Übergeek 바둑이: You have my vote

Artful Dodger:

> I'll bet those three dead guy would have like to have had a gun to protect themselves.

Dont' get me wrong. I entirely agree that people have a right to protect themselves. The point I was trying to make is that gun manufacturers and sellers make a huge profit. Nobody even talks about how violence drives their profits. All i was pointing too was that guns would not be a problem if they didn't get manufactured in the first place. Of course it is naive to think weapons manufacture will ever end. We will kill each other with guns as long as human beings are animals, or worse than animals.

To make another point, this is something I wrote in a game I am playing with Welsh Rugby Fan. It had to do with my comment that curfews and shooting on sight were used by the Nazis.

"Oh, I entirely agree. Specially when the rioting accomplishes nothing. There is such a thing as valid political protest and riots that lead to political change for the better. These rioters of today are just hooligans bent on theft and destruction. They have no ideological or political objectives. These riots are just like the movie Harry Brown. "In Ireland the people had a cause, but these animals do it just for fun." A few years later we see exactly the same kind of destructive behaviour. Just for fun. Rebels without a cause or ideology.

As for me, I think shooting accomplishes little. I think forced labour teaches people a lot. Once captured, they should be made to work digging in construction sites until they pay for the damage they have done. At this point I can say "Stalin tried that one!"

There is one thing I am not liberal about and that is crime punishment. I believe in gulags and chain gangs digging roadside trenches. I believe in the death penalty and I think it is underused. I also think prisoners should pay their own keep, instead of having taxpayers house them and feed them. Hence the forced labour comment. I think shooting the rioters accomplishes little, but capturing them and having them work to rebuild the burned buildings and compensate the victims sounds good to me. This is the one thing in which my left wing morals leave me. I think it is a good thing I have no political power!

Iamon lyme:

> some kind of tension has obviously been brewing for some time.

Divisions of social class, income inequality, unemployment among youth and harship in the immigrant community are a legacy tht goes back to the Margaret Tatcher years, and even earlier. This is a problem that has been in the making for decades. People in the the riot areas of the UK (as in most other places in the world) feel that they can effect no political change through the electoral system. Since communism died the wroking class has no ideological compass. instead of protesting for legitimate reasons, they are rioting and looting to get what the middle class has. This is a side effect of anticommunism. Anticommunism took the ideology out of social protest, and left in its wake an ideological void. Now people don't protest about issues that matter and there is no real avenue for social discontent.


> btw are you sure about that 30% gun ownership in the US?

In answer to your question:

"In 1995, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms estimated that the number of firearms available in the US was 223 million. About 25% of the adults in the United States personally own a gun, the vast majority of them men. About half of the adult U.S. population lived in households with guns. Less than half of gun owners say that the primary reason they own a gun is for self-protection against crime, reflecting a popularity of hunting and sport-shooting among gun owners."

That was 1995. After 9-11 gun possession increased since many people bought firearms to protect themselves from terrorism.

300 million people. 223 million firearms. It is a staggering statistic.

Bernice: Yes I know, I was talking about Stoke-on-Trent. Most people I know live in Stoke-on-Trent. I know there was trouble in other areas.

Mousetrap: here is what you said...
Bernice: There has been some riots yes but nothing the police cannot deal with. Most of it is rumour spreading via facebook and not rioting on streets***......it was the no rioting that bothered me..you said some riots and then said "not rioting on streets"...there was heaps of it :( and funnily (sp) enough I havent seen anything on facebook.

Bernice: I did not say it was not too much trouble I said Facebook was spreading rumours about areas where I live saying there was trouble when there was not.
Of course there was trouble in London. I did not say there wasnt. I said London was a big city.

The riots have already led to a series of domestic football matches being called off, including Carling Cup ties at West Ham, Charlton, Crystal Palace and Bristol City.

Pedro Martínez: Yeah. If that was the response in a few days, everybody would stay home. The only reason the thugs keep coming out is there are no real consequences. We need, Dirty Harry, Rambo, and Zorro (put the "Z" right smack on their backside!)

Pedro Martínez: ROFL @ AD and Pedro ROFLMBO

“Is that Norway?”
“Yeah.”
“This is UK.”
“Yeah?”
“We need to borrow someone…”

Bernice: Yeah. I think there will always be conflicts. And like you say, a gun isn't the only weapon that can kill people.

