Londoners die for want of a gun

This is y I love Fla.. I have the Right to use a gun to protect me and the folks around me. The only thing I will hear from the police is do you need some more ammo. Jim

 

I actually agree with you that the riot would still have occurred, it would still have escalated as well.

The difference I seek and the other gun owners seek is the location of the riot. If you look at the Los Angeles riots, in the end the mob was trashing their own neighborhoods because they could not travel with impunity to other locations and stir up enough unrest. But it took people with guns to keep them away. Some civilians(mostly Koreans), some government National Guard.

 

remember kids, always keep your nose clean... and always keep a drop gun.



Case Closed

 

So you're saying that you disagree with this statement:

Which is what OZ, myself, WAgood and others are arguing against.

None of us have argued against American citizens' rights to own firearms or defend their homes and loved ones, we are just calling out the "article" as being overtly assumptive and hyperbolic.

The opposite argument could be justifiably made that were the citizens of London armed, MORE people would have died. Some of the individual people who were killed might have been spared, but most likely the body count would have been much higher -- on both sides. The article is baseless and has no statistical support whatsoever, and needs to be viewed as spin by an author seeking to promote his own agenda as opposed to a blanket statement on the role of an armed society against rioting.

This is our argument.

 

I CAN'T STOP!!!!!

I know it's useless. Internet Bravado can't be contained. I just hope that some people who read through this walk away with something of a balanced perspective.

 

This is awesome.

 

I would agree that the article is "overly assumptive and hyperbolic". Everything that is said or written is slanted to promote their own agenda.

And I would agree that More people would have died if London was armed. What I don't agree with is your position of "but most likely the body count would have been much higher -- on both sides." (my own emphasis added)

In a riot situation the criminals rove in groups for the safety in numbers. They are not organized, they are not prepared. If they have guns the majority will not be well trained and you can't carry with you large amounts of ammo. It is too heavy. Clubs, rocks, and fire are the normal mob weapons.

If home owners had guns and ammo stocked in their houses the body count of criminals would be higher and the count of civilians would be lower.

 

Yes, there is internet bravado, but there is also fundamental truths to both sides of the argument. Governments are not out there to protect individuals, they are out there to protect big business interests. "The banks cannot fail". Individuals are just a minor detail.

 

It seems to me if you feel you need a gun by your side in your neighborhood you need to move.

 

Very easy to say, much harder to implement in these economic times. As I said before. This thread is talking about someone elses situation. Not yours.

My nieghborhood is fine. It is only under extreme circumstances that I am vulnerable. How many people froze to death last year in Maine?

My family lives in the area but in a more secluded neighborhood. Once I can afford the better neighborhood I will be moving. Until then I have to live in reality, not just what I want.

 

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. I live in a great neighborhood. As you well know, crime doesn't have a zip code.
Growing up, I lived in a pretty bad neighborhood. Guess what? The guys who were robbing houses weren't coming to my house, they were going to the rich neighborhoods and boosting their stuff, because they knew we didn't have anything worth stealing.

 

I wasn't referring to you about the bravado. I actually see most of your points, but I don't necessarily agree with them completely. Hence the fundamental truths part you bring up.

The part about government protecting big business make me think you need to borrow my screen name. (not that I disagree with you..at all)

Nah. I don't want to steal your thunder. Thanks though!

 

Seems to me if you think there's a place on this earth where there isn't at least one person who is simply nasty and mean and intending to hurt innocent people, you live in dreamland.

I suspect I'll live my life without having to pull the trigger defensively, and I'm glad about that. I've not been around long, but I can already no longer say I've never needed a gun for protection at all. I'm just glad I didn't have to use it. But then again, that's half the point - most of the people you'd need to use a gun on, don't want to fool with you once they know you're serious about defending your own life.

I have no desire to use my guns to wage war on anything besides soda cans, targets, and clay pigeons.

However, I do want to be able to protect myself if it does ever happen. Same reason I want my airbags to go off if I do ever get in a serious car crash.

But, again, I live in a safe neighborhood and I know the probability of this happening is, fortunately, a remote possibility. Why not be prepared?

 

You guys havent seen the footages of Korean shop owners shooting looters in LA?

 

I suppose at the end of the day, I'm generally for empowering people to rely on themselves, rather than providing for them, in almost all aspects of life, and that's often where I butt heads with people politically.

 

Those shop owners embody what should be the prevailing american attitude to me. "We're going to protect ourselves and ours."

Don't get me wrong, the national guard needed to and did step in, but I can respect people refusing to be victims to a bunch of low-lifes trying to take advantage of a bad situation.

 

I'm all for that, so long as people don't abuse that responsibility. I think the thing to remember here is that the people of London voted through their political processes to elect persons to represent their interests -- which in this case appears to be a disarmed society.

I also feel that government has a responsibility for the safety and protection of its citizenry, which in some cases calls for disarmament - albeit rarely. I also have unique perspective from post-Katrina New Orleans which biases my opinion. Overall, in the case of the London riots, I place the blame squarely upon the government for failing to equip its suppression force (law enforcement) adequately and for waiting too long to deploy a suppression force capable of quelling the riots.

Back at ya.

 

Yep. I certainly think a fundamental function of government is keeping order. All I meant is that I do not want to see this country going down the road of relying on the government for protection (or anything else we don't have to.) A backup for when the police and national guard can't help you, if you will.

And yeah, I'm aware the Brits gave their rights away. I disagree with that decision, but it's up to them; never said it was taken away involuntarily.

Fortunately, with all the recent concealed carry laws being instated and the lifting of the gun ban in chicago and DC, we don't seem to be anywhere near more gun control.

We already know I disagree with you completely on this, but that's that.

 

Are you serious? I live North of the border where our gov is pretty left wing and even we aren't that tied by the law.

Quick snip from the Criminal Code of Canada

34. (1) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted without having provoked the assault is justified in repelling force by force if the force he uses is not intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm and is no more than is necessary to enable him to defend himself.
(2) Every one who is unlawfully assaulted and who causes death or grievous bodily harm in repelling the assault is justified if
(a) he causes it under reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm from the violence with which the assault was originally made or with which the assailant pursues his purposes; and (b) he believes, on reasonable grounds, that he cannot otherwise preserve himself from death or grievous bodily harm. [R.S. c.C-34, s.34.]