Riots in London show how thin the veil of civilization is.

[Atypical Liberal]

The riots in London show how thin the veil of civilization is. This sort of occurrence is the primary reason I own an assault rifle.

[MineralMan]

1. So, which side would you be on?

In the UK, I mean. It's a valid, serious question. I'll wait here for your answer.

[atreides1]

2. That would depend

[MineralMan]

5. You weren't the person I was asking.

You can answer, though, if you wish. London. Rioting. Which side do you support?

[Marengo]

21. Open forum. Don't like it? Don't post. N/T

[safeinOhio]

16. great question.

Only crickets answering is telling...

[Atypical Liberal]

37. See #34. n/t

[Marengo]

19. Burning shops and cars...Yeah, that's REAL progressive action.

:eyes:

Not every riot is a revolution, not every victim a class enemy, and not every bottle tosser a hero.

[PavePusher]

25. For me? Not the side of the rioters.

Anyone who responds to government incompetence and possible (but not apparently likely) police brutality by burning and looting shops and homes is a criminal (and an astoundingly stupid one), worth only being opposed with force, up to and including lethal force, if neccesary.

To bad British residents aren't well-equiped to defend their homes and livelyhoods. Glad I left.

[Atypical Liberal]

34. I'd be on my side.

Honestly, despite 3 days of news on the riots in the UK, I can't figure out what they are rioting for. On NPR I heard some BBC newscaster saying, "We have to do some serious soul-searching as to why this is happening." But I have not heard anything as to why it is happening.

But the why doesn't matter to me.

What matters to me is the security of my home and my neighborhood. Whether due to natural disaster, terrorism, riots, or whatever, my intent is to be able to defend my home from lawless masses.

[Skittles]

3. this forum is a prime example of how thin the veil is

[snagglepuss]

6. Bang on. nt

[cleanhippie]

17. Agreed, considering the sheer number of ignorant, emotional, anti-gun posts there are.

[iverglas]

49. snork

snork snork snork

Well done indeed.

[TheWraith]

4. I'm actually pretty sure you don't own an assault rifle.

That refers to fully-automatic or burst-capable weapons. I believe you mean to say that you own an "assault weapon" or other high capacity semi-auto.

Of course I could be wrong, you could actually own an assault rifle. In which case, you would probably need it to defend yourself against the people who would be trying to steal said $18,000 gun. :)

[spin]

10. The problem with the term "assault weapon" is that ...

is the term is used to describe a broad category of firearms.

Assault weapon

Assault weapon is a non-technical term referring to any of a broad category of firearms with certain features, including some semiautomatic rifles, some pistols, and some shotguns. There are a variety of different statutory definitions of assault weapons in local, state, and federal laws in the United States that define them by a set of characteristics they possess. Using lists of physical features or specific firearms in defining assault weapons in the U.S. was first codified by the language of the now-expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.<1>

Very generally speaking, a semi-automatic firearm is defined by these laws as an assault weapon if it has both a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, sometimes in conjunction with other features such as a folding stock or a muzzle break. Assault weapons are often similar in appearance to military firearms, but are capable of firing only once each time the trigger is pulled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

When you wish to talk about a semi-automatic rifle that looks a lot like a actual rifle used by modern armies, what do you call it?

I sometimes use the term black rifle, but now some of these semi-auto military clones are painted in camouflage colors or are pink.

[TheWraith]

27. I agree. I wish there were a more accurate term to describe them.

"Semi-auto carbine" comes closest, although I suppose it encompasses some chamberings that I would hesitate to describe as carbine class, particularly .308 and 6.5/6.8.

[NewMoonTherian]

38. I think the difficulty in describing them...

comes because they are too varied to fall into a single category, and they share too many features with other classes. That's one of the myriad reasons the AWB was so ludicrous - its criteria were so random and arbitrary that common hunting guns were getting banned. We know what we're talking about when we use the terms, but what features actually separate them from other firearms as a class of their own?

[PavePusher]

43. "Utility rifle" or "sport-utility rifle" n/t

[spin]

44. I like those terms. (n/t)

[SteveM]

61. "utility rifle" and "utility shotgun" were used to denote inexpensive...

firearms for hunting, home-defense, etc. The expression comes up a lot in Gun List's descriptions, as in: The Stevens 311-D is a utility shotgun...etc.

