http://www.infowars.com/amazon...

 

[quote]

However, despite the fact that communities  organizing themselves into groups to protect their streets, undermined by being  labeled “vigilantes” by the media, did indeed serve to quell the worst of the  rioting, politicians like Stella Creasy, MP for Walthamstow which was hit by  riots on Monday night, lambasted members of the public for purchasing weapons to  defend themselves.

“This crosses the line when it involves weapons,”  said Creasy. “That just encourages the sense of fear – we want to reduce tension  and fear in the area. People with baseball bats roaming the streets is not  helpful: don’t go on Amazon buying them.”

Following suit, Amazon UK today banned the sale of  perfectly legal items, including self-defense sprays and Kubotans, short lengths  of plastic or steel.

“Amazon has removed several police-style  telescopic truncheons from sale on its site as soaring sales of truncheons,  baseball bats and other items that could be used as weapons sparked fears of  vigilantism in the wake of widespread rioting,” reports  the Guardian....

[unquote]

 

This ends the debate about the sorry state of the UK and how citizens are intentionally left defenseless. The statists are out of control in the UK.

 

For goodness sake...

 

There were tonnes of armed people defending property (many of which I saw) and the police nearby were quite comfortable with that - the comments made by the minister were only used to dissuade the paranoid maniacs of the various far right extremists (who themselves caused a few riots having spent all day getting drunk under the guise of protecting their towns) from ending up maiming each other.

 

These riots were a result of a generation raised on welfare with no respect for the law and no respect for consequence, but as the police commander who successfully dealt with the armed conflict in northern ireland said, a key part of the battle is keeping public perception on the right side, that means no disproportionate response, a few buildings were torched and the final death toll looks to be about 4, (3 being from a single hit and run incident that may well have been an accident). 

 

The police did initially underestimate the scale of the unrest, every loser in britain realised that by coordinating action they could overwhelm typically deployed resources, there was no escalation and the bastards who did it are now being rounded up thanks to a massive media campaign and will shortly be getting exemplary sentences. 

 

There are only a few people on the far left seeking to blame society for this thuggery, 90% percent of the population, myself included is of the opinion that the solution involves more discipline, harsh penalties, personal responsibility etc, where we probably disagree with you is that we don't think the situation would have been made easier to deal with if firearms had been readily introduced to the equation, there would have been a lot more casualties simply due to the heat of the moment, as it transpires that wasn't necessary, the death toll was miniscule and the necessary advances needed in terms of disrupting BBM and other means of coordinating such action are already being addressed.

 

Per Capita the death toll from 4 days of disorder was still less than an average day in the US, consider that before you tell us that firearms are the solution, at times it would have been satisfying to see looters get shot but unfortunately it wouldn't have just been the felons in the firing line, escalation was unnecessary.

 

R 

For goodness sake...

 

There were tonnes of armed people defending property (many of which I saw) and the police nearby were quite comfortable with that - the comments made by the minister were only used to dissuade the paranoid maniacs of the various far right extremists (who themselves caused a few riots having spent all day getting drunk under the guise of protecting their towns) from ending up maiming each other.

 

These riots were a result of a generation raised on welfare with no respect for the law and no respect for consequence, but as the police commander who successfully dealt with the armed conflict in northern ireland said, a key part of the battle is keeping public perception on the right side, that means no disproportionate response, a few buildings were torched and the final death toll looks to be about 4, (3 being from a single hit and run incident that may well have been an accident). 

 

The police did initially underestimate the scale of the unrest, every loser in britain realised that by coordinating action they could overwhelm typically deployed resources, there was no escalation and the bastards who did it are now being rounded up thanks to a massive media campaign and will shortly be getting exemplary sentences. 

