Reply
Fri 12 Aug, 2011 06:55 pm
UK Mayhem Leaves Disarmed Citizens
at the Mercy of Criminals
Friday, August 12, 2011
By now you have seen the headlines and images of destruction:
the rioting, looting, violent assaults, and arson. London and
other UK cities look like war zones and their citizens are afraid
to venture out, because the danger is very real. It's a view of
the temporary breakdown of society. It is gut check time; a time
when the concept of being able to defend oneself gives way to
the stark reality that few viable options to do so exist.
Gun laws in the UK are among the most restrictive in the world.
In March of 1996, a deranged man walked into a school in
Dunblane, Scotland and killed 16 unarmed children and one
unarmed teacher. In the aftermath of this tragedy, British
politicians sought to reduce violent crime by enacting a ban
on all handguns. Handgun owners were given a February 1998
deadline to turn in their firearms--and they did. The UK was
supposed to become a much safer place--but dramatic increases
in crime following the gun ban proved it didn't.
A July 3, 2009, Daily Mail article reported that
"Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country
in the European Union, it has been revealed. Official crime
figures show the U.K. also has a worse rate for all types of
violence than the U.S. and even South Africa."
And the current bedlam has proved it further.
Restrictive laws concerning long-guns, combined with the
outright ban on handguns, leave the country's citizens largely
defenseless (it was reported this week that sales of one type of
aluminum baseball bats on Amazon UK rose 6,541 percent).
In many places, it was reported that police were unable to stop
the mayhem. As a result, panicked, defenseless law-abiding
citizens were forced to flee their homes, while others watched
as their businesses were destroyed.
Compare this to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when armed citizens
were able to protect their lives, families, and property from
looters and violent mobs.
An August 11 Herald Sun article reported one resident
as saying, "its absolute bedlam on the street. People have been
openly looting for an hour, two hours, and the police have been ineffectual.
They've done nothing."
Another victim, who was trapped in her hair salon in Clapham Junction
while a mob smashed its way in and trashed it, said,
"They were mocking us, [saying] 'look, look, they look scared'.
Where is the police? I want protection. This is what
they're here for . . . I'm not secure at my workplace. I'm not
secure at my home place. Will they be there to protect us tonight?
They weren't here to protect us last night."
The Telegraph.com.au reported on Tuesday that mobs were
forcing hapless victims to strip off their clothes while being robbed,
and described a shocking video that shows a bleeding, already-
pummeled teenager being robbed in broad daylight by lawless
thugs who pretend to help him to his feet, and then steal the
contents of his backpack while he can barely remain standing,
much less defend himself.
This is what a disarmed country looks like. This is how little is
left when free men and women surrender their right to own a firearm.
One has to wonder how differently this all would be playing out if
the law-abiding were allowed to arm themselves. How different
would the reports be if violent, opportunistic, amoral thugs were
confronted with armed resistance from their intended victims?
It has been said that, "The only thing necessary for the triumph
of evil is for good men to do nothing." In this case, good men
and women have been stripped of their ability to do something,
and evil has certainly triumphed.
Ironically, the UK is an outspoken proponent of the United
Nations' efforts to negotiate an Arms Trade Treaty. Presumably
the UK's goal in supporting an ATT is to spread the "safety and
sanctity" they imagine their country as having to the rest of the
world. Perhaps the recent calamities will cause the British to
rethink their position; we certainly hope so. It's time for the
British government to drop its draconian gun-control laws and
restore the right of self-defense to its law-abiding citizens.
It's time to face the facts. When law-abiding citizens are
disarmed, is their society a safer one? Do gun bans reduce
violent crime? Will the police always be there to protect you?
England's current plight is just the latest example to show us,
yet again, that the answer to these questions is an emphatic "No."
[All emfasis has been added by David.]
In fairness to the English police:
thay might VERY WELL arrive,
if the victims began shooting the criminals.
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Compare this to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when armed citizens
were able to protect their lives, families, and property from
looters and violent mobs.
Are you sure you want to make this comparison? Fifty-three
people died in those riots. That's alot more than the
unarmed,
helpless and cowering Englishmen.
@thack45,
OmSigDAVID wrote:Compare this to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, when armed citizens
were able to protect their lives, families, and property from
looters and violent mobs.
thack45 wrote:Are you sure you want to make this comparison? Fifty-three
people died in those riots. That's alot more than the unarmed,
helpless and cowering Englishmen.
That 's good, so long as it is the
bad guys that took the casualties, not the good guys.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
In future Dave try to get your quotations from a
reliable news source. The tabloid press is full of it. Don't expect anything you post to be taken seriously if you rely on the gutter press. The Mail, Express, Sun, Star and Mirror have all told lies in the past to sell papers. If you have to use a right wing source try The Spectator or The Telegraph. (UK papers only)
What the brits seem to havbe had was unarmed rioters confronting, occasionally, unarmed non-rioters. And everybody surviving (sentence intentionally started with a conjunction, David). What David seems to neglect is the likely consequences of his repeatedly prescribed solution: arm everybody (no, that sentence does NOT mean "GIVE everybody a gun", David. Stop being simplistic).
One person with a gun confronting fifty people with guns stands a far higher risk of being killed. If that person shoots, the likelihood of fifty shots coming back at him increases astronomically. He might take a rioter or two with him. But that's small consolation if you're dead too (hmm, another conjunction.)