Tonight will tell the tale. Let's see how Britain handles the rioters tonight. I hope they kick some major butt.

Now wouldn't it been nice if a car load of Navy Seals, experts in the martial arts, were to drive through an area and be stopped by a few thugs. Then the seals emerge from the vehicle (the windows were tinted dark) and each thug is grabbed by the throat. Then two seals emerge from the trunk and they proced to beat the living tar out of the thugs. This scene is repeated over and over again.

How many times that night do you think the words, "Oh Sh*&!!!" were said that night?

Artful Dodger: and of course they ARE fighting the Irish....well there are still idiots with bombs etc.......
but it is the UK, and nothing bad happens over there like it does in USA....YEAH RIGHT...........

Iamon lyme: In a perfect world, it would be nice if we didn't need guns. But we do. It's not going to change any time soon. And thugs that know you likely won't have a gun (as in the UK) can be more bold.

What's odd is that in the UK it's ok to own a gun (which we know kills) but not ok to own a handgun (which we know offers protection).

The liberal cry in the US is, "but what if the criminal gets to your gun before you do?"

um, they already have a gun. Or a knife. Or a bat. Maybe I should post a sign on my door that say, "Easy target - I've no weapons"

Übergeek 바둑이: We've had protests here over different issues, including people getting killed by police for menacing, but nothing like the reaction in the UK. I suspect that something other than one mans death (whether justified or not) is at work.. some kind of tension has obviously been brewing for some time. btw are you sure about that 30% gun ownership in the US? I didn't see Artful dispute that, so I suppose it could be true. I was always more afraid of my wifes impressive stash of kitchen knives than I ever was over some armed bandits breaking in.. maybe they knew about her knives. I don't know.

I thought I was a liberal at one time, but now I don't think I ever really was. Went through the motions for a few years, but I asked too many questions.. like, what exactly is in that kool aid.. man?

I heard this a few weeks ago on the radio.. "A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged." It's easy to criticise someone who defends himself until you find yourself in that position. But what does it say about you if you aren't even willing to protect family members who depend on you?Judging from what I hear in the news, sometimes I think the only ones who really know what's going on are the criminals.

Übergeek 바둑이: Yeah you're right. forget the guns. Burning down entire stores and damaging other property and beating the crap out of innocent bystanders is so much better. Heck, one guy in the UK ran over three pepole in his car killing all three of them! That's just ONE car and ONE hit. No gun can do that.

I'll bet those three dead guy would have like to have had a gun to protect themselves.

I have seen estimates that say that about 30% of Americans own a firearm. If rioters in the UK had that kind of access to guns, what would the riots be like? If 30% of the rioters had guns, how many policemen would be dead now? Americans are lucky that so far rioting has been limited, but if the economy goes belly up, it is likely we will see rioting, and 30% of those rioters could have guns. What will the military do? Kill its own people?

Of course, nobody talks about how much money gun manufacturers make. We could make it a criminal offense to manufacture and sell guns except to the police and the military. If I manufactuer bombs and sell them to the public, I will go to jail. However, gun manufacturers get away with making and selling lethal weapons.

British PM says that whatever the police need to do to stop they riots, they will be legally given. About time. The US goes to that game plan on day one.

(V): Only your criminals have guns.

Is it Christian to kill someone? It's not Christian to murder someone but it certainly isn't Christian to allow someone to be murdered when you can stop it. So you're saying you'd let an intruder kill your entire family rather than shoot them?

(some guy comes into my home, threatening my family, I'm NOT going to put on a pot of tea and day, "come on, let's discuss this." I'm going to shoot.

AND IF I SHOOT it will be like the police shoot. To kill. To hurt my family, the intruder goes through me. And one doesn't own weapons unless one intends to use them if necessary.

Artful Dodger: Worse then what? US gun crime rates?

.. You like the idea that you might have to shoot someone because guns are so common... Is that Christian?

(V): Yes. Rather pointless because things are WORSE in the UK. Good point. And thank you for making my argument for me.

Artful Dodger: It's the UK now and we are not fighting the Scottish, Irish, French, Spanish and other European countries. Kings are not conscripting men to arms.

Artful Dodger: Yes... some do and we'd like to keep it that way.

And please... 16 year old stats are pointless.

... If the robber in the USA see you with a gun and then runs.. You then shoot him in the back. What then?