 

There are only a few people on the far left seeking to blame society for this thuggery, 90% percent of the population, myself included is of the opinion that the solution involves more discipline, harsh penalties, personal responsibility etc, where we probably disagree with you is that we don't think the situation would have been made easier to deal with if firearms had been readily introduced to the equation, there would have been a lot more casualties simply due to the heat of the moment, as it transpires that wasn't necessary, the death toll was miniscule and the necessary advances needed in terms of disrupting BBM and other means of coordinating such action are already being addressed.

 

Per Capita the death toll from 4 days of disorder was still less than an average day in the US, consider that before you tell us that firearms are the solution, at times it would have been satisfying to see looters get shot but unfortunately it wouldn't have just been the felons in the firing line, escalation was unnecessary.

 

R 

And before you come out with your usual "you're a leftist" crap, believe me, I wouldn't shed any tears if the police had used baton rounds or even live rounds, my point is simply that I think we should have a police force that is adequate for the task itself, I don't want to see 80 year old people forced to take up arms to defend their property simply because I'd prefer trained professionals to handle firepower, what has recently happened is that the law has been strengthened regarding the right to defend property to the extent that prosecutions will be unlikely even in the event of fatal wounding unless it can be demonstrated that someone killed someone who no longer posed a threat (i.e. someone running away or on the floor having surrendered). 

 

What you probably don't get an appreciation of from the news coverage is that most of the people out on the streets were actually there to watch events unfold, bullets flying would have resulted in innocent lives being lost, especially if we also assume that the thousand or two thousand scumbags involved in the violence were armed, I'm not willing to advocate putting more firearms into circulation unless there is clear evidence that it would reduce the overall death rate from homicide, it would in all likelihood do exactly the opposite.

 

R 

Case study: 1992 LA riot

 

Koreans armed to the teeth on the roof of their super market scared away rioters.

 

Korean armed to the teech shooting at all directions. No one was hit and they saved their stores from looters.

 

Those who were not armed initially were harmed as a result.

 

Rioters murder and kill as a result.

 

Korean vigilante volunteer groups formed to patrol their streets.

 

And you are a leftist for desiring harsh police action like you have described. The police are totally capable of controlling the situation in London. They've let the situation gotten worse. The low lifes element are always there in the UK, only to be checked by brutal police enforcement in the past. There were so many low lifes that the number is enough to found the nation of Australia. I don't know what makes you think alone the line of the attack piece by Melanie Phillips on Daily Fail. They've intentionally made it worse so that people like you will all for more police action.

 

And, police, being a government institution, do not like cuts. They have their means to show clueless politicians.

 

Of course you have your rights to be hoplophobic. Disuading people from necessary vigilantism and means of self-preservation is out right criminal.

YAs usual you ignore all of the points that you have no answer to and reply on an irrelevant tangent. Yes, I believe the police are the proper safeguards to law and order, just as you doubtless believe the military is the safeguard for national defense.

 

The truth is that you are a fantasist, you continually go on about self-defense, I bet you've never actually faced a man down in the flesh in your entire life.

 

R 

You have zero valid point anyway. 

Again you are wrong about me. Details, plural emphasized, is not worthy of any discussion here. I had my years of unruliness. I can, however, tell you that violent encounter is always short, abrupt, fierce and out of nowhere.

 

Self defense is at least 80% mental. Self-defense is only 5-8% about fighting, and not about winning. Seeking disengagement is the preferred objective, and the ultimate goal is to survive. You probably don't know that by simply displaying weapons with your neighbors can dissuade most attacks. By dissuading attack, you achieved disengagement before it can even happen. That is what vigilantism is for.

 

And that is something you domesticated type will never understand.

 

R 

You have zero valid point anyway. 

Again you are wrong about me. Details, plural emphasized, is not worthy of any discussion here. I had my years of unruliness. I can, however, tell you that violent encounter is always short, abrupt, fierce and out of nowhere.

 

Self defense is at least 80% mental. Self-defense is only 5-8% about fighting, and not about winning. Seeking disengagement is the preferred objective, and the ultimate goal is to survive. You probably don't know that by simply displaying weapons with your neighbors can dissuade most attacks. By dissuading attack, you achieved disengagement before it can even happen. That is what vigilantism is for.