To think, as David seems to, that only the bad guys will take the casualties, is sheer nonsense.
Arming everyone is bad social policy and bad personal policy.
@izzythepush,
That article (unfortunately, David forgot to give the source) was posted first on August 12, 2011 on website of the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA), which is - according to its own description, the "lobbying arm of the National Rifle Association of America". (
Original article)
@Walter Hinteler,
The NRA tries to grab political capital by twisting the facts to suit its own agenda. There has not been any public outcry for the liberalisation of gun ownership following the riots. There was however, cries for gun laws to be toughened up following the rampage of Derrick Bird.
@izzythepush,
No need to tell, neither me (I know) nor guys like David (they don't hear such)
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:In future Dave try to get your quotations from a reliable news source.
I take it that "reliable" is defined as commie,
or other
leftist; correct????
izzythepush wrote:The tabloid press is full of it.
Because it does not sufficiently support
the left??
izzythepush wrote:Don't expect anything you post to be taken seriously if you rely on the gutter press. The Mail, Express, Sun, Star and Mirror have all told lies in the past to sell papers. If you have to use a right wing source try The Spectator or The Telegraph. (UK papers only)
Izzy: I
don' t trust your advice.
David
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:What the brits seem to havbe had was unarmed rioters confronting, occasionally, unarmed non-rioters.
U mean that on other occasions, the victims
WERE armed??? I hope.
MontereyJack wrote:And everybody surviving (sentence intentionally started with a conjunction, David).
As a libertarian, I recognize your
RIGHT to
DO it.
Its just that it makes u look dummer than necessary,
like using
multiple negatives.
MontereyJack wrote:What David seems to neglect is the likely consequences of his repeatedly prescribed solution: arm everybody (no, that sentence does NOT mean "GIVE everybody a gun", David. Stop being simplistic).
I
continue to
favor simplicity,
your exhortation to the contrary notwithstanding.
MontereyJack wrote:One person with a gun confronting fifty people with guns stands a far higher risk of being killed. If that person shoots, the likelihood of fifty shots coming back at him increases astronomically. He might take a rioter or two with him. But that's small consolation if you're dead too (hmm, another conjunction.)
It worked out pretty well in the Harlem riots
and the L.A. riots: merchants v. rioters.
MontereyJack wrote:To think, as David seems to, that only the bad guys will take the casualties, is sheer nonsense.
Arming everyone is bad social policy and bad personal policy.
I did not allege "only".
David
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:The NRA tries to grab political capital by twisting the facts to suit its own agenda. There has not been any public outcry for the liberalisation of gun ownership following the riots.
Do u allege that NRA said that there
WAS
such an "outcry"?? I don't remember that.
izzythepush wrote:
There was however, cries for gun laws to be toughened up following the rampage of Derrick Bird.
@OmSigDAVID,
You should take my advice when I'm being sincere. In my description of the gutter press I included a left leaning paper The Mirror. I also told you about two right wing quality UK sources The Telegraph and The Spectator, (The Spectator is a magazine) I don't know what the NRA itself is claiming, but individual members like yourself try to make capital of the whole event. You make the simplistic assertion that automatic weapons would have made the situation better, when common sense dictates there would have been a blood bath.
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:You should take my advice when I'm being sincere. In my description of the gutter press I included a left leaning paper The Mirror. I also told you about two right wing quality UK sources The Telegraph and The Spectator, (The Spectator is a magazine) I don't know what the NRA itself is claiming, but individual members like yourself try to make capital of the whole event. You make the simplistic assertion that automatic weapons would have made the situation better, when common sense dictates there would have been a blood bath.
The victims have the natural right to defend their property.
When we invaded Germany,
automatic weapons were used.
The good guys won; the bad guys lost,
in a
blood bath.
Thay brought it on themselves.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
We're talking about civil unrest, not WW2. I thought even you would be able to tell the difference.
@izzythepush,
We had this problem with the gun lunatics at the time of the Virginia Tech shootings. All of the gun nuts were claiming that had students been allowed to go around armed, the tragedy would have been averted. Of course, the lunacy of that is immediately obvious to someone not obsessed to distraction with fondling his peni . . . er, firearm.
First, as soon as word got out that there was a shooter on the loose, any number of heroic cowboy types would be suddenly encountering one another, and likely one or both of them would be shot as a consequce, never mind attempting to estimate how many bystanders would have been shot. In the second place, when the police arrived, they'd have been encountering any number of gun toting fools, who, had they not put down their weapons immeidately, would probably have been shot by the police. Finally, of course, the mere possession of a firearm does not confer either expertise nor accuracy on the possessor. That's why bystander casualties would likely have been high in such a situation.
When Congresswoman Gifford was shot in Arizona, the shooter calmly dropped the magazine from his weapon and was in the act of reloading. Two
unarmed bystanders just as calmly tackled him, and held him until police arrived. It wasn't necessary to pepper the plaza with small arms fire to handle the situation.
@Setanta,
From what I remember of the Gifford case, there were armed men in the audience who just froze when the shooting started. It was a plucky woman in her sixties that first grabbed the gunman. That's what we need, more brave pensioners, not more guns.
@OmSigDAVID,
Yeah, I recall that we didn't give Germany our state of the art weaponry before we invaded. In the same way our gun laws, keep a lot of weapons out of the hands of criminals.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace