What would have happened if British shop owners had firearms ...

[spin]

Note: I tried to find news articles or editorials that would support the position that gun control in the UK is preventing a more serious tragedy in the current riots. If they exist they are hard to find.

If British shopkeepers had the right to bear arms, vicious thugs would think twice before looting
By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: August 10th, 2011

During the Los Angeles riots in 1992, many store owners in the south central part of the city defended their property against marauding gangs with their own weapons, and succeeded in protecting their livelihoods and thousands of jobs that depended on them. And across the country, Americans admired their bravery, thankful for the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which protects their right to keep and bear arms, and thereby defend themselves, their families and their property. In contrast in London in 2011, shopkeepers were left at the mercy of feral, brutal thugs acting with impunity across whole swathes of the capital as the police were overwhelmed. If they had the right to bear arms and defend their stores with force, it would have been a very different story, and brutal looters would have met firm resistance.

Britain’s gun laws are among the most draconian in the world, yet the nation has some of the highest levels of violent crime and burglary in the West, and there is no shortage of gun crime in major cities such as London and Manchester. While criminal gangs are often able to acquire firearms on the black market, ordinary law-abiding British citizens are barred from owning guns for self-defence.

The riots in London, the West Midlands and the North West should prompt a renewed debate in Britain over the right to bear arms by private citizens. The shocking scenes of looting across the country are a reminder that the police cannot always be relied upon to protect homes and businesses during a period of widespread social disorder. The defence of life and property can never be entrusted solely to the state, not least when there is a complete breakdown in law and order. As we have seen this week in Britain, when individuals are barred from defending their own property from mobs of vicious thugs, sheer anarchy and terror reins.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100100323/if-british-shopkeepers-had-the-right-to-bear-arms-vicious-thugs-would-think-twice-before-looting/

Baseball Bat Sales Rise on Amazon UK

By Ian Paul, PCWorld Aug 9, 2011 12:11 PM

Sales for baseball bats on Amazon UK have risen by more than 6000 percent over the past 24 hours, presumably due to the civil unrest engulfing the island nation. But it's unclear whether the sales of sluggers are due to trouble makers gearing up for a fight or concerned citizens looking after their own interests.

Surely it's not a groundswell of baseball fever?

The most popular bat of choice Tuesday is a 23-inch Rucanor aluminum bat selling for about $28. The item has risen from 6,974 to the 105th most popular sports and leisure item on Amazon UK. The next most popular is a military police baton, which is followed by another five baseball bats ranging in price from $15-$30.

The issue has sparked something of a debate on Hacker News where the baseball bat spike was first noticed. While some argue that a baseball bat would be a great disguised weapon when you're looking to destroy property, others have said shopkeepers and home owners may be purchasing bats to take care of their properth and families amid the chaos. The Guardian has a video showing Turkish shop owners in East London protecting their stores: Several men carry various pipes, sticks, and other implements.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/237616/baseball_bat_sales_rise_on_amazon_uk.html

Britain’s in crisis: the real causes of chaos on streets
Wednesday 10th August 2011, 2:13am

FEAR. Debilitating, widespread fear. The country held to ransom by feckless youths. Thousands of shocked Londoners cowering in their homes, with many shops, banks and offices shutting early. I cannot remember anything like it; the atrocities of the 7/7 terror attacks, the shock from 9/11 and the IRA’s repeated terrorist attacks had a chilling, devastating effect on the capital but it felt different this time. Usually peaceful suburbs were under siege; meanwhile, there was increasing violence in other towns. The government belatedly appeared to regain control in London but the electorate’s trust that the cavalry would show up if they call 999 has been shattered. It no longer feels as if we live in a civilised country.

The cause of the riots is the looters; opportunistic, greedy, arrogant and amoral young criminals who believe that they have the right to steal, burn and destroy other people’s property. There were no extenuating circumstances, no excuses. The context was two-fold: first, decades of failed social, educational, family and microeconomic policies, which means that a large chunk of the UK has become alienated from mainstream society, culturally impoverished, bereft of role models, permanently workless and trapped and dependent on welfare or the shadow economy. For this the establishment and the dominant politically correct ideology are to blame: they deemed it acceptable to permanently chuck welfare money at sink estates, claiming victory over material poverty, regardless of the wider consequences, in return for acquiring a clean conscience. The second was a failure of policing and criminal justice, exacerbated by an ultra-soft reaction to riots over the past year involving attacks on banks, shops, the Tory party HQ and so on, as well as an official policy to shut prisons and reduce sentences. Criminals need to fear the possibility and consequence of arrest; if they do not, they suddenly realise that the emperor has no clothes. At some point, something was bound to happen to trigger both these forces and for consumerist thugs to let themselves loose on innocent bystanders.

***snip***

What they wanted is free money and free goods and so they helped themselves. They were driven by greed, a culture of entitlement, of rights without responsibility, combined with a complete detachment from traditional morality, generalised teenage anger and a sense that anything goes in the current climate. This wasn’t a political protest, it was thievery. It is true, however, that proper welfare, educational and economic reforms may cost money short term; and of course the coalition’s desire to protect so many departments, its failure to root out waste, its refusal to broaden the sources of financing of public services, its desire to increase foreign aid and its acquiescence to handing more cash to the EU has forced it at times to propose the wrong kind of cuts. Obviously spending on law enforcement and prisons needs to be increased. Figures of authority – teachers, parents and the police – must again be given the power to act. We need to see New York style zero tolerance policing, with all offences, however minor, prosecuted. But what matters right now is to regain control, to stamp out the violence and to arrest, prosecute and jail as many thugs as possible. The law-abiding mainstream majority feels that it has been abandoned and betrayed by the establishment and is very, very angry. Boris Johnson and David Cameron must urgently deliver or their careers will be over – and deservedly so.
http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/britain-s-crisis-the-real-causes-chaos-streets#.TkJJ60sp58Y.twitter

To watch a video dealing with armed Korean store owners guarding their stores during the LA Riots visit:

Koreans showing off their guns in LA riots
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a05_1235367821

This video shows LA store owners shooting at looters:

LA Riots - Gunfight in Korea Town
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3be_1237333767

[pnwmom]

1. The rioters would also have been more likely to have guns. n/t

[villager]

2. Funny how that part gets omitted....

n/t

[SteveM]

15. Funny, how wrong you can be...

In the L.A. riots of '92, Korean-Americans were assaulted and killed. But they armed themselves and fought back. The businesses where K-As set up defense were not torched. The issue is self-defense. And the ability of citizens to exercise this right.

[iverglas]

77. funny how irrelevant you can be

What were you supposedly replying to?

Did you somehow refute the proposition that if the shopkeepers of England had firearms, everybody else would have too?

It really is the bit that always gets left out ...

[SteveM]

96. How did your eye surgery go? I hope all is clear...

"Did you somehow refute the proposition that if the shopkeepers of England had firearms, everybody else would have too?"

Refutation is unnecessary; in fact, the proposer of that proposition should defend it, since he/she made it.

[iverglas]

100. still blurry ...

"Did you somehow refute the proposition that if the shopkeepers of England had firearms, everybody else would have too?"
Refutation is unnecessary; in fact, the proposer of that proposition should defend it, since he/she made it.

So ... the UK would somehow be different from the US ...

Seems to me like someone is making that claim.

[Starboard Tack]

109. Not as wrong as you! Which Korean-Americans were assaulted and killed? And by whom?

What we do know is this.
Soon Ja Du, a 51 year-old Korean store owner saw Latasha Harlins, a 15 year-old African-American girl, putting a bottle of orange juice in her backpack. Du erroneously concluded that Harlins was attempting to steal, evidently not seeing the money Harlins was holding. Du attempted to grab Harlins by the sweater and snatched her backpack. Harlins then struck Du with her fist three times, knocking Du to the ground. After Harlins backed away Du then threw a stool at her. Harlins then picked up the orange juice that dropped during the scuffle, threw it on the counter and turned to leave. Du reached under the counter to retrieve a handgun. Du then fired at Harlins from behind at a distance of about three feet and shot her in the back of her head, killing her instantly. Harlins died with two dollars in her left hand.

We also know that 25 blacks were killed, 16 latinos, 8 whites, 2 asians, 1 arab, 1 indian.

Of the 2 asians, 1 was Vietnamese.

The only Korean-American was killed by other K-As

Lee, 18, a Korean-American living with his mom in the Wilshire District, was out with three friends when they got into a fight with another group of Koreans. Police responded to the gunfight and exchanged fire with both groups. Lee suffered two fatal hits to the chest as he sat in the front seat of a car. Someone in the rival group shot him. Detectives later learned the gun battle was a tragic mistake. Each group had been protecting Korean-owned stores and mistook the other for looters. Police made an arrest; no charges filed.

[Starboard Tack]

110. Interesting that the only Korean-American was killed by another

gun toting Korean-American, because they had both bought into the wild west bullshit mentality that you are trying to peddle here.

[Bragi]

3. Or steal the shopowners guns and use them /nt

[gejohnston]

17. don't see that happening

they would be more afraid of getting shot. It worked in the LA riots.

[Starboard Tack]

111. What worked in the LA riots? Please tell us all. What worked?

[PavePusher]

30. Certainly you can cite to this happening with sufficient frequency...

for it to be other than fear-baiting, amIrite?

[Remmah2]

53. No one took the guns from the police.

Simple solution is for the shop owners to band together to form a mutual neighborhood defense. AKA impromptu unorganized militia.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. Kind of hard to steal a gun when the gun is loaded and being pointed a you.

Try to steal it then and the owner will give you some of the bullets.

[iverglas]

78. but you sure can steal it some other time when it's convenient

Care to remind us of the figures for known firearms thefts per year in the USofA fr instance?

[GreenStormCloud]

107. The discussion is about self-defense during a riot. It isn't about routine burglaries.

The poster I responded to suggested that a gun that I might have in my hands for protection would be taken away from me by the rioters.

[Starboard Tack]

112. The single most stupid thing anyone can do during a riot is pull a gun.

And you should know that better than most, based on your history.

[friendly_iconoclast]

117. If they are one of the rioters, yes. Defending a home or property, no.

That worked in Koreatown during the 1992 riots.

[Starboard Tack]

119. What do you mean "That worked in Koreatown"?

You think shooting people over stuff is society working? Go back to your cave!
You think protecting a store full of shite is worth shooting someone over? Stay in your cave!

[GreenStormCloud]

125. He asked a practical question and you shifted to moral outrage.

Whether you agree morally or not, the fact is that the Koreans, by being visibly heavily armed in front of and on top of their stores were able to protect them. Your moral purity is irrelevant the the question of whether or not being armed enables one to protect themselves and their property.

[Starboard Tack]

131. No shit. Of course being heavily armed is going to help protect your junk.

Just shows where your priorities are. Stop confusing moral outrage with common sense.
Shooting a 15 year old girl in the back of her head for no reason was one of the causes of the riots. See how that worked out.

[friendly_iconoclast]

128. If it's a building that someone happens to be in- YES.

You are still perfectly free to depend on the good nature of a violent mob of looters. I won't.
Good luck to you if you should ever be in that situation- you'll need it.

[Starboard Tack]

132. Someone is in it to protect their junk. Which apparently is worth killing over.

I've been in that situation more than once and survived by thinking, not shooting. Works a lot better.

[friendly_iconoclast]

140. What assurance did the shopowners have that the looters weren't going to add 'arson' to their CVs?

Call me a barbarian, but I still maintain that a person lawfully in a dwelling or structure, for whatever reason, be it base or
noble has the right to repel (by deadly force if necessary) persons bent on breaking and entering into same. If that defense turns out to be lethal- well, the little snowflake should have made better choices.

Honestly, I'm glad it worked out for you- but you cannot guarantee the same result for others. As I've said elswhere,
if I had to, in extremis, shoot someone in such a situation, I'd do so with a heavy heart and a clear conscience.

[Starboard Tack]

147. "Call me a barbarian" no need to. You said it all

Some people think "structures" are worth killing for.

[friendly_iconoclast]

166. Looks like you "forgot" my post #126. Why am I not a bit surprised?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x447511#448142

Throw a brick through the window of an unoccupied building, and I'll write down the details to give to the cops- ifthey ever respond.

[Starboard Tack]

169. No, I didn't forget.

What if someone throws a stone at your vehicle, which is a moving structure? Come on, let's see where you draw the line.

[RSillsbee]

181. If I'm in my vehicle I can get away

My house, not so much.

[Starboard Tack]

185. This discussion started with stores, not houses.

[RSillsbee]

189. Same idea

My store can't move. If a mob attempts to enter my store I am going to shoot

[Starboard Tack]

194. OK now we no where you stand

[RSillsbee]

196. I think you meant "Know" NT

[GreenStormCloud]

143. Survived by thinking?? LOL!! You were lucky.

Denny tried the same thing that you did - drive through the crowd - and he got pulled from his truck and severely beaten.

[Starboard Tack]

148. Of course I got lucky and Denny didn't. Interesting you find it funny.

If either of us, or the many others who found ourselves in similar situations had resorted to your method of problem solving, I can only imagine the bloodbath that would have followed.

[GreenStormCloud]

157. If Denny had been armed the most likely outcome would have been...

...shooting the guy that tried to pull him out of the cab of the truck. After that the others would have scattered, he could have driven to safety and called the police from a safe place.

I did the LOL at your attempt to pat yourself on the back.

[Starboard Tack]

168. Fortunately we don't all think like you.

Obviously you've never been in that situation, unless you really are Mighty Mouse

[GreenStormCloud]

124. So if I am caught in a riot, I must peacefully submit to being beaten, possibly killed?

No me. First I will make every attempt to avoid the riot. But if I am caught in it and somebody wants to attack me, he will get shot. I carry two extra magazines so I have plenty to go around.

Being visibly armed during the Rodeny King riots worked pretty well for the Korean store owners.

[Paladin]

127. That "Two Extra Magazines/Plenty To Go Around" Thing?

That moves you from the "thoughtful self defense" camp to the "sweaty wishful thinking" camp. You're welcome.....

[friendly_iconoclast]

129. Hardly. Google the name "Reginald Denny" and get back to us.

I'll gladly live with your moral posturing and poutrage if it means doing without a fractured skull, thank you very much.

[X_Digger]

130. Prove it.

When has self-defense ever depended on their being a fixed number of attackers?

Group Of Teens Beat Up Elderly Man Because They Were 'Bored'
http://www.fox6now.com/news/witi-090422-man-beaten-boredom,0,7652794.story

Surveillance: Teens Beat Elderly Man, Friend in Cleveland
http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-teens-beat-elderly-men-surveillance-cleveland-txt,0,4502999.story

Hate crime? Killing caught on video
http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2011/08/05/griffin.mississippi.hate.crime.cnn

Group of teenagers beat up man at Tubbs Hill; knife pulled in incident
http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_0523d5e0-bfca-11e0-98be-001cc4c03286.html

[GreenStormCloud]

136. Not at all. In a riot one is likely to have multiple attackers.

Once the self-defense shooting starts most of the attackers would likely run away. So the gun & two extra mags should suffice. Also, one must fact the possibility of other attacks while I am try to get to safety.

[Starboard Tack]

135. The armed K-As didn't find themselves in a riot, they put themselves in the middle

I hope you never find yourself in that situation, but believe me, when you do suddenly find yourself surrounded by a mob of angry people, you'll need a lot more than your 2 magazines. If I had had a gun and used it, I have no doubt that neither I, nor my partner would have survived. Using a gun in such a situation is beyond stupid.

[GreenStormCloud]

137. The K-As survived, and so did their stores. N/T

[friendly_iconoclast]

145. Don't harsh the mellow with empirical evidence! n/t

[Starboard Tack]

151. And 51 others were killed.

[GreenStormCloud]

158. Are you blaming the K-As for that? N/T

[Starboard Tack]

172. Those shooting were probably responsible for a few deaths.

But the fact that people started shooting didn't do anything to quell the riots, but made things worse.
The animosity between the African American community and Korean American community was not helped. This is a dynamic peculiar to Los Angeles and still lingers, though to a lesser degree.

[GreenStormCloud]

174. Their objective was NOT to quell the riots, but to save their stores.

By and large, they succeeded in meeting their objective.

[Starboard Tack]

178. Really? I was there and I think their actions fanned the flames.

When the smoke cleared, Korean Americans were among those suffering the heaviest losses: 2,280 Korean American-owned stores had been looted, burned or damaged, amounting to about $400 million in losses.

[RSillsbee]

182. How many of those 2,280 were defended w/ firearms? NT

[Starboard Tack]

186. If you really want a good take on the LA riots read this

http://www.irwinator.com/126/wdoc204.htm

[KansDem]

5. I was thinking about this last night...

One British citizen is killed by police and London erupts in riots.

I thought about how many time American police officers have killed American citizens and wondered why we didn't erupt in violence. Just off the top of my head, there was the Oakland murder, the New Orleans murders, the Fullerton murder. Yet, no riots.

American police are heavily armed with guns and tasers. American citizens tend to be heavily armed with firearms. Yet, American cops can murder American citzens and no riots.

Why?

[Mz Pip]

7. There were riots in Oakland

because of the Oscar Grant case. Cars were torched, businesses were trashed. Sad situation all around.

[KansDem]

But I didn't see rioters throwing rocks, bricks, and the like at the police.

Sure, there were riots, but when I saw the riots in London where rioters actually caused the police to retreat, I thought "Here, the police would attack the crowd with batons, rubber bullets, pepper spray, and the coveted Taser."

[Bragi]

10. Americans are too fearful and socially isolated to riot /nt

[SteveM]

22. Uh, we have had PLENTY of riots throughout our history...

...and we are likely to have more. The larger question is: How do you defend yourself and yours when the arson, home invasion and street attacks begin?

[Bragi]

35. Not recently, since the Con-MSM brain takeover /nt

[SteveM]

94. You'll have to explain this. nt

[slackmaster]

14. Rodney King was only beaten by police, not murdered, and that led to riots in 1992 in Los Angeles

Maybe you're too young to remember.

[KansDem]

37. Riots, sure. But did rioters attack the police?

London Riots - Rioters attack Police in Woolwich!

I don't recall King rioters attacking the L.A. police, causing them to retreat. And a search of YouTube and Google videos does not result in any "Rioters attack police: Police retreat" clips.

[slackmaster]

40. The L.A. police had firearms with live ammunition

;-)

[KansDem]

42. Precisely!

Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms, except in special circumstances. This originates from the formation of the Metropolitan Police Service in the 19th century, when police were not armed, partly to counter public fears and objections concerning armed enforcers as this had been previously seen due to the British Army maintaining order when needed. The arming of police in the United Kingdom is a perennial topic of debate.

Most officers are instead issued with other items for personal defense, such as Speedcuffs, Extendable "ASP" Baton, and incapacitant sprays such as PAVA or CS spray. While not a firearm, CS spray is subject to some of the same rules and regulations as a projectile firing firearm under Section 5 (b) of the Firearms Act 1968.<1>

The Ministry of Defence Police, Civil Nuclear Constabulary and Police Service of Northern Ireland (formerly the Royal Ulster Constabulary) are issued firearms as a matter of routine. Every force can also call upon the Force Firearms Units, Armed Response Vehicle, and certain specialist units of the Metropolitan Police are routinely armed.

In the year 2007-08, there were 6,780 Authorised Firearms Officers, 21,181 police operations in which firearms were authorised throughout England and Wales and 7 incidents where conventional firearms were used.<2>

Since 2004, Police forces have increasingly been deploying Tasers, for use against armed assailants, by Authorised Firearms Officers. Tasers are considered by the authorities to be a less lethal alternative to firearms, although Amnesty International links their use to 70 deaths in the US and Canada.<3>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom

So the OP asked if these riots would have gone on this long if shopowners had guns. But could the fact that UK police don't carry firearms also be a factor? Would rioters be as willing to go up against a row of police officers if those officers had firearms?

[Starboard Tack]

82. The police were ordered to withdraw for their own safety by Chief Gates

They didn't emerge until day 2 to help back up fire crews. Koreatown was still left to defend itself and the Korean community was split between the RW Republican gun toters and the liberal Dems who wanted to unite with other minorities and use barricades as a defense.

[friendly_iconoclast]

97. How do you know the Koreans with guns were "RW Republicans"?

Maybe they just weren't willing to submit to the tender mercies of a mob you yourself described as racially motivated:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x447511

The animosity towards Korean store owners was huge.

And if some of them were Republicans, so what? It's not as if they had any recourse if and when the police failed to show up.

[Starboard Tack]

99. Because I lived through it and remeber well the divisiveness in the Korean community

The Korean-American community in Los Angeles refers to the event as "Sa-E-Gu" (literally "4-29", the first day the riots broke out). The riots prompted various responses from the Korean-American community, including the formation of activist organizations such as the Association of Korean-American Victims, and increased efforts to build collaborative links with other ethnic groups.<73>

During the riots, many Koreans from throughout the area rushed to Koreatown, after Korean-language radio stations called for volunteers to guard against rioters. Many were armed, with a variety of improvised weapons, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles.<74>

According to Edward Park, the 1992 violence stimulated a new wave of political activism among Korean Americans, but it also split them into two main camps. The liberals sought to unite with other minorities in Los Angeles to fight against racial oppression and scapegoating. The conservatives emphasized law and order and generally favored the economic and social policies of the Republican Party. The conservatives tended to emphasize the political differences between Koreans and other minorities, specifically blacks and Hispanics.<[/div>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

[friendly_iconoclast]

114. Huh. The most noticeable example of the RW in all that was Darryl Gates.

Not to mention incompetent and a galaxy-class asshole. Yet some KAs went RW even after seeing his....work?

Just goes to show that System Justification Theory crosses the political spectrum...

[Starboard Tack]

81. The cops in LA were all MIA. So there were none to attack.

Our late great chief Gates decided to not deploy them. The result was total anarchy. I was working downtown, on the first day, doing an installation on the 50th floor of an office high rise and I counted 38 fires visible city wide. The drive back to our warehouse in south central was like a scene from Black Hawk Down. My partner, latino and I, white, were surrounded on several occasions by mobs of young African Americans throwing bottles and trash at us. They were setting fire to their own neighborhoods. The animosity towards Korean store owners was huge. We survived by jumping the median and driving right through the crowd, which dispersed enough that nobody got hurt. Thankfully, there were no guns involved.

If the rioters in LA had attacked the police, there would have been pitched gun battles all over the place.

[RSillsbee]

154. I don't know if I can find the cite

But I seem to remember that the LAPD retreated from several areas of south central LA when the riots started and that is what lead to the Korean being in a posisiton where they had to defend their own property

[SteveM]

20. You miss the point: Once riots start, it is self-defense...

We can talk all we want about police miss-conduct -- and there is ample evidence of it -- and make proposals for changing policies and such; this has been going on for generations. But once the riots start, (Q) how do you defend yourself?

(A)

In Britain:______________________

In the U.S.:______________________

[KansDem]

39. Any US riots where the police are attacked and had to retreat?

I referenced three incidents (off the top of my head) where American citizens were killed by American police officers. But I don't recall any of those three when citizens rioted and attacked the police, causing them to retreat.

That's the point I was making...

[Hoopla Phil]

66. In both the Rodney King and Watts riots the police pulled back

to a safe zone, set up road blocks and stayed out of the "hot zones". The people were left to fend for themselves against the rioters.

[SteveM]

95. Concerning police retreat...

"I want to make it clear that we didn't open fire first," said David Joo, manager of the gun shop. "At that time, four police cars were there. Somebody started to shoot at us. The L.A.P.D. ran away in half a second. I never saw such a fast escape. I was pretty disappointed."<77>

Defending the armed response of the Koreans, Mr. Rhyu said, "If it was your own business and your own property, would you be willing to trust it to someone else? We are glad the National Guard is here. They're good backup. But when our shops were burning we called the police every five minutes; no response."<77>

Jay Rhee estimated that he and others fired 500 shots into the ground and air. "We have lost our faith in the police," he said. "Where were you when we needed you?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

Many of the riots in modern U.S. history have reports of police leaving for higher ground, but this is the best documented incident. In Chicago, there is a chronic complaint of police clearing out when a gang-shooting erupts, though these are not riots.

The point here is self-defense. You cannot depend (almost by definition) on others to "defend" you. As I have tried to explain often, this ain't social policy, nor vigilantism, nor calling out the militia: It is self-defense, something Gandhi said was necessary at times.

[PavePusher]

31. Because burning and looting is not an intelligent response to government thuggery.

And we have at least a semblance of a legal proccess for addressing issues like that.

[Ready4Change]

71. We're used to it.

It's no longer big news when police get into a gun fight and kill accused alleged dealers.

[iverglas]

79. not the actual sequence

An individual was killed by police and a peaceful protest was held.

As is becoming increasingly common everywhere, criminals used the opportunity offered by the crowd of protestors on the street to begin a rampage of criminal activity. It happened in Toronto at the G8/G20 summit last summer, and it happened in Vancouver after the final Stanley Cup playoff this spring.

Nobody smashes and loots cell phone stores, music stores or sportswear stores (among the main targets) because they are upset about something the police have done, or even because they are protesting the rising income disparity and declining opportunities in their society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITJcparImeQ

That's a cane in her hand.

[Starboard Tack]

113. Very good question

Because the Brits don't resort to guns to solve their problems. They don't want the cops carrying guns and the cops don't want to carry them. Guns create a whole other dynamic. Tragically, 3 people have died so far in these riots, by driving a car into a group of people. One minority attacking another. Bring in guns and you end up with a situation like LA in 1992. 53 dead. Several thousand injured.

[gravity556]

164. Because here in the US,

riots only happen for really important reasons. Like a sports team winning a championship.

As for the poster pooh-poohing using a gun to keep someone from committing arson, you're welcome to allow yourself to be burned out of your home, risking the agony of being burned and chancing losing your loved ones to flame and smoke, and if you feel so strongly about it, paint a corner of your house day-glow orange. That way, in the event of a riot involving arson, I will refrain from using deadly force to keep your place from burning to the ground. I, however, have no inclination to permit some miscreant with a skewed sense of entitlement and a mean streak to cause me or my family harm, and that includes dissuading them with every bit of force available from burning my home down.

Don't want to be afraid of being shot in a riot? Don't fucking participate in them. Don't want to get shot because of castle doctrine? Don't break into houses. Afraid of getting shot due to stand your ground laws? Restrain your belligerent urges. Very simple rules. I have no sympathy for criminals who are injured or killed when their victim turns the tables on them-not even a little tiny bit.

[slackmaster]

11. Wait, WHAT??? I thought the rioters were members of a marginalized underclass who are upset...

...at the loss of some of their government benefits, and the lack of economic opportunity for them in general.

People like that can't afford guns. Guns (at least reliable, effective ones) are discretionary purchases for most people who own them

BTW, why were there not large numbers of armed rioters in the Los Angeles riots of 1992? Or in the Watts riots of 1965, before the Gun Control Act stopped mail-order sales of guns to anyone who could come up with the money to pay for them?

[pnwmom]

19. Oh. I guess members of a "marginalized underclass" never steal guns.

So they never have them, because they're too expensive. Interesting. Learn something new here every day.

[slackmaster]

25. You dodged my question of why the L.A. rioters in 1965 and 1992 weren't armed.

So, your response is a failure.

ETA I'd like to take this opportunity to describe a photograph that was sent to me during the 1992 riots by a friend who lives in Hollywood and works as a camera operator.

There was just one gun store in West Hollywood at the time, and it no longer exists. My friend went to the store to buy ammunition for the shotgun that he kept in his house for self-defense. There was a line to get in - More than 150 men and women of every age, race, ethnicity, and economic class. Middle-aged white men in business suits standing in line with young black men wearing gang colors. Bikers, a nurse, police officers in uniform. Everyone.

My friend finally got into the store and got some 12-gauge ammunition. He looked at a Glock pistol, which had just recently hit the US market. Model G17, famous for its novel (for the time) 17-round double-stack magazines. The man at the counter told him there was a 20-day wait to buy a handgun, and no wait for a shotgun or rifle.

Partly because so many Angelinos were unpleasantly surprised to discover that they could not just walk into a gun store and buy a handgun, that law was amended a couple of years later to make the wait 10 days for all types of firearms. I guess that was just to make it "fair" or something. The 10-day "cooling off" period remains in effect today, in spite of the obvious logical lapse of not exempting people who already own at least one firearm.

The 1994 version of California's waiting period became an issue in 1994 for members of the Los Angeles Police Department who were responding to the famous shootout with two thugs who were armed with illegal fully automatic rifles. Finding that they were out-gunned, some officers went to the now defunct B&B Sporting Goods store and asked if they could buy some AR-15 rifles, which were still fully available in California at the time. The B&B store manager informed the police that the law required a 10-day wait for firearm purchases even for cops. He let them sweat for a few minutes, then consented to LEND some rifles to the officers.

[pnwmom]

44. How do you know none of them were armed? And you're ignoring the fact

that some of those armed shopkeepers were shooting to protect property -- not life. And that at least one of them got away with murder.

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/uniform/usa1992.htm

Thirteen days after the King arrest, a teenaged African-American girl named Latasha Harlins attempted to buy a bottle of orange juice from a Korean woman grocer. An accusation of theft led the girl to punch the grocer. She then put the orange juice down and, with her back turned, walked toward the door. The grocer shot her in the back of the head, killing her. The tragedy was caught on the store's surveillance videotape. A jury convicted the grocer of voluntary manslaughter with a maximum penalty of 11 years in prison, but the judge, citing all manner of extenuating circumstances, sentenced her to probation and a small fine. African-American anger against Korean shopkeepers was already running high, and now it was at flashpoint. When the riots erupted, shouts of "Latasha Harlins" were heard again and again.

[slackmaster]

54. I don't recall reading or hearing any reports of rioters shooting anyone in 1992

And you're ignoring the fact... ...that some of those armed shopkeepers were shooting to protect property -- not life

I'm not ignoring it. I just don't care. In a riot situation, or any other in which civil order has broken down and police are unable to control the situation, I believe the normal rules are suspended. And as your "extenuating circumstances" quote above points out, the justice system has the prerogative of agreeing with me.

I wouldn't hesitate to shoot a rioter who was trying to set my house on fire, or had thrown a brick through my front window.

[Starboard Tack]

83. You wouldn't hesitate to shoot a rioter who threw a brick through your window?

Really? Wouldn't even hesitate. You must have some pretty fancy windows.

[RSillsbee]

155. RE: You wouldn't hesitate to shoot a rioter who threw a brick through your window?

Wouldn't even give it a second thought. would shoot while they were throwing the brick if my reflexes were that fast. Without question I would consider that a lethal attack.

[Starboard Tack]

165. I guess the toters are showing their true colors on this one.

Just think, if you moved to the West Bank, you could shoot people all day long.

[RSillsbee]

179. Yeah , that canard really doesn't work for me guy

Having actually shot people before, it's not some great mystery for me. I know it doesn't make me a better man and it's really not an experience I'd ever care to repeat.

That said, if you attack me w/ a lethal weapon I will respond in kind no questions asked.

[Starboard Tack]

184. Sorry, I didn't realize you were a window.

[Hoopla Phil]

67. Don't know about Cali but in Texes you can use deadly force to prevent arson.

With all the firebombing going on it is not unreasonable to assume that arson was the rioters intent.

[slackmaster]

70. California Penal Code section 197 says deadly force is justified to stop someone from committing...

...a felony.

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

Arson is a major felony in California.

[Starboard Tack]

84. I didn't see the "brick through a window" part.

I think it might behoove you to hesitate on that one, until you're sure of felonious intent.

[Hoopla Phil]

88. Perhaps you should go and read the response you typed just 7 minutes after this one.

Looks like you witnessed a lot of arson amiright?

[SteveM]

16. Perhaps so. But you defend against that prospect by exercising 2A rights...

Please open the links concerning how Korean-Americans defended themselves and their property ('92 L.A. riots) against mobs (often armed), and prevented further killing of their people and destruction of their property.

typo

[-..__...]

23. Once a few Goblins hit the ground....

the rest will scurry away like frightened rats.

It's not in their blood to engage in a gun battle.

[Paladin]

122. I Bet You Don't Call Them "Goblins" At Your Local Gun Club.... (n/t)

[Marengo]

141. As you seem to have inside info, what does he call them? N/T

[DonP]

156. "Target rich environment"? NT

[-..__...]

161. "Targets of opportuity"?

[-..__...]

160. I'll bet I do.

Prove me wrong.

[GreenStormCloud]

41. Do you honestly think the LA rioters didn't have guns also? N/T

[Starboard Tack]

85. Very few. Their motives weren't to shoot people, but to destroy and loot

Their targets were mainly liquor stores and other businesses in their neighborhoods that the residents felt were ripping them off. On the corner where I worked, La Brea and Jefferson, they burned everything except the KFC and a small BBQ place. Rioting is hungry work.

[Hoopla Phil]

87. So here you admit that arson was a motive and not just to "throw a brick".

Hummm, maybe you just forget the reply you typed just 7 minutes earlier.

[Starboard Tack]

98. What does that have to do with my response to a member who stated

that he would not hesitate to shoot anyone who threw a brick through his window?
A flaming brick I could understand. Bricks are not covered under the California law for justifiable homicide he cited.

[Hoopla Phil]

104. Perhaps you replied to the wrong post. What the poster said that you replied to was

"Arson is a major felony in California."

[Euromutt]

115. Ever been hit by a thrown brick?

They don't just leave bruises.

[Starboard Tack]

120. What does getting hit by a brick have to do with anything?

The discussion was about throwing a brick through a window, not about a brick hitting somebody. I responded to a poster who said he would not HESITATE to shoot a brick-through-the-window thrower. Period. Nothing about bruises or bricks hitting people, just WINDOWS.
Hey, you threw a brick through my window! Bang! Your dead!
Rock on leaders of the FREE world. Show'em what real men are made of. Shoot those fucking brick throwers. Oh yeah! You want to do that shit, really?

[friendly_iconoclast]

126. Throwing a brick through a window of an *occupied* building is assault with a deadly weapon.

Throw a brick through the window of an unoccupied building, and I'll write down the details to give to the cops- if
they ever respond.

Throw a brick into a building with people in it? I'd have one response- BANG. And I'd take my chances with the legal system with
a heavy heart and a clear conscience....

[Starboard Tack]

133. Pointing a gun at someone is also assault with a deadly weapon.

Enjoy that game. Hope you don't mistake someone giving you the finger as an assault with a deadly weapon.

[GreenStormCloud]

144. If it is in self-defense then pointing a gun at someone isn't an assault of any kind. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

149. Maybe. Let the jury decide if it was self defense or intimidation.

Many of the posts I see are from toters claiming the effectiveness of pointing a gun as a deterrence to potential attackers. I'm sure it works too. But if the potential assailant is unarmed or not within striking distance, then pointing that gun is assault with a deadly weapon.

[X_Digger]

152. Heft those goal posts..

Pointing a gun at someone is also assault with a deadly weapon.

Becomes..

But if the potential assailant is unarmed or not within striking distance, then pointing that gun is assault with a deadly weapon.

That's where the reasonable test comes in. If a reasonable person would fear grievous bodily harm or death, deadly force is warranted. That could be because of a disparity of force, regardless of whether or not the person was armed. Or multiple attackers.

A 65 year old person facing a young, fit attacker would be reasonable in fearing grievous bodily harm or death when the attacker says, "I'm going to pound your face in with my bare hands." and gives indication of being serious, such as by taking a swing.

[Starboard Tack]

153. If the two are in reachable distance yes, technically you are correct.

But the sub thread began with a poster saying if someone threw a brick through a window he would shoot and got refined from there.
The point, though, and I'm sure you'll agree, is that there is a line, and crossing that line changes everything. The line is different in every scenario and you use your judgment as to if and when you make a move that could change someone's life, yours included, for ever.
It's your choice and you prefer to have that choice. And it is your legally endowed choice. I prefer not to give myself that choice. Does my refusing to consider the option of shooting someone make me stupid? Maybe in your eyes, but I only have myself to answer to. I don't think reasonable people carry hidden guns around. Sorry.

[GreenStormCloud]

159. And I choose NOT to be a helpless victim. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

173. Sounds to me like you are somewhat obsessed with being a victim

so you prefer to be an armed victim. But a victim nevertheless. A victim of your fear of others. A victim of the RW/NRA propaganda you buy into. A victim of your distorted view of yourself and society. A victim of the gun culture that plagues our society. I could go on, but I don't want to damage your self esteem.

[GreenStormCloud]

175. This thread was about self-defense in a riot.

Escape is best if it can be done. If it can't then the choice is to be a helpless victim or to be able to fight effectively. I reject your insults and your definition of what a victim is.

[friendly_iconoclast]

146. Your legal knowledge is on a par with your knowledge of self defense. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

150. Thanks. I take that as a compliment. Probably due to my training.

[friendly_iconoclast]

167. Said by the guy who would use a flare gun on a fiberglass boat....

What would you put out first? Your target, or your boat?

[Starboard Tack]

170. You think I would point a flare gun inside my boat.

If someone were trying to board my boat and I used my flare gun to discourage them, it would be pointed towards them and their boat.
Not that it matters, but who said it was fiberglass?

[friendly_iconoclast]

204. You would use a deadly weapon to defend yourself- but decry others for doing the same n/t

Don't fool yourself. Do the words "capable of setting someone or something on fire" mean anything to you?

Less-lethal is decidedly not non-lethal. Google around for examples of those killed with tear gas canisters, rubber and wooden
bullets, or Tasers

[Starboard Tack]

207. I never said I wouldn't use a deadly weapon to defend myself.

I would use whatever might be available. If I lived in a rural area, I would keep a shotgun at home to defend against intruders and/or wild animals. That is quite different than walking around town with a loaded handgun. Being alert and mentally prepared is not displaying the level of acute paranoia associated with toting a concealed gun everywhere.

Semper realis.

[gravity556]

201. If you don't think of a brick as something capable of causing injury

then you're either spectacularly naive or invincibile to blunt force trauma. There have been border patrol agents severely injured by thrown bricks and stones down on the border, and let's not forget that in some middle eastern countries, stoning is still used as capital punishment for things like a woman allowing herself to be raped. (I know, she didn't actually "allow" the rape, but that doesn't seem to mitigate the prescribed burial to the shoulders and subsequent stoning to death).

As for the store owners in the UK, were they armed, they likely would stand a better chance of fending off the savage hordes of looters, hooligans and opportunistic sociopaths. After all, the mob mentality is that they can do whatever they want because they're safe in large numbers. Not entirely unlike the current fad of flash mob robberies that have been going on here in the US.

A group of individuals who believe that they are entitled to a shop owner's stock swarm a store, stealing anything not nailed down and even menacing or assaulting the clerk and other customers. Cowards who suddenly feel bravado in the company of other cowards and band together to spread mayhem. I have a feeling that these incidents will continue until a store owner decides that he's had enough and feels threatened enough by the swarm of thugs to use deadly force. And in quite a few states, disparity of force is a qualifying factor for the use of lethal force.

Rioters are scum who feel that because they're in a crowd, they can get away with whatever they please. They are looking for easy targets to overrun and steal from-a shop owner firing a rifle at the leaders of the mob will be the equivalent of a bright neon sign saying "No defenseless victims here. Look elsewhere!"

[Atypical Liberal]

50. If it comes down to the choice....

If it comes down to a choice where no one has guns but I have to engage in a physical contest of strength to defend myself, my family, and my property, or I get to have a gun to do that and bad guys do, too, I'll take the latter, thanks.

Bad guys usually look for easy targets.

[krispos42]

73. So?

One person, playing defense on his home turf with a gun against 5 guys with guns trying to break in, has better odds than the equally-disarmed scenario.

[geckosfeet]

4. How about a police force that responds?

[spin]

8. It is possible that the police are called "the thin blue line" for a good reason ...

often there are just not enough to be everywhere at the same time.

[geckosfeet]

43. No. Personally I prefer to be my own first responder rather than wait.

But given the firearms ban imposed on the people of Great Britain, you would expect the government/authorities to compensate with a strong police force. I would demand one (firearms) or the other (immediate - or at least very fast law enforcement response). Preferably both.

[spin]

62. One thing that amazed me was how they seem hesitant to use water cannons ...

or tear gas to disperse the mob. In the United States we would probably called in the National Guard if the units were stateside. I wonder if the Brits even have national guard units.

It often amazes me how a country that once ruled an empire "the sun never sets on" could end up being so passive and weak.

[geckosfeet]

63. Personally I am glad that people have the ability to protest. It's just that

if they come to loot or burn my house, I want to be able to defend myself when I try to stop them.

People need to be able to express displeasure with the government. Police need to protect personal property and well the being of citizens. If they can't or won't do it, they better let the citizens have the firepower to do it themselves.

[spin]

65. I fully support peaceful protests ...

I do not support looting or burning cars and buildings. The object to me of protesting is to change wrongs in society not to grab shoes, cell phones and LCD TVs.

I see no reason to burn some persons car who is probably little better off than I am and I can't see why I should burn down the shop of some person who has worked his entire life providing merchandise to my community.

That car or store owner is not responsible for setting government policy.

[geckosfeet]

69. As it was said in another post - 'they are rioters, not protesters'. Big difference.

The police/national guard should be there to protect citizens and property from damage by rioters. If they can't or won't then they need to enable the citizens.

Yes, I too fully support peaceful protest. And riots are not peaceful protest. They are bad guys. When a rioter comes for my home or my life, I want to be able to defend myself.

[spin]

74. It absolutely amazes me how nice the cops are to the rioters ...

They finally have decided to use water cannon.

London riots: water cannons to be used on 'sick society'
The Prime Minister has given the go-ahead for water cannon to be used on the British mainland for the first time and condemned pockets of society as “sick”.

By Andrew Porter, Political Editor

11:41PM BST 10 Aug 2011

David Cameron said that the cannon, previously only used in Ulster, would be available at 24 hours’ notice to deal with the “despicable violence” being seen in cities. Police had already been authorised to use baton rounds, he said. In a sign that other, more draconian, measures will now be at their disposal, he added: “We will do whatever is necessary. Nothing is off the table.”

***snip***

Water cannon have been used by police in Ulster this summer and have been a regular sight at disturbances in the province. But despite calls for their use on the mainland, including after last year’s student riots in London, ministers have always ruled out the tactic.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8694401/London-riots-water-cannons-to-be-used-on-sick-society.html

Why am I NOT surprised that the Brits would use water cannon on the Irish in Ulster.

[geckosfeet]

116. "the cannon, previously only used in Ulster" - ouch. The truth hurts.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Thank dog you are wrong

The British neither need nor want your ridiculous solution. Otherwise the police would be armed. You toters think guns solve everything. Get with the reality of the situation. Economic disparity, a crippled welfare system, massive unemployment among young males and a rare police shooting of a black man to trigger things off.
And you want to bring more guns into the equation.
The death toll in LA was 53 and thousands injured. In Cairo 300 in one day. In the UK 3 in 3 days. Not good at all, but let's get things in perspective.
How many do you think there would have been in your shootout scenario?

[DefenseLawyer]

6. John Wayne would have taken to the streets and stopped this nonsense with his trusty Colt

That's the fantasy that's playing out in your head, right?

[spin]

21. I'm not saying that firearm ownership might not make the problem worse ...

nor am I saying that if I had a small store that was fully insured that I would grab a shotgun and try to defend it against a mob. In reality, I would head for home to protect my family in case the riots spread to my neighborhood.

However, in London some of those shops had apartments over them. The news reports also mention that homes were burned. If I had rioters in the little town I live in, which is unlikely, I would prefer to have firearms for home defense rather than baseball bats.

But I can understand why a person who has his whole life invested in a small business and would face great difficulty starting over would desire to protect his store.

[SteveM]

27. Sorry, Sigmund, better take PSY 101 again and see your errors...

The issue is self-defense, not social policy or saving the day, or other such cinematic/T.V. fare which seems to inform you background.

If you were stuck in a riot like this, and you and your family could not escape, and the arsonists/looters/thugs came your way, what would you do?

Hint: Slipping in a DVD of a Wayne movie won't help.

[shraby]

9. Possibly a lot of people would be in the morgues right now

instead of walking around. People from both sides.

[spin]

24. Or possibly some stores and areas guarded by armed people...

would have not suffered damage.

[SteveM]

12. Some other pictures demonstrating Korean shop-owners defending...

their property:

http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=45570

The bottom-most picture of dead/injured Korean/Americans illustrates WHY they defended themselves/property. Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

See especially sub-heading "Riots and the Korean-American Community."

[louis-t]

13. There would be a lot of dead people in the streets?

:shrug:

[SteveM]

28. In this country, possibly yes. Then again...

If you could defend yourself, home, family with weaponry you have a right to, you might not be the one dead in the street.

[louis-t]

56. With all the rioting, only one dead so far. Not shot.

With guns in the hands of everyone, lots more dead. All shot. Why do I respond to these posts?

[X_Digger]

59. Add three more..

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_RIOTS_MUSLIMS_KILLED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[louis-t]

60. That's terrible. I doubt guns would have stopped this.

What a mess over there.

[SteveM]

93. I can't answer the question you posed to yourself...

I can only say that self-defense is a right all humans have, and is not handed out by government (though government may try to take that right away, however unsuccessfully).

I don't know of anyone who has advocated "...guns in the hands of everyone..." That thugs WILL have guns regardless of prohibitionist schemes, is a known. What I advocate is law-abiding citizens should have guns to defend themselves, their families and their home. This is not vigilantism, not taking the law into one's hands, not social policy. If, as in the '92 L.A. riots, you do not wish to be burned out, invaded (as in home), and killed, you need to have the instrumentality to counter-act the ALWAYS armed thug.

[slackmaster]

34. Not that there's anything wrong with THAT!

[louis-t]

58. Ususally, it's repugs that love killing people.

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

64. Who said anything about loving killing people?

:crazy:

[-..__...]

18. Korean shop owners? Baseball bats for defense?

Can't help but think of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2YRMixW9u8&playnext=1&list=PL49B5F7EF2E88B26D

[slackmaster]

26. LOL! I missed the juxtaposition.

Nice one.

[spin]

29. It has been a long time since I watched that scene. (n/t)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

32. "Baseball Bat Sales Rise on Amazon UK" ... LOL n/t

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Duende azul]

36. Wow. You did research. Did you also look for articles

that support the position that nuke control in the UK is preventing a more serious tragedy in the current riots? Those editorials also maybe hard to find.
Or about flamethrowers for shop owners?

Maybe there is an explanation for the mystery you discovered:

There are no editorials necessary to support the position that gun control is preventing a more serious tragedy. There still seems to exist a broad consensus in Britain. Evidentially they prefer not to routinely have to expect gunfire in critical situations.

That`s all.

If you are american, the question seems more telling about the society you are living in. And you are not the first one who asked. I will not call that interest in guns obsessive, but honestly that requires a lot of restraint on my part.

You`re welcome.

[gejohnston]

38. to paraphrase "there's an app for that"

There is a logical fallacy for that. Maybe more.

[spin]

47. Perhaps you didn't catch the fact that the first link that I posted ...

which was titled If British shopkeepers had the right to bear arms, vicious thugs would think twice before looting was from a UK newspaper.

[Duende azul]

49. So what? Did you catch the fact that the piece you linked to

is written by a Washington-based Murdoch contributor?

Nile Gardiner is a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator. He appears frequently on American and British television and radio, including Fox News Channel, CNN, BBC, Sky News, and NPR.

And he does what you do: Advocate for more guns in the game.
That's not exactly what you claim to have researched for.

Evidentially there is still no need to defend the strict gun control against such ideas. Still the british seem to be o.k. with what they have.

Guns are of interest to you. Guns are a problem of american society. Can´t we leave at that?

[spin]

61. You sure are full of accusations ...

What I was looking for was comments on if guns would have stopped or perhaps moderated the amount of damage caused by the riots. I excerpted one article from a British newspaper that advocated the right to bear arms, one article that mentioned the increase in sales of bats and batons and an article that discussed the motivations of the rioters.

I also linked to two videos that showed Korean store owners defending their property with firearms in LA. One video showed an exchange of gun fire between those protecting stores and rioters.

As I mentioned, I also looked for editorials which mentioned that the lack of firearms in the riot was a positive. Finding one or two would have contributed to the discussion.

I believe that firearms can be used by civilians legitimately for self defense in instances where they find their lives or health under threat. I summed my opinion up in post #21 in this thread:

I'm not saying that firearm ownership might not make the problem worse ...

nor am I saying that if I had a small store that was fully insured that I would grab a shotgun and try to defend it against a mob. In reality, I would head for home to protect my family in case the riots spread to my neighborhood.

However, in London some of those shops had apartments over them. The news reports also mention that homes were burned. If I had rioters in the little town I live in, which is unlikely, I would prefer to have firearms for home defense rather than baseball bats.

But I can understand why a person who has his whole life invested in a small business and would face great difficulty starting over would desire to protect his store.

When civilization breaks down, I personally feel it is a good thing to have access to firearms to defend yourself and your family. Commercial property might be a different matter. I wouldn't want to be attempting to defend a little store by myself with a shotgun in the middle of a full blown riot. However, I might consider becoming part of a group of defenders for an area or an individual store. For example, there is an auto parts store across the street from my house and we know the owner. We might be willing to help defend his store, if he was agreeable to helping us defend our home.

I believe in owning and using firearms for self defense and I do not consider myself a policeman or a member of a militia or National Guard.

The basic question to me comes down to whether property is worth killing or dying for. In most situations, absolutely not. Obviously if your home is located above your store and you have no chance to escape to escape the riot, the situation is different.

But is protecting and saving your community worthwhile when it is under threat and the police are not capable of maintaining order.

Would you be willing to fight a mob to stop your neighborhood from looking like this?



Of course the British do not have the opportunity to use firearms to defend their stores and neighborhoods. Perhaps they should. I feel that's an honest question for discussion. These riots could turn more violent or the next riot may be far larger and destroy far more. Is it right that honest hard working people can only stand by and watch all they own and have worked for burned to the ground? On the other hand would a large number of dead rioters, many of them in their teens be acceptable?

Of course, the mere presence of firearms in the hands of honest people MIGHT limit the scope of a riot without much bloodshed.

[PavePusher]

68. No, we can't, because guns are not the problem.

Criminals are the problem. You will not be rid of criminals by getting rid of guns, were the latter even possible.

[iverglas]

80. I certainly noticed it was from THE TELEGRAPH

Do you do any research into the sources you quote at all??

The Telegraph was Conrad Black's flagship operation, before that unfortunate spot of bother he's suffering deprivation of liberty over now.

Now it ain't quite the Daily Mail, or Fox News, but it ain't far off either.

Yeesh. What, you thought all Brits think alike, and they think like The Telegraph?

Sorry to burst that bubble.

[gejohnston]

89. so what?

given the incompetence to dishonesty that progressive media covers the gun issue (remember Media Matters poo pooing Wayne's claim that Wikileaks leaked cables, that McClatchy put on line? Or Crooks and Liars parroting the Al Qaida "you can buy machine guns at gun shows and Wal Mart" only to find itself post half assed and less than high school level retraction). Why think the Brits are any different?

[iverglas]

91. this is not "coverage" of ANYTHING

This is OPINION. RIGHT-WING opinion.

Nothing to do with coverage, and nothing to do with any other source's correct or incorrect reporting of anything.

It is pure opinion. Of the right-wing variety.

Who the fuck cares about right-wing opinion?

Crap almighty, somebody whined about a post containing right-wing opinion -- Breitbart -- just the other day when it was posted specifically to illustrate what right-wing opinion is.

I guess we can assume that's the purpose of this thread.

To show us what right-wing jerks in the UK have to say about stuff.

Haha, yes, very entertaining, how surprising that right-wing jerks in the UK say things that sound just like what right-wing jerks in the US and lots of other places say.

There. Happy now?

[gejohnston]

101. blood pressure down now?

it is interesting I think.

[spin]

102. The right to own firearms for self defense is only supported by the right wing?

Perhaps in the UK and Canada, but not in the United States. Plenty of Democrats in the U.S. fully support RKBA including many representatives in our Congress. Of course, these Democrats would not meet your approval or liberal standards. The reality is that in the states, the Democratic Party is a BIG tent.

It is also possible that many of the people in the UK who are rushing out to buy baseball bats to defend their homes and stores are beginning to wonder about the wisdom of the firearm restrictions in their nation.

Hell, even the London police run from the rioters as shown in this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxkqCojh768

[iverglas]

103. yes, to be blunt

And it doesn't matter what label they apply to themselves. You actually think there are no right-wing Democrats?

:rofl:

It is also possible that many of the people in the UK who are rushing out to buy baseball bats to defend their homes and stores are beginning to wonder about the wisdom of the firearm restrictions in their nation.

Wonder all you like. When you have an actual example of an actual non-right-wing individual or group representative of any grassroots or learnèd opinion in the UK parroting your line, feel free to present it.

[spin]

105. By your definition no liberal person could ever support the right to own firearms ...

and if changed his mind, you would immediately call him a member of the right wing.

[X_Digger]

106. Oh damn, you weren't supposed to notice that. :) n/t

[iverglas]

108. oh, by my definition the man in the moon is from Mars

Whatever. It doesn't matter what I actually say, you or one of your little friends will pretend I said something else.


oops, sticky garlic on my fingers ... typo fixed

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

162. still waiting for the retraction

Someone makes a false statement about me and just leaves it there like as if it were true.

What a funny world this place exists in.

Spin, get a grip, a spine, a brain, a shred of integrity, whatever it takes for you to stop this. Those are only guesses; I make no claims.

By your definition no liberal person could ever support the right to own firearms

Provide the substantiation for that assertion -- something I said, the logical process by which you inferred it from something I said, whatever -- and post it now.

Or retract it for the false statement it is.

[spin]

188. I just noticed your post ...

So let me ask you how you feel about Senator Harry Reid who is rated as one of the most liberal members of Congress and has a high lifetime rating from the NRA.

New Report Ranks 'Most Liberal', 'Most Conservative' Members of Congress
Most Liberal

Senate (tied for first place)

Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/nine-dems-tie-for-most-liberal-senator-eight-gopers-for-most-conservative.php

Now Reid was not endorsed by the NRA in the last election, but in reality Harry Reid is a damn good friend of gun owners and he is very liberal.

[iverglas]

190. would you read what YOU wrote?

By your definition no liberal person could ever support the right to own firearms

That isn't about Harry Reid, it is about ME.

It is false, as most nonsense is.

Since nothing I have ever said could be represented as saying that "no liberal person could ever support the right to own firearms", your statement about ME is false. You have not retracted it.

[spin]

192. So do you support firearm ownership? ...

What limits would you place on it?

Do you support the ownership of handguns? Do you support concealed carry by licensed honest citizens? Do you support the right to own semi-auto weapons. With a proper license, you can own a fully automatic firearm in the United States in many states. Do you object?

I will admit that I could have worded the statement, "By your definition no liberal person could ever support the right to own firearms" better.

But than again, I am not an attorney.

[iverglas]

195. do you support eating pizza?

What does "do you support firearm ownership" MEAN?

Do I advocate that people own firearms? Absolutely not.

Do I think that widespread firearms ownership is good for a society? Absolutely not.

Do I advocate a universal prohibition of firearms ownershp? Absolutely not.

What are you asking???

I believe that a woman has an right to determine the outcome of her own pregnancy without interference, because I know of absolutely no justification for interfering in the exercise of that right, and will oppose all attempts and measures to interfere in the exercise of that right.

Do I support abortion? What sense does that make?

Do you support the ownership of handguns?

I oppose possession of handguns outside sports shooting facilities.

Do you support concealed carry by licensed honest citizens?

I oppose the carrying of firearms, concealed or otherwise, by anyone not employed in a public protection capacity, or in very particular circumstances where they are subject to some special danger where it is in the public interest to allow them to carry a firearm.

And I completely reject your nonsensical question in the first place, since honesty and citizenship have bugger all to do with the issue.

Do you support the right to own semi-auto weapons.

There are some semi-automatic firearms that are useful for hunting and not particularly useful for anything else and don't seem to cause major social problems; the Mini-14 is not one of them, nor are AK-47 variants and the like. I am not hugely exercised about posession of semi-automatic hunting firearms but I tend to think the risks outweigh the benefits.

With a proper license, you can own a fully automatic firearm in the United States in many states. Do you object?

Do I object to people owning fully automatic firearms in the US? Not tremendously; they are not really likely to be trafficking them on into Canada, although I imagine they are coveted items for theft, and organized crime / criminal gangs would be just as thrilled with a full-auto Mac-10 as any in the US would be.

In Canada, these may be owned by "collectors", a strange hodgepodge of people some of whom seem to be really quite unsavoury, and some of whom have been extremely negligent with their little "collections", with the result that people have got killed. I see not the slightest reason in the world to allow possession of fully automatic firearms in Canada.

I will admit that I could have worded the statement, "By your definition no liberal person could ever support the right to own firearms" better.
But than again, I am not an attorney.

I see no issue of wording, since the entire statement was false no matter how it was worded.

[spin]

200. So what is your opinion of Harry Reid ...

is he a liberal as some think or is he disqualified from being a true liberal as he is a strong supporter of RKBA?

[iverglas]

163. since I expect nothing

-- has any of the gun-luvvin' crowd around here ever retracted even one of the false personal accusations made? -- I'm going to set you and the record straight myself.

Here is your false statement:

By your definition no liberal person could ever support the right to own firearms ...
and if changed his mind, you would immediately call him a member of the right wing.

And here is the long-ago refutation of it (me being under no obligation to refute anything, you having the duty to prove your claim, but me always happy to show that yet again a false thing has been said about me).

On a very very very quick google:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x95833

iverglas
Thu Dec-16-04 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. yeah

<quoting> I just wanted to agree with you when you said: ...

"You too obviously didn't want to address my demonstration of your bullshit.

<quoting>This is like having the right to free speech right up until you yell "FIRE!!!" in a crowded theater."

Nope. It isn't.

Ya see? You just used your right of free speech to say something incorrect. And I'm not bleeding.

And fer chrissakes, when are some of you people going to get things straight? You HAVE the right of free speech no matter WHAT you say, WHERE, or WHEN. You are prohibited from, and punished for, engaging in certain EXERCISES of that right. You have the right of free speech right up to, during and after you yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre (where, of course, there is no fire). I mean, where exactly did you imagine that said inalienable right went in that instant?

Try this: you have the right to yell "fire!", but you are prohibited from doing it in a crowded theatre, and will be punished if you do.

Just as you have the right to tell lies, but you are prohibited from doing it in court, and will be punished if you do.

And you have the right to engage in sexual activity, but you are prohibited from doing it without consent, and will be punished if you do.

And you have the right to eat pizza, but you are prohibited from eating pizza you haven't paid for, and will be punished if you do.

Gosh. Sounds like: you have the right to own a firearm, but you are prohibited from doing it without a licence, and from carting your firearm around the world in your pants, etc. And if you obey those laws (the laws I am pleased to have), you are a law-abiding gun owner.

Try that one on for size.

Or have fun dancing and dissembling some more.

Anyone care to dance and dissemble?

I have never, ever, ever said that there is no "right to own a firearm".

So exactly why would you say that by "my definition" a "liberal" person who "support(ed) the right to own a firearm" would become a member of the right wing?

[TPaine7]

187. Compare and contrast

And I have repeatedly asked how anyone can be "deprived" of something that is INALIENABLE. Are you considering answering?

In the civilized world, nobody has been "deprived" of rights since the death of civil death, which is not practised in any country comparable to the US apart from the US.

Where I'm at, some individuals convicted of some criminal offences are "deprived" of the ability to exercise certain aspects of certain rights. They are denied some exercises of the right to liberty: they may not move about freely on the streets, while they are confined to a correctional facility. However, they may still pick their noses whenever they like. And they may not be confined to their cells 24/7, or placed in solitary confinement, unless the state comes up wtih justification above and beyond the justification for confinement in a correctional institution.

Where I'm at, such individuals are not denied the exercise of their constitutional right to vote, since that denial was held to be an unjustified violation of a constitutional right, by my Supreme Court.

Where I'm at, such individuals are not automatically denied a licence to acquire and possess a firearm, since such a blanket denial would be an unjustified violation of a constitutional right.


No government can DEPRIVE an individual of a RIGHT. It may, where it has justification, RESTRICT THE EXERCISE of the right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x184743#185003

And from post 80 above:
The Telegraph was Conrad Black's flagship operation, before that unfortunate spot of bother he's suffering deprivation of liberty over now.

Hmmmmm...

Are life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness actually rights?

<edited to add post 80 quote>

[iverglas]

191. jesus fucking christ, can you read?

Here are two things.

1. The right to liberty

2. Liberty

See how they are not the same?

I stated that Conrad Black has been deprived of LIBERTY.

I did NOT state that Conrad Black has been deprived of THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY.

If he had been deprived of THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY, i.e. been treated as a non-person, as slaves and convicted persons and women and children and so on have been in history, there would have been no need for a trial. He could just have been deprived of liberty without justification being shown.

For fuck's sake.


Since you are struggling, I will help you.

Are life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness actually rights?

No. The right to life and the right to liberty are rights.

So is the right to security of the person, and various other rights recognized by human consensus as inalienable and inherent in human beings.

The pursuit of happiness is some poésie from some antique document of yours.


All this is exactly as I said in the post of mine that you so helpfully posted, making my case for me.

Cripes, what a waste of time and space.

[TPaine7]

193. Yes, and I can think too. Can you?

If he had been deprived of THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY, i.e. been treated as a non-person, as slaves and convicted persons and women and children and so on have been in history, there would have been no need for a trial. He could just have been deprived of liberty without justification being shown.

To call this circular logic would be to flatter it, so I will call it circular bullshit. The person is deprived of liberty because he was found guilty at trial. It would have been wrong to deprive him of liberty without due process of law, as the Constitution clearly says. To pretend that bunk you posted is related in any way to anything I said is, well, iverglassian.

You left out in your "analysis" THE RIGHT TO THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY, THE RIGHT TO THE RIGHT TO THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY and an infinite series of other rights (all very different from one another), and so your "argument" fails for incompleteness.

In any event, in the relevant areas of the world we hold it to be self evident that you're wrong and that "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" are rights.

[iverglas]

197. try some real postsecondary education

Whatever hick bible college you are currently attending is not doing a good job.


The person is deprived of liberty because he was found guilty at trial. It would have been wrong to deprive him of liberty without due process of law, as the Constitution clearly says.

And the reason that someone may not be deprived of liberty without due process is ... let's put on our thinking caps ... because they have a right to liberty.

They are not deprived of their RIGHT TO LIBERTY after the due process requirement is met, they are deprived of their LIBERTY.

Amendment V
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ...

I say what your Constituton says, and you get into a great big tizzy.

Like I probably said, it's quite simple.

Liberty is a constituent element of the humanity of human beings.

You have an inherent right to liberty.

In certain circumstances, you may be legitimately deprived of liberty.

The right to liberty is a right, regarded as inherent in human beings.

The right to liberty is inalienable so you cannot be deprived of it.

You may be deprived of life, but not of the right to life, because it is inherent and inalienable.
You may be deprived of liberty, but not of the right to liberty, because it is inherent and inalienable.

Write it on the chalkboard a few times and it might sink in.

I dunno; did you really think that when I said Conrad Black was deprived of liberty I was wrong?

[TPaine7]

198. "You may be deprived of life, but not of the right to life, because it is inherent and inalienable."

So dead people still have the right to life? If the government assassinates an innocent citizen, it hasn't deprived them of any rights, as that is impossible?

You need to attend a remedial kindergarten, forget Bible college. And no, you are not agreeing with the Constitution. It says you can't be deprived of rights without due process; you claim you can't be deprived period--even apparently after death. Rights are like immortal souls, in your silly theology.

Bible college indeed. More like Bible preschool.

[iverglas]

199. hey sweetcheeks, this may save you some tuition

http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/law111/AdlerInalienableRights.htm

You may think I wrote it, but I didn't. Another intelligent, informed, right-thinking person did.

A couple of brief excerpts for you:

On Inalienable Rights
by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D.

... One question still remains concerning the inalienability of natural human rights. The Declaration mentions our inalienable right to life and to liberty. But when criminals are justly convicted and sentenced to terms in prison, are we not taking away their liberty? ... If so, how then do the rights in question still exist and remain inalienable?

... Two points are involved in the answer.

First, the criminal by his antisocial conduct and by his violation of a just law has forfeited not the right, but the temporary exercise of it. His incarceration in prison does not completely remove his freedom of action, but it severely limits the exercise of that freedom for the period of imprisonment.

The right remains in existence both during imprisonment and after release from prison. If the prison warden attempted to make the prisoner his personal slave, that would be an act of injustice on his part, because enslavement would be a violation of the human right to the status of a free man. This human right belongs to those in a prison as well as those outside its walls.

When the criminal's term of imprisonment comes to an end, what is restored is not the individual's right to liberty (as if that had been taken away when he entered the prison), but only his fuller exercise of that right. It is the exercise of that right that is given back to him when he walks out of the prison gates, not the right itself, for that was never taken away or alienated.

You may be deprived of life, but not of the right to life, because it is inherent and inalienable.
So dead people still have the right to life?

Whoa, that's some fucked up "logic" you got yourself there. I would feel very foolish saying things like that in public. But it's your choice.

You may have noticed that the criterion for having human rights is being a human being. You may have noticed that corpses are not human beings. I'll just mention these, in case they actually have escaped your notice. Corpses do not have rights. I hope that helps.


And no, you are not agreeing with the Constitution. It says you can't be deprived of rights without due process

Oh My Gawd. You really can't read, can you? Your constitution actually says not word one about these rights. Let us review:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Like I said: your constitution is agreeing with me.

As was Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D., whom I first heard of about 15 minutes ago when I googled inalienable forfeit in an attempt to dispel this stupid noise in another thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer_J._Adler

One of the core meanings of "inalienable" is "not subject to forfeiture", for fuck's sake.


So, to summarize:

It says you can't be deprived of rights without due process; you claim you can't be deprived period--even apparently after death.

You have mischaracterized your constitution.
You have mischaracterized what I said.
I am not surprised, although I still don't know whether you act out of ignorance or malice.

[iverglas]

210. I'm thinking I would still like a response to my post here

A reply too that post, in this thread. The thing a person with integrity would do.

[gejohnston]

211. because they thought it was not worth responding to?

Your theory aside, in practice it only refers to the government. The BoR are a set of negative rights, limits on government. That is what we learned in school. A constitutional scholar who happens to be my president also put it in a speech. That is how it operates in practice.

[iverglas]

212. nope

because he didn't have the integrity to respond in the proper place and instead decided to start another thread and he or one of his chums arranged for my responses in that thread to be deleted.

Clear now?

Sorry, but whatever you're saying has nothing to do with anything.

[pnwmom]

45. What would have happened? More situations like this one:

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/uniform/usa1992.htm

Thirteen days after the King arrest, a teenaged African-American girl named Latasha Harlins attempted to buy a bottle of orange juice from a Korean woman grocer. An accusation of theft led the girl to punch the grocer. She then put the orange juice down and, with her back turned, walked toward the door. The grocer shot her in the back of the head, killing her. The tragedy was caught on the store's surveillance videotape. A jury convicted the grocer of voluntary manslaughter with a maximum penalty of 11 years in prison, but the judge, citing all manner of extenuating circumstances, sentenced her to probation and a small fine. African-American anger against Korean shopkeepers was already running high, and now it was at flashpoint. When the riots erupted, shouts of "Latasha Harlins" were heard again and again.

[dtexdem]

46. A lot more deaths.

And probably as many or more looted/destroyed shops, as shootings angered the mobs (remember that it was a shooting by police that touched off the already-existing powder keg).

[Atypical Liberal]

51. I doubt it.

When faced with armed people, mobs tend to go elsewhere.

Lee the LA riots.

[gejohnston]

90. police shooting an innocent

gets a different reaction than someone shooting to defend themselves. Think about it.

[iverglas]

92. oh yeah, a shopkeeper shoots a looter

and all the other looters go "hey, yeah, man, that was a righteous shoot" ...

:rofl:

[gejohnston]

118. no they say, let's get the hell out of here

Do you seriously think they are going to rush the guy? You been watching too many US cop shows.

[ileus]

48. The fun would have worn off pretty quick when holes started appearing...

[Remmah2]

52. I'm sure there would have been a lot of serious thinking. nt

nt

[rrneck]

57. Bingo.+1000. nt

[krispos42]

72. Buy baseball bats, hammer large nails into the wood, grind off the heads

Fuck aluminum.

[Katya Mullethov]

75. Nothing to lose your shirt over

Or trousers .

[iverglas]

76. so you searched and you searched and you searched

and you finally found some right-wing opinion to support your views. What a novelty here! Congratulations!

Give any thought to looking for the opinions of the actual people affected?

You do know what is alleged to have instigated the incident that the initial peaceful protest was in response to, I trust?

[Paladin]

123. Cheap Thrills For Our Resident Gun Enthusiasts.

Fantasizing about a "riot scene" being transformed into a "target-rich environment".....

[spin]

134. As one of those pro-firearm posters let me mention a difference that I have noticed between ..

the two groups who post in the Gungeon

First let me say, I would not look forward to a riot and definitely would never want to shoot a rioter unless he was endangering me or my family. I do not fantasize about a target rich environment.

If I ran a small shop or store where I did not live, I feel that I would leave and return to my home to defend my family. However, I have never invested a good portion of my money and time in an effort to start a small business and I might well fell differently if I had.

One thing that I have noticed about many gun owners is that they are people who tend to plan and prepare for possible problems. Living in Florida has given me the chance to watch how people react to an impending disaster such as a hurricane. When a hurricane was approaching but still three day away, most of the gun owners that I knew were making trips to the hardware and grocery store to stock up on food, batteries and plywood for windows and they also topped off their gas tanks. While some of those who didn't own firearms were doing the same, many were walking around totally unconcerned and convinced that no hurricane would ever hit the Tampa Bay area of Florida. A surprising high percentage of gun owners had prepared at the beginning of the hurricane season and had water, food and batteries well before any storm threatened.

At the last minute the people who were totally unconcerned would panic, jump in their cars and race to the grocery store where they would buy frozen food in large quantities including items like frozen pizza. It never had entered their minds that usually in a bad tropical storm or hurricane power will fail for several days or longer. It's impossible to heat up a frozen pizza in an oven or a microwave when the power is out. It's also hard to keep a pizza frozen when your freezer has no electricity. You would also see these unprepared people standing in long lines at the hardware store or sitting in a long line of cars at the gas station hoping that the station wouldn't run dry before they made it to the pumps.

Few of these people ever realized that it was a good idea to keep some cash on hand. Credit cards are useless when there is no power. I remember one time I was at a gas station topping off my tank prior to leaving Tampa as the people in my low lying neighborhood had been told to evacuate because of Hurricane Charlie. A woman with children and an empty tank was at the pump beside me and found that although there still was power, credit cards were not working as the system was down. She was extremely frightened and distraught as her tank was empty. I gave her the cash she needed to fill up her tank.

I did learn one very valuable lesson from Hurricane Charlie. If you live in an area where you might be required to evacuate, store all your important papers and essential items so that you can find them quickly and pack them. In fact, it is not a bad idea to have prepared an emergency "go bag" that you can grab and leave your home quickly. Some people even keep one in their car. Instructions for what to have in such a bag can be found on the internet.

Interestingly enough, I lived in the Tampa Bay area for 37 years and NO major hurricanes ever hit near, including Hurricane Charlie. I evacuated to my daughter's home near Fort Myers and ended up 60 miles away from the center of the hurricane Charlie when it decided to change course.

So did the people I know who had stocked up on supplies at the beginning of the hurricane season or when a possible storm was three days away feel their efforts were foolish? I never heard such a person say that. They did say things like, "It's better to be prepared and not need to be than to be unprepared and in need."

Personalities differ. On this forum, I often read posts that ridicule those who have carry permits and carry firearms as being paranoid or afraid. In reality they are just people who prefer to be prepared for most possibilities and while they fully realize and hope that the chances that they will never find themselves in a situation where a firearm is necessary is slim, they also realize that it is possible.

One of the most important factors in being prepared is planning. Planning involves thinking about potential situations and then trying to figure out what you need to deal with the problem and what you will do if it occurs.

Suppose that you are a small store owner in a major city in the United States. It might be wise to think about what you would do if riots broke out in your section of town. First are you insured. If you are, the wisest approach might be simply to close up and leave. If you decide to stay and defend your store when even the police are retreating in fear, you are taking an enormous risk. However, it is possible that you could make plans with other store owners to defend your block. If so firearms might be your most effective tool if you can legally own them in your state. Then you have to decide what type of firearms you need, how much ammo and how and where to store these items safely. It would also be wise to have the necessary items to board up or secure your store to make it a less tempting target. You also need to coordinate with your fellow store owners and plan tactics and set up how to communicate.

It can be done as was proved by the Korean store owners in LA. The question are first, is it worth it? Second, can you trust and work with other store owners on your block. The Koreans may have been successful because they were willing to take risks and were able to form a cohesive organization. Can you do the same with your fellow store owners.

It might also be wise to be prepared for a riot even if you do not own a store. Set up plans with your family on how you would communicate and where you would meet. It could be a good idea to have some food on hand in case your local grocery store is being swarmed by rioters and you could consider never leaving your gas tank drop below half a tank. In case of a total breakdown and violence, how would you defend your family and your home if necessary? The cops may not come when you call.

Or you can simply laugh and ignore the whole idea. Chances are it will never happen and if violence does break out, it may not be in your neighborhood.

[Paladin]

138. Nice Post, Particularly By Gungeon Standards.

Just bear in mind the big difference between making common-sense preparations for a natural or societal disaster---as opposed to fervently hoping that such disasters come to pass, so that there's an opportunity to use weapons on live human beings. There is way too much of the latter sentiment on view every day in the Gungeon, and it's been that way for a long time. Right now, there are Gungeon posts dealing with the best and most lethal baseball bats to use in riots like the ones going on in London. That's not disaster preparation, that's some sick wishful thinking....

[spin]

139. I don't fantasize about riots or natural disasters ...

The object is to prepare for what you can.

Nor am I a survivalist. If something major happens to this nation such as a hit from a major solar flare, I am in no way prepared and being prepared is financially impractical for me at this time.

"If the solar storm of 1921, which has been termed a one-in-100-year event, were to occur today, well over 300 extra-high-voltage transformers could be damaged or destroyed, thereby interrupting power to 130 million people for a period of years," Joseph McClelland, director of the Office of Electric Reliability at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said at a May 31 House Energy subcommittee hearing on the issue.

"The U.S. society and economy are so critically dependent upon the availability of electricity that a significant collapse of the grid precipitated by a major natural or man-made EMP event could result in catastrophic civilian casualties," Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said at the same hearing.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/06/09/09climatewire-this-weeks-solar-flare-illuminates-the-grids-63979.html?pagewanted=all

I feel it is wise to make plans for minor catastrophes and even some major ones such as a major hurricane. As far as using weapons for self defense, that should only happen when the threat is immediate and threatens life or health.

For example the best tactic to deal with the threat of being hurt or killed in a riot is to not be caught in the middle of one.

[PavePusher]

142. No, once again, it's about preparedness.

You don't prepare for self-defense by simply saying "I'm prepared to defend myself". You train for it, Assess different scenarios and actions/reactions.

If you merely talk about driving a car, but never open a training manual, you don't know how to drive a car.

[iverglas]

171. indeed

You don't prepare for self-defense by simply saying "I'm prepared to defend myself". You train for it, Assess different scenarios and actions/reactions.

Of course, what your ... average ... person is preparing for is survival.

I live in a house that has front, back and side doors on the main floor, a door to a back deck and a door to a front balcony on the second floor, and windows on the third floor opening onto the roofs of the deck and balcony respectively.

My plan for survival, in the event of fire, flood, unlawful entry, being snowed in, insurrection ... is to use one of the readily accessible exits and exit.

Pretty smart, eh?

I did wonder whether it was going to work a couple of years ago when I was in my other, two-storey house, where my office was at the time, on the second floor with a direct front door exit down a staircase and window exits onto a front porch roof and a back room roof if I needed them ... and an earthquake hit. Sounded and felt like the house was collapsing onto its two-foot thick stone basement walls. Amazing how lightly your feet touch those stair treads when you're motivated. I was out on the street in about 2 seconds.

[X_Digger]

176. Preparedness has many facets.

When's the last time you had a fire drill at your home? Have you discussed it with your SO? Do you have your important documents in one place, or would you have to rush about trying to find them? Where's the meeting point that you plan to use so that you and your SO know that the other isn't still trapped in your house?

If there were an earthquake, and you're standing out on the street staring at the rubble that used to be your house, what then? Do you have a first aid kit handy that you could either grab on the way out, or in your car? Have a couple of bottles of water handy to wash the dust from your face? Do you have a list of any prescription medication that you might need should you fail to retrieve them in time?

[iverglas]

177. excuse me

"Blah blah blah blah blah"

Do you concern yourself about your important documents when somebody breaks into your house? Or in any other situation in which your life/safety are in immediate jeopardy?

Stick to the topic or don't waste your time, 'k?

[X_Digger]

180. "in which your life/safety are in immediate jeopardy?"

Absolutely! There are many possible situations that meet that criteria. Fire and tornado are the two others that we're prepared for. All our important documents are in a portable fire resistant lock box. It also contains a list of my wife's medications, and a flash drive with both our medical histories.

A riot would be another situation to add to the list. If I lived in a more urban setting like I did in college, I'm sure my wife and I would discuss it.

[DanTex]

183. Really? Quoting opinion articles from right-wingers? Is it desperation, or did you just not know?

Is it too much to ask that the pro-gun people here try and find liberals or even "centrists" to cite, rather than right-wingers? Really, this is supposed to be a liberal, Democratic board -- is quoting raving right-wingers really necessary? Or did you just not care who it is you're citing, as long as they give the opinion you want.

Because it doesn't take much searching to figure out who these guys are.

For example, here's your buddy Nile Gardiner arguing that America’s debt downgrade is a damning indictment of President Obama’s Big Government disaster. The teabaggers would love this guy:

The United States badly needs another Reagan-style revolution to stave off further economic disaster, preserve American leadership on the world stage, and secure the future of a superpower. Ultimately, greater liberty and freedom, not the deathly hand of Big Government, are needed to turn this great nation around.

Speaking of Reagan, your other new friend, Allister Heath, has recently written a similarly delightful article about how Britain needs its own Ronald Reagan. I mean, who can deny that Reagan was "one of the few major figures of the 20th century to leave their country in a hugely better state than they inherited it."

Ugh. I guess you couldn't find any liberals to argue that the outcome of the London riots would be better if the city was flooded with guns. Not surprising. Because, given that the death toll in London is a small fraction of the death toll in the LA riots, no sane, honest liberal would want to attach their name to the nonsense you're trying to peddle.

[friendly_iconoclast]

202. The genetic fallacy *and* a "no TRUE Scotsman". This is full of fail.

You didn't dispute the contentions made in the OP, you attacked the source.


...no sane, honest liberal would want to attach their name to the nonsense you're trying to peddle.

I must admit, the "no true Scotsman" was good to see, as it hasn't been used much lately. You even managed to combine it with
poisoning the well. Congratulations!

[DanTex]

203. Do they teach a class on buzzwords at gun school?

You're powers of observation are amazing. You're absolutely right, all I did was point out that the authors were raving wingnuts, and wondered why the pro-gun side can't ever find any sane liberals to quote, always right-wingers. That's all I wanted to say. I figured the other 180 or so posts before mine had covered most other angles.

I thought it was a pretty straightforward post, really, I didn't realize it would prompt all the buzzwords and asterisks and all-caps.

It would have been nice if you could answer -- why is it that all the editorials that the pro-gun people here cite are from right-wing loons? But no big deal. I'm still glad you got to do your little show and tell.

[friendly_iconoclast]

205. Those "buzzwords" are the names of the logical fallacies that you employed above.

You might try looking them up on the intertubes or in a textbook on logic. While doing so, you might also discover that
'ridicule' is not generally recognized as a synonym for 'refute'.

And while you are perfectly free to claim for yourself without evidence the mantle of "arbiter of what is sane and/or liberal", we are likewise free to dismiss your claim without evidence.

[DanTex]

206. I've found an inverse relationship between the use of logic buzzwords...

...and actually being able to reason logically. Typically the people tossing out the buzzwords took a year of logic in college and got really excited about the cool new words they can use to impress their friends. But as you progress up into professional scientists and academics, there's much more actual logic, and far less buzzword-dropping. See for yourself if you don't believe me.

Oh, yeah, and actual scholars tend to be able to answer the questions they are asked, rather than ramble on about logical fallacies. So let's try it again.

Why do all the editorials the pro-gun people cite always seem to be written by right-wing loons?

Seems like a pretty straightforward question to be. But I'm guessing we're going to get no answer, and more buzzwords. We'll see...

[Philippine expat]

208. There would be many dead

the looters deservedly so however they would probably have guns also
and innocent shop owners would die

[spin]

209. So why didn't that happen in LA when the Korean's defended their stores?

I agree that it sounds logical but the Koreans were in the main part successful. The rioters just moved on to stores that were not guarded by armed people.