 

And that is something you domesticated type will never understand.

So the premise is that if everyone was armed in the first place this looting wouldn't have taken place, as I've said the costs to OUR society from that trade off outweigh the damage that this event caused, in terms of use of deadly weapons in crime, in terms of accidental deaths, in terms of heat of the moment events etc etc

 

As I said, your hypothesis in this instance is an ideological one, not one based on any sound appreciation of evidence, your theory is that everyone should be armed in order for society to be peaceful and safe, that's fine, but evidence is largely against you.

 

As before, our death rate from homicide of all types is still remarkably lower than yours.

 

R 

 

 

Death rate of farm animals is also lower than wild ones.

 

Unfortunately, you look at only the total homicide rate, not looking into who are comprising the victims.

 

In the US, the mass majority of the homicide victims are also gang members. Over 50% of homicide victims are killed by other gang members.

 

There are also some ugly truth about higher homicide rate in the US:

 

In the UK, the theme is much different:

http://www.citizensreportuk.or...

Finally, in June 2011 research by the Home Office... confirmed that only very small proportion (approx 6%) of
homicides in England and Wales could be linked to organised crime groups (groups
engaged in continuing illegal activity for profit).

 

And the gangs in the UK are less about taking territories and more about targeting law-abiding citizens for profit. Crime is, after all, a business first.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of
violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the
world's most dangerous countries. 

 

 

 

In the UK, the theme is much different:

http://www.citizensreportuk.or...

Finally, in June 2011 research by the Home Office...... confirmed that only very small proportion (approx 6%) of
homicides in England and Wales could be linked to organised crime groups (groups
engaged in continuing illegal activity for profit).

 

And the gangs in the UK are less about taking territories and more about targeting law-abiding citizens for profit. Crime is, after all, a business first.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of
violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the
world's most dangerous countries. 

 

 But this is exactly what I'm saying, the reason this has come about is because left-wing sentiment has taken control for too long of the criminal justice system, with people involved in serious assaults being given a fine and endless apologist viewpoints being applied (even now after the riots) to shift the blame away from the individual and onto society. The argument is more or less that these people are poor and lack opportunities and therefore it is society at large that is to blame for failing to provide them - I could not disagree more with that sentiment, not least because there is very little real poverty in the UK, but also because it has trended towards producing a class of people who feel that the state has a duty to provide everything they need, yet at the same time they owe it no allegiance of sort.

 

To instill morality in children and avoid them falling into gangs or just become generally amoral/immoral people requires parenting, unfortunately in certain demographics single parent families are the norm, no amount of opportunity or investment will give someone a sense of right or wrong and I am glad that at least public opinion seems to have swung towards discipline/personal responsibility/harsh penalties for offenders. This is the result of a big welfare state, a softly-softly approach and an inability to discuss sensitive issues for fear of the inevitable hysteria that such a debate causes - the culture of dependency needs to shrink and only public sentiment can do that - I feel it is shifting in the right direction.

 

The reason I don't want to introduce guns into the equation is simply because we have such a large section (as evidenced by total statistics for assaults and other violent crime) of the population that are both particularly mindless and particularly prone to being inebriated, this is why I prefer to, until our society more closely resembles that of a more civilised country to rely on trained professionals, rights of self-defense in the home, and exemplary punishments to act as the needed deterent - and eventually to wean society off notions of state-dependency and hopefully therefore remove existing incentives (free housing and welfare) for those who have the least means and the least intelligence to have the most kids, as the problem will otherwise grow exponentially, as it has done for several decades. At some point the culture of despair and entitlement has to be tackled head on.

 

But I maintain, arming the UK population is a recipe for disaster, and your statistics should demonstrate that, there are far too many idiots here, if you somehow link it to an above-average IQ then maybe there is an argument but even then you'd be surprised how many have no moral compass.

 

R