I'd rather have a society where gun crime is rare than common.

Bernice: The problem in properly assessing a problem is in having the vantage point where all the trouble is occuring. Clearly, it wasn't everywhere, but where it was - it was very very bad. Burning and looting, even ONE private business is bad. If it's MY car that's burning, it's bad. The fact is, there were dozens of fires and assults and hundreds looted. When the police showed up, the looters just went elsewhere and it was a cat and mouse game.

Artful Dodger: yeah but it isn't too much trouble...ask the Mouse.

The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen, confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to "have arms for their defence," insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on law-abiding citizens. It has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society. Despite the English tendency to decry America's "vigilante values," English policy makers would do well to consider a return to these crucial common law values, which stood them so well in the past.

In 1999 Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two burglars, both with long criminal records, burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before, and his village, like 70 percent of rural English communities, had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and a year for having an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar, having served 18 months of a three-year sentence, is now free and has been granted �5,000 of legal assistance to sue Martin.

Please come to my house. I have a loaded 45 and a semi-auto fully loaded and ready to fire. As soon as you are on my property, I can shoot you dead (and I will). Don't want to die? Don't come to my house and threaten my property or my family. Wanna rob people? Go to Britain, it's safer for the crooks over there. You don't even need a gun!

Sincerely,

US Gun Owners.

In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.

In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, "My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life." In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.

(V): Fact: Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

As for guns in the UK: "in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice."

The crooks already have guns.

Unintended consequences of an unarmed populace: Only the crooks now own guns.

"From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people."

and

"the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent."

welshrugbyfan:

> Declare a curfew and shoot anyone who breaks it.

Didn't the Nazis try that one at some point?

"Well, when the police aren't allowed to use guns." ........... lie.

If more police do have guns.. then more criminals will want guns. DUH!!

welshrugbyfan: That's all very good... but by our law that would be murder and would cause so much more rioting.

Curfew... arrest. Fine... no go zones.. fine. water cannons.. fine. But we don't need an all out war on our hands and the police to be the target of so much more hate then that might be around at the minute.

welshrugbyfan: Water cannons would be enough and lots of arrests.

Its time for the riot act to be reintroduced in the UK. Once read, if the crowd does not disperse, the police have the right to use lethal force to disperse them. These thugs only understand one language. Fine, lets give it to them. Declare a curfew and shoot anyone who breaks it.

Were this same scenario to happen in the US, there would be blood. Some of these punk kids would be dead. Shot by shop owners in the protection of their property. As it is in Britain, the shop owners have no way to protect themselves.

And the government is ONLY considering using water cannons.

Meanwhile, the thugs are looting and burning private property.

Still the Prime Minister says they will only use minimal force.

What a wuss.

Defending themselves with bats
Ethel C. Fenig




So, how are the Brits defending themselves from the rioting hooligans who are having a wonderful time mindlessly burning buildings, smashing windows, beating people, destroying anything in sight? Well, when the police aren't allowed to use guns and citizens aren't allowed to own guns this seems to be a reasonable response.


5000% Increase in the sale of baseball bats on Amazon.co.uk

Yeah, that will work.

Well bats just might work better than what the Prime Minister and London's chief cop have authorized.

David Cameron and the head of the Metropolitan Police have taken the unprecedented step of authorising armed officers to use plastic bullets if needed to stop looters and rioters laying waste to Britain's major cities. The Prime Minister and senior officers approved the emergency powers for "as long as they are needed" to get a grip on the lawlessness which has now spread from London to communities across the country.

The Government also discussed introducing CS gas and water cannon to break up disturbances in future - a move which would end a 180-year tradition of "minimum force" public order policing in Britain.

Are the rioters using "minimum force"? Are bats "minimum force"?

The way Obama operates:

"We have no plan, we aren't working a plan and our plan isn't working."

On the radio they said all the shops in a street got looted except Waterstones, the bookshop. Kinda figures.

Mousetrap: Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol... but as you said...not too much......RUBBISH

I don't think we need this for good police work. Scientifically: "Google Group Members to Use Facial Recognition to Identify London Rioters" http://t.co/56EOicX

I wouldn't treat that lightly, despite I like drama and big movies and pop corn, but when I want to party, no one's around anymore. My trained eye tells me that the problems are completely different than the media hawks around. Fact is, News Corp. is the story that matters on this island.