how their perspective informs us anymore than that of Ms Malcom or anyone else for that matter on how Brits threated by rioters might have felt.

Your agrument is chiefly with Ted Cantle. As an actual Brit who lives in the UK, I felt certain that it was acceptable to take him at his word.

In the same vein, Walter professes to speak for virtually all of his fellow citizens in stating that no German would have an enhanced sense of personal safety if he or she had a gun in the home and a riot was taking place outside of their door.

In the same vein, Walter professes to speak for virtually all of his fellow citizens in stating that no German would have an enhanced sense of personal safety if he or she had a gun in the home and a riot was taking place outside of their door.

At first I was going to mock the notion of an A2K rule that required that opinions only be posted on topics that involve events in the country in which they reside, but then I realized who would be banned for threads on American events and I've paused to reconsider.

In the same vein, Walter professes to speak for virtually all of his fellow citizens in stating that no German would have an enhanced sense of personal safety if he or she had a gun in the home and a riot was taking place outside of their door.

They certainly wouldn't if everybody in the riot and inside the door was toting an arsenal.

London, London, London. There's 50 odd million of us

When Spendius posts, he sounds like a human being, not some clapped-out computer programme.

When Spendius posts, he sounds like a human being, not some clapped-out computer programme.

Title Four Necessary Defense And Necessity
Section 32 Necessary Defense
(1) Whoever commits an act, required as necessary defense, does not act unlawfully.

(2) Necessary defense is the defense which is required to avert an imminent unlawful assault from oneself or another.

Section 33 Excessive Necessary Defense
If the perpetrator exceeds the limits of necessary defense due to confusion, fear or fright, then he shall not be punished.

Section 34 Necessity as Justification
Whoever, faced with an imminent danger to life, limb, freedom, honor, property or another legal interest which cannot otherwise be averted, commits an act to avert the danger from himself or another, does not act unlawfully, if, upon weighing the conflicting interests, in particular the affected legal interests and the degree of danger threatening them, the protected interest substantially outweighs the one interfered with. This shall apply, however, only to the extent that the act is a proportionate means to avert the danger.

Section 35 Necessity as Excuse
(1) Whoever, faced with an imminent danger to life, limb or freedom which cannot otherwise be averted, commits an unlawful act to avert the danger from himself, a relative or person close to him, acts without guilt. This shall not apply to the extent that the perpetrator could be expected under the circumstances to assume the risk, in particular, because he himself caused the danger or stood in a special legal relationship; however the punishment may be mitigated pursuant to Section 49 subsection

(1), if the perpetrator was not required to assume the risk with respect to a special legal relationship.

(2) If upon commission of the act the perpetrator mistakenly assumes that circumstances exist, which would excuse him under subsection (1), he will only be punished, if he could have avoided the mistake. The punishment shall be mitigated pursuant to Section 49 subsection (1).

izzythepush wrote:

When Spendius posts, he sounds like a human being, not some clapped-out computer programme.

Too frequently, his posts r difficult to figure out, or fully unintelligible.
I attributed it to the amount of ingested ale (into a human being in a bar).

We have police forces to deal with the "bad guys".

Democracy, basic law, federal parliamentary republic, separation power and all such, you know.

Self defence is regulated in our Criminal Code:

Quote:

Title Four Necessary Defense And Necessity
Section 32 Necessary Defense
(1) Whoever commits an act, required as necessary defense, does not act unlawfully.

(2) Necessary defense is the defense which is required to avert an imminent unlawful assault from oneself or another.

Section 33 Excessive Necessary Defense
If the perpetrator exceeds the limits of necessary defense due to confusion, fear or fright, then he shall not be punished.

Section 34 Necessity as Justification
Whoever, faced with an imminent danger to life, limb, freedom, honor, property or another legal interest which cannot otherwise be averted, commits an act to avert the danger from himself or another, does not act unlawfully, if, upon weighing the conflicting interests, in particular the affected legal interests and the degree of danger threatening them, the protected interest substantially outweighs the one interfered with. This shall apply, however, only to the extent that the act is a proportionate means to avert the danger.

Section 35 Necessity as Excuse
(1) Whoever, faced with an imminent danger to life, limb or freedom which cannot otherwise be averted, commits an unlawful act to avert the danger from himself, a relative or person close to him, acts without guilt. This shall not apply to the extent that the perpetrator could be expected under the circumstances to assume the risk, in particular, because he himself caused the danger or stood in a special legal relationship; however the punishment may be mitigated pursuant to Section 49 subsection

(1), if the perpetrator was not required to assume the risk with respect to a special legal relationship.

(2) If upon commission of the act the perpetrator mistakenly assumes that circumstances exist, which would excuse him under subsection (1), he will only be punished, if he could have avoided the mistake. The punishment shall be mitigated pursuant to Section 49 subsection (1).

So, if someone threatens my life with a firearm, and if I own a firearm legally, I certainly can defend my life.

Here, in Germany, no one (nearly literally) would get the idea that guns at home have something to do with personal safety at home (or during periods of riots).