Londoners die for want of a gun

I thought this thread was comparing the US and UK , did I miss something ?

 

I agree, it isn't. I will, however, support the notion that A) rioters are more hesitant to loot if guns are around and B) rioting is less enticing if there's a chance your ass will get shot, limiting the riot.

In the case of rodney king, the only real armed citizens prior to the national guard were the koreans. And sure enough, their stores stayed mostly intact.

 

Good talk guys... Nobody even got mean! That must be a first for TW.

 

This is exactly right.

The article suggests that were the citizens of London armed, that there would not have been riots, or that people would not have been murdered during those riots. This is unabashed speculation.

The author continues to spin this speculation into support for armed society.

You can think what you want about gun rights, but this article is nothing but one author twisting a situation to fit his ideas. It's purely opinion, and should be recognized as such.

 

The article is certainly biased.

I don't expect an armed society would totally prevent the rioting. I do have suspicion that it would limit looting, by making the cost to loot much greater. That is all I'm saying.

 

I totally get it.

I'd say that from the examples I've seen, I don't necessarily see arms as preventing riots, but I can speculate that they probably limit the rioting to commercial/public venues as opposed to private property.

The mob mentality/mass chaos makes it much easier to smash in a store window and grab a TV than to break into someone's home. Add into the equation that there could be a 12-guage waiting on the other side of the door and it makes much more sense in that regard.

I think this should have (and maybe was supposed to be) the point of the story. Perhaps if Londoners were allowed personal protection, then the riots would have been contained to the streets and less into the personal homes of people.

 

No , here is what we are discussing

http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/guns-hunting/173564-londoners-die-want-gun.html#post3621266

 

Exactly. One thing such people aren't is brave. They're latching on to a group to cause mayhem and get free stuff. Not worth your life, to most people.

I do suspect that in cases where something happens and everyone is home and armed (Alabama tornadoes are a great example), the armed society does stop one guy deciding he wants a free TV from turning into mass looting.

This obviously doesn't apply when an incident sets off a huge mob (london, LA riots) or when everybody is evacuated (Katrina).

 

The problem with the article is that I think the point that the author is trying to make, though, is that it could be a deterrent, and could stop mob riots. And while we can have a civil discussion about it here, many other people aren't as willing to see past the rhetoric and/or only get their news and information from places which share their opinions. To me, this is dangerous. It's a primary cause of why we see such polarization in our society today.

Somebody put it best on here a little while back (I think it might have been you!) that nobody ever learned anything by only talking to people who agree with them all the time.

 

Oh, I know.

The OP is notorious for finding jackbooted right-wing rhetoric and posting it here. I've seen people banned for much less than he gets away with. I'm on his "ignore" list because I've dared to voice opposing opinions or -- God forbid -- attempt to reach a middle ground.

Of course, I've also been known to stir a little shit, too. So I'm not completely innocent.

 

2011 What is this middle ground you speak of????

 

Believe it or not, I am more conservative than people give me credit for (I think they see "Seattle" in the location and instantly think Hippie.) I was a big supporter of Mitch Daniels for president, despite the fact I hate his stances on abortion and (some) unions.

But generally I try to see the broad picture. I CANNOT stand single-issue voters.

When it comes to gun ownership, I am a supporter, but I will call out all the doomsdayers who think the sky is falling and that the government is about to strip away the right to own.

I also feel that the majority of Americans want to go about their day without having to think or care about firearms. This is why I generally oppose open-carry. To me, the psychological disadvantages outweigh the possible benefits.

But this is getting off-topic and into a more general political discussion, so I'll stop here.

I know! Right?!?!?

 

I think something in the above quote and earlier points are conflicting a little bit. Breaking into a domestic residence during a blackout isn't the same as rioting, even if it's widespread. But you make a great example of how guns can be a deterrent. However, I can't think of any riots that were quelled because armed CITIZENS came out to put an end to it. You've got to agree that there's a huge difference between the armed services and Joe Blow with a shot gun.

 

Joe blow has live ammo...

 

But Joe Blow can only take out one or two looters. Chances are he doesn't survive a rush.

 

For a good time call 2 glocks 30 rounds ea, 4 -12 ga's no plugs 7 rounds 00 buck each, 1 44 mag 6 rounds, 2 - 20 ga's no plug 14 more rounds 00 bucks. Want to bet the mob is now going somewhere else, the ones that can still move.

 

And nine arms

 

And can squat a house. Jeebus, that's a lot of weight. Joe Blow ain't moving real fast.

 

Hahaha but he'll take down a whole riot single handed! Sounds like Capt America or Batman or something.