[Hoyt]

52. "Assault Weapon" -- gun designed and marketed to appeal to gunners' baser instincts. It's really

that simple. The manufacturers add some glitz and "sexy" stuff to promote excess salivation/drooling when potential purchaser sees one (or two, or three) and think about how owning one will make them feel so special.

[X_Digger]

53. 'baser instincts' like ergonomics?

You skittered away the last time.. care to address it this time?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=445879#446245

[Hoyt]

55. Truthfully, unless you are missing a hand or something, I care little how comfortable you will be

shooting someone; practicing to shoot someone; or just playing it out in your bedroom or wherever.

[X_Digger]

56. Smell that moral opprobrium!

Guns should be awkward, unreliable, heavy, and prone to damage!

feel free to spit it out, anytime. You've chewed that cud into paste already.

[ileus]

58. I suppose it's the basic instinct of survival? why die when you can fight

a pretty darned necessary instinct if you ask me...

[Hoyt]

59. Many more people have fought back without a gun. Apparently, you can't see yourself doing that.

[ileus]

57. UMmmmmmm scary quad rail...half the antis don't know what an assault weapon is.

[Hoyt]

60. Just told you what one is. And the term was coined by gun marketers to appeal to gunners.

Nowadays the gun marketers like terms like "tactical" -- that seems to get gunners' hormones flowing.

[Atypical Liberal]

35. The "assault weapon" term is lost.

I do not even try to engage in the "assault weapon" semantics came.

Firstly, that term has been co-opted by the anti-firearm side. That battle is lost. To the public, any firearm that looks like a military rifle is an assault weapon.

Secondly, I do not reject the term. In fact, I think we should embrace it. Hell yes I own an assault rifle. It is an SAR-1, and is identical to an AK-47 in every way that matters except it cannot do fully-automatic fire. This does not negate all the other aspects of it that make it suitable for infantry use.

So yes, I own a civilian-legal assault rifle, and I have no problem with that.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. No you don't.

Assault rifle is military nomenclature. It is a rifle of intermediate power between a sub-machine gun, and a battle rifle, capable of select fire. Period.

If you hand that gun to a soldier and say 'hey, check out my assault rifle', he'll tell you, you are full of shit, or it is broken.

By all means, use 'assault weapon'. The phrase is fairly meaningless, but people will at least know what you mean. Assault Rifle, used in this case, is simply an error.

[Atypical Liberal]

48. Fine.

Every time you try to go down that road with the public, you lose the greater debate.

As they say in politics, "If you're explaining, you're losing."

I'm not going to engage in semantic explanations of the distinguishing features of firearms.

To the layperson, these are assault rifles:




And I don't have a problem with them thinking that.

Instead of working to convince them that they are OK because they aren't fully automatic, we should be convincing them that military small arms in the hands of civilians is precisely what the second amendment is intended to protect.

[spin]

7. Let's hope we can avoid such riots, but now is the time to consider ...

if you need a firearm for home defense or defense on the street. Firearms are not for everybody, therefore I am not recommending everybody ran out and buy firearms.

We may face serious turmoil in our nation especially if the Republican Tea Baggers keep getting their way. If civil unrest looks possible, expect gun store shelves to be empty of both guns and ammo.

It will be like going down to your hardware or grocery store to get supplies when a major hurricane is a day from hitting your area.

Been there, done that. Learned some valuable lessons.

[MineralMan]

8. So, same question. In the case of riots like those in London

and elsewhere in the UK, which side would you be on? So far, nobody's answered that question. My firearms are suitable for home defense, and that's where I'd be. That's why I have them.

[spin]

12. I would hopefully be at home ...

but I do have a carry permit and I carry.

It's debatable how effective a concealed weapon would be in a riot. Obviously it would be better not to be there if the crowd decided to attack you or your car.

I do remember one situation that a co-worker described to me. He was on vacation and was visiting a friend who maintained medical equipment in hospitals. He accompanied we his friend to an inner city hospital to watch and help him work. When they were driving home, they were caught in the middle of a riot. My co-workers friend reached under the seat and produced a Colt .45 auto with a nickel finish, He chambered a round and laid it on the dash board when the rioters could see it. The mob never did bother their car.

That was many years ago when the United States was going through a period of turmoil.

[Kennah]

30. All depends upon the size of the crowd and what other stuff is available

A handgun alone might be enough to get past a small group so that one could get to a vehicle and leave the area.

[DWC]

29. I would be on my side

which pretty much defines self defense.

Anyone who physically attacks peaceful citizens and/or their property is my enemy and the enemy of society.

I will employ what ever force is available to protect myself and my property from illegal violent, activity from any source.

Sadly, UK citizens are not free to legally exercise that unalienable right. Happyly, as a citizen of the USA, I do.

Semper Fi,

[ileus]

31. I'd be on my side....at home locked loaded and barricaded.

plywood over the windows, problem is what do you do when they decide to set fire to your home?

Hopefully the violence will stay in the cities where it belongs...

[Hangingon]

41. I agree. It would be foolish to go out into the mob.

The fire scenario is a problem. In that event, you may be forced to defend against an overwhelming mob. A final stand. In that case, stop when you hit empty chambers.

[Euromutt]

32. As others have said, my own and my neighbors'

In the event of civil unrest on this scale, I'm not interested in trying to take the fight to anyone, but if anyone comes looking to trash, pillage and/or torch any building on my street, I'd happily be part of the reception committee.

[Hangingon]

40. That is why I have them too.

It seems to me that in the present context, "rich" means you are not a gang member.

[slackmaster]

45. I would be on my side - Defending my home and family first

I'd shoot without hesitation anyone who attempted to set fire to my house or place of business.

[SteveM]

50. S, this is an open question, now? Neither...

It would appear these rioters, with the aid of social networking, are coordinating their looting/vandalism, and London's authorities as of yet do not know how to stop them, kinda leave London's LEOs out of the loop.

It's hard to put myself in another culture. If this kind of thing were happening where I lived, I believe the rioting would be contained by heavily-armed police; if it were to spread my way, perhaps I would take a leaf from some of the Asian shop owners defending their livelihood/selves in past U.S. riots: get on the rooftops and let off a few rounds in the "general direction of the English pig-dog."

[alp227]

63. Good question. What about sniper attacks or surprise random attacks

That's a situation that I've never heard resolved from gun advocates. I'm for self-defense, but more guns make random attacks and sniper shootings more likely do they not?

[onehandle]

9. I never leave the house without my body wrapped in dynamite. nt

[spin]

13. Do you have a permit? (n/t)

[cleanhippie]

18. Do you have it wired to blow, too?

You should test it just to be sure it works.

[krispos42]

23. For the sake of pedestrians and other drivers...

...I hope your car doesn't have airbags!

:nuke:

[SteveM]

51. Better hope one of those errant rounds doesn't head your way. nt

[TPaine7]

54. I'll gladly give you a cigarette and a lighter if you give me 10 second to drive away. n/t

[RSillsbee]

62. Gime three steps, gime three steps, gimme three steps toward the door

gimme three steps and I'm tellin' ya Mr.s you'll never see me no more

[Speck Tater]

11. This kind of occurence is why I live far away from any population center so I don't NEED a rifle. nt

[spin]

15. In the worst case scenario, if society totally breaks down ...

people will be fleeing the city. You may well find your home a target.

This is highly unlikely but faintly possible. In order for the scenario to happen, we would need a major disaster like an electromagnetic pulse caused by a high altitude nuclear explosion or a extremely powerful solar flare.

Severe Solar Storms Could Disrupt Earth This Decade: NOAA
By IB Times Staff Reporter | August 8, 2011 7:08 AM EDT

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a federal agency that focuses on the condition of the oceans and atmosphere, said a severe solar storm could cause global disruptions in GPS systems, power grids, satellite communications, and airline communications.

***snip***

In a huge solar storm back in 1859, telegraph offices worldwide were hit, some telegraph operators reported electric shocks, the telegraph systems malfunctioned and even paper caught fire. It is the strongest solar storm on record and is called the “Carrington Event,” which is named after Richard Carrington, who viewed and reported on the solar flare of Sept. 1, 1859. In 1989, six million people in Quebec, Canada were left without power for several hours when a solar storm took down a power grid.

