Anarchy In The UK: Rioting In London

[Greenday]

Criminals, if they want guns, will get them anyway though. Legalizing would allow for responsible people to own them too.

If I'm going to get beaten down by a bunch of rioters, I'd at least like to take some of those mofos with me.

[Rapscallion]

Criminals, if they want guns, will get them anyway though.

The rioters were criminals. How many guns were used by them in the riots?

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

How many guns were used by them in the riots?

How many of them wanted guns?

^-.-^

[Lace Neil Singer]

Guns aren't really much cop for smashing shop windows; you need rocks for that.

[lordlundar]

Well, they could just pull out a handgun to defend...oh, wait, people in England have no use for them. Forgot about that.

Really? Really? You're that obsessed in the belief that everyone in the world should be packing that you're going to turn any thread about the UK into an "evils of gun control" debate?

Was that really necessary?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

The LA riots in 1992 - everyone who wanted a gun had one. Result? 50+ deaths, and the army had to be called in to restore peace.

In England there were 5 deaths, and the civilian police force were able to restore order without firing a shot.

Well, follies of comparing two individual incidents and making sweeping generalist conclusions off which based aside: here's the thing.
of all the fatalities:
Non-firearms deaths: 17
Shot by police: 11
Shot by store owners: 4
Shot by neither the above: 16
Shot by unknown: 5

Now this is IMO but I'm not counting the 11 police shootings or the store owner shootings. Those were instances of weapons used for defense and, while regrettable, I wouldn't call them tragic deaths the avoidance of which would warrant disarmament.

Add in that it's quite likely that some portion of the people who were neither cops nor store owners were also defending themselves and the conclusion I reach is that the guns were only as lethal as the fact that people were violently attacking each other. In which case, there's no reason to believe that, had the gang-bangers not had guns, they wouldn't have killed each other anyway.

I'd call that a sucess for guncontrol.

I'd call it a success of not having the most violent portion of society being whipped into a wave of violence that far exceeds what you're seeing this time.

The people in London are beating people same as in LA and they're burning down buildings same as in LA. If they haven't killed anyone it's because they aren't trying to kill them.

It's been established that many of these rioters are what would be considered upstanding citizens and children, hinting that the rest are most likely not career criminals. Combine that with the fact that these London riots are nowhere near as severe as the LA 1992 riot and the two are anything but twins-but-for-guns.

Hit them with something large and heavy?

Which by my understanding would get you as much of a jail sentence as shooting them, life and limb be damned. Which, I would argue is the core issue underlying the UK's gun control, and for that matter, the predicament of those caught up in this shitstorm.

For better or worse, and at this point the best information available points firmly towards neither, whether or not people defend themselves with guns is secondary to the fact that people aren't permitted to defend themselves with more than harsh language and running shoes. and the broader uncovering of the myth that law enforcement is capable of protecting people in place of them defending themselves.

At the end of the day there are so many variables that play into these things that comparing any two is fallible to the extreme, ideals be damned. Therefore I wish to posit this:
The availability of a specific type of lethal weapon is but one of countless factors that play into the severity of any part of any civil disorder event. The more important thing to remember after this is that a lot of lives are being ruined and we should all, perhaps, take things a little less for granted as a result.

I'm not saying that having guns would make this situation better, I'm saying that not only do we not know what effect it would have had, it's entirely secondary to the damage that's being done in what would be one of the last places I'd expect to see this shit.

[Hyena Dandy]

I think I agree with Andara.

The rioters are entirely culpable for their actions. But that does not mean that they acted entirely independently of societal conditions. There is a reason. There is not an excuse, but a reason.

Additionally, that isn't to say everyone participating felt the same way or came from the same conditions. Maybe they just got caught up. Maybe they saw something they could get away with. There were thousands of rioters, but the riots still happened for a reason. And I think the reason is an anger at the lack of opportunities for youth.

[Rapscallion]

How many of them wanted guns?

^-.-^

I don't know. Do tell.

I do know that the pro-gun crowd are usually quick to tell us that if a criminal wants a gun in the UK then the weapons are easily available.

Really? Really? You're that obsessed in the belief that everyone in the world should be packing that you're going to turn any thread about the UK into an "evils of gun control" debate?

Was that really necessary?

I thought this, then I realised it was hilarious because it was - excuse the pun - shooting himself in the foot.

Rapscallion

[jackfaire]

I thought this, then I realised it was hilarious because it was - excuse the pun - shooting himself in the foot.

Rapscallion

*Groans and then throws a glass in the fireplace*

[Greenday]

Really? Really? You're that obsessed in the belief that everyone in the world should be packing that you're going to turn any thread about the UK into an "evils of gun control" debate?

Was that really necessary?

I don't believe everyone should be packing. Just those that want to be.

As for how many rioters had guns, I don't know. When you completely outnumber your opponents by a vast advantage, they don't NEED guns to accomplish what they want.

[Hyena Dandy]

Wait, is this another gun control thread now? Shit, I didn't read past the first couple pages.

[Andara Bledin]

I do know that the pro-gun crowd are usually quick to tell us that if a criminal wants a gun in the UK then the weapons are easily available.

It didn't seem to be any sort of insurmountable obstacle to the dead gang-member whose fatal shooting by trigger-happy police was used to start off the whole shebang.

^-.-^

[Lace Neil Singer]

Could we please remain on topic, if possible? I don't want this to turn into yet another gun control thread; we have dozens of those already and we really don't need another.

I think I agree with Andara.

The rioters are entirely culpable for their actions. But that does not mean that they acted entirely independently of societal conditions. There is a reason. There is not an excuse, but a reason.

Additionally, that isn't to say everyone participating felt the same way or came from the same conditions. Maybe they just got caught up. Maybe they saw something they could get away with. There were thousands of rioters, but the riots still happened for a reason. And I think the reason is an anger at the lack of opportunities for youth.

Hardly, when most involved were white adults who had jobs. I posted a link in an earlier post about that.

[Andara Bledin]

Hardly, when most involved were white adults who had jobs. I posted a link in an earlier post about that.

So? Just because they're white adults who had jobs does not mean that they didn't feel trapped by a system that has almost no ability to better oneself.

I'm a white adult with a job and if I had good reason to believe I was going to be stuck at the level I was at as little as 5 years ago and there wasn't a whole lot I could do to make my situation better, I sure as hell wouldn't have been nearly as willing to put up with as much as I did at that time.

Being white, over 18, or employed are not conditions that automagically make life not suck.

^-.-^

[Lace Neil Singer]

So basically, you're determined to consider the rioters as deprived. That's a bit of a rigid attitude to take.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-23340607/

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...-and-the-riots

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

Yeah, I really feel sorry for these people. They are soo much worse off than me, and should be pitied rather than taken to court and punished for their crimes.