***snip***

The NOAA predicted four “extreme” solar emissions which could threaten the planet this decade. Similarly, NASA warned that a peak in the sun's magnetic energy cycle and the number of sun spots or flares around 2013 could enable extremely high radiation levels.

This is a special problem in the United States and especially a severe threat in the eastern United States as Federal Government studies revealed that this extreme solar activity and emissions may result in complete blackouts for years in several areas of the nation. Moreover, there may also be disruption of power supply for years, or even decades, as geomagnetic currents attracted by the storm could debilitate the transformers.emphasis added
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/194166/20110808/solar-storms-severe-solar-storms-earth-paralyse-carrington-event.htm

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If a disaster like this does happen, you will need a hell of a lot more than a rifle to survive.

[Speck Tater]

22. As a rule, scared people stay in familiar places.

And the further from the city they get, the more thinly they are spread out. Remember the inverse square law. Every time the crowd doubles the distance from town the density of people per square mile gets cut by a factor of four. By the time they get "out in the country" they are spread so thin they are not a threat.

[Atypical Liberal]

36. I don't think people will be able to leave the cities.

My prediction continues to be that we are going to see a nuclear or biological terror attack on a major metropolitan area within my lifetime.

When this happens, all hell is going to break loose. Not only will people be attempting to flee the city under attack, but likely all major cities, especially if the attackers are smart and call up CNN and tell them they have more weapons in other cities (true or not).

You are going to have absolute gridlock. People are not going to get anywhere. Gasoline will be gone in hours, food in days. And people are unlikely to be able or willing to enter the cities to resupply them. As the gasoline, food, and water runs out, chaos will ensue. You will likely see martial law imposed, if it is possible.

[spin]

47. Currently we live in a small town but we would like to sell and move ...

into a more rural area and own at least 5 acres.

At that time I may decide to buy an AR-10 mainly for hog hunting. Of course, it could double as a home defense rifle.

I could add that, prepared properly, wild hog meat is tasty. There are safety concerns in handling and cooking wild hog.

Hog Hunting in Florida

http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/medicine/arboviral/Zoonoses/Hunting.html

[krispos42]

24. This possiblity is one reason I really didn't want to move back to CT

Of course, there are lots of reasons... moving back in with my parents, having to rush the move, potential child-custody fight with the ex, and no job lined up.

Throw in... I don't like the crowding and traffic, it's fucking expensive to live here, and the summer weather is humid and sticky.



Of course, it's still the suburbs. I'm dozens of miles from Manhattan and the Bronx, so any direct rioting is unlikely to get here. But the area is not self-sustainable in terms of food and water. It's either suburban housing, urban housing, parks, wildlife preserves, or marshes. There's damn little farming or ranching in Fairfield County, and the population of the county is getting close to a million people.


This compares to the county of 30,000, with a massive farming and ranching economy, that I lived in in Minnesota.

[ileus]

14. Stuff of this nature happens you stay put and hidden in your home.

If trouble comes to you, you do what you have to.


pretty much makes the case for 30 round magazines...

[NewMoonTherian]

39. But the people trying to make a case against 30-rd mags...

don't acknowledge that scenario as possible. They demand that you argue only in terms of a permanently stable, civil society that will never experience any broad social upheaval or collapse.

[FirstLight]

20. scary scenario to think about

but probably not too far off, actually.

i doubt I'd be anywhere near an actual riot, but if there were gangs of people running through neighborhoods, i'd be screwn.

thankful that i do live in a remote rural area, so when the city folk 'head for the hills' they may not make it this far. It's the loonies that live up here in the mtns WITH me i should be worried about! :scared:

[PavePusher]

26. Interesting how you distance yourself from those who you will need to cooperate with...

in order to ensure your survival.

Debateable strategy, but interesting....

[GreenStormCloud]

28. During the Rodney King riots Korean store keepers protected their stores.

They were on the roofs with rifles and shotguns. Their stores didn't burn.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. Actually it was not just the Koreans...

Many shop owners did. It did not make the press at the time (LA Times has a strong anti gun bias).

[Atypical Liberal]

42. Picture