water cannon

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by baronWastelan

and would've ended in 1 day, but perhaps you prefer the alternative which is for the UK to be bled to death slowly?

what, a massive bodycount is preferable to some imagined slow death? in what form would this demise take?

sorry, who just got downgraded?

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

you know what, I find it frankly disturbing that in front of such massive police fails people still believe they can be protected by them. People love digging their heads in the sand here, hoping that it's never gonna happen to them.

I've heard conversation where some pride themselves with the fact that there is no need for brutal police force here..in a village in Devon though..

It's this obstinate attitude that causes what happened with the riots, if police is not a lethal threat, people will simply ignore them.

And yes, there's insurances and what not to repay the damage, but for some of the damage there's no compensation that will fill the void.

Do you really think that in the end, once this is over, the minority of people which will be charged with some offence will actually make things better? This lot had nothing to lose..

there is never a need for a brutal police force. what do you want, syria?

it was sheer numbers that was the issue. at least get a grasp of teh facts man. the night they sent out 16,000 police on the streets of london? nothing. happened.

Originally Posted by Lixma

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

If only the police were armed none of this would have happened!

Oh, wait...

and

Originally Posted by Lixma

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

If only the French pulled their head out of the sand and armed their police none of this would have happened!

Oh, wait....

top notch.

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

yeah, truth is that those were real riots, whereas what happened here was mainly looting. Things could have gone way out of hand in those two contexts if there was no armed police forces.

You know what, in the end of the day it's your choice, your obstinate position on this has bore its consequences (Cumbria shooting, Hungerford, Monkseaton, Dunblane), again because you weren't affected directly by it. Truth is that police couldnt do its job properly because they're untrained and unarmed, which defies the concept of policing.

Yes, if you're a citizen brought up with certain moral standards this is the kind of policing you will need, but when such a huge component of your society is made by people that don't give a toss about anything and have nothing to lose, you have these phenomena happening in an alarming copycat chain.

I for one care about and respect the society I live in and will do what I can to protect it and my household, and know that police forces unfortunately can't be everywhere all the time.

Firearms are not just meant for defence, they have other uses, believe it or not, but fortunately I am given the possibility to choose and have them, what really really annoys me is all these advocates for a no-firearms society, which are frankly delusional and dont have the faintest idea of the world they live in.

All I can hope for is that you will never find yourself in a position when you might really do with one, cos it's not gonna be fun..

sorry, how many years between these incidents? what kind of time frame does it take for the US to clock up a similar death toll... i care for and respect the society i live in, and it is one in which the police do not habitually carry firearms because the general population doesn't either.

and what are these other uses, opening troublesome jars? target shooting is practice for when you use it for real.

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Does anyone think that the Eastern Block countries, East Germany, Romania, etc. would have put up with the Russia communist oppression for over 50 years if they'd have had guns? They would have tried to do something to resist.

Does anyone think that the people in Somalia "today" would be under the oppression of the war lords, if the general population had access to guns?
They would try to do something to resist.

Does anyone think that the oppression in Darfur would be going on if the persecuted people had guns? They would try to do something to resist.

When people are empowered with the will resist, or they have guns and guts, they can make oppressors seek easier prey.

Guns are harmless, they are just metal objects like cars, hammers, screwdrivers, etc. You can kill someone with any of the three in the hands of the wrong person.

Guns can be a tool of dubious value of course against government oppression.

When Russia was at war with Afghanistan they had the big helicopter gun ships with the extremely fast "guns". The Russians could wipe out an entire village with one 4 second fly by. The Afghans were helpless with their handguns against such weapons and a well equipped enemy. America gave the Afghans the SAM, RPG. The Afghans began to knock down those gunships. This was a war too costly to continue for Russia, they loaded up and left.

Guns have a place, but in modern day warfare I'd say it is mostly in the minds of the people that think the ordinary handgun will be their salvation. Guns are not an end all solution to oppresive or aggressive governments. Guns can enable the people to resist and make subjugation of those people very difficult for aggressors.

the somalis are armed. eastern blok countries... well, they could have either been successful, or utterly slaughtered by armour. it's not doing rebel forces in libya much good, if they hadn't got air support... the mind recoils in horror. there's a difference between firearms and a level of support that militarises the entire population.

Originally Posted by ruggbutt

You just don't see those kinds of riots in Arizona where I live. During the L.A. riots some of the so-called black leaders were trying to get people stirred up here to riot. The thing is, we're all armed. In '92 I was carrying openly in a holster as is in accordance with the law. I also was a CCW instructor so I could carry concealed if I wanted to. Either way, the riots didn't happen here and continue to not happen here because the prevailing attitude is live and let live. Unless you're destroying my property or intend to harm. The law here allows a whole bunch of really neat stuff to happen should you decide to become a hoodlum. I've held car theives at gun point for the police. They thanked me. A buddy had a gun stolen and it was hidden in a business warehouse. He reported it stolen. We staked out the place and they came back to get it. The perps were looking down the barrel of my scoped AR-15 when they came out w/the stolen gun. The cops showed up, thanked us for holding the theives and moved on.

An armed society is a polite society. I shot 3 gun combat matches professionally for years and years. I've seen disagreements and I've seen some harsh words exchanged. Never did one person decide that the firearm was the answer to the argument. Whether that person had true respect for the weapon or whether he didn't wanna get smoked by the rest of the armed people present is something only that person can answer. In '95 my team shot 4th in the Soldier of Fortune world championships. Closest law enforcement or military team was 7th. The top 5 were sponsored civilian teams. In those days I was still a professional musician so my hair was long, down to my waist. I was the only competitor with long hair. Even got some smart alec comments from some of the other shooters. Till I shot. They were polite after that. It's hard to explain the dynamic between people when everyone is armed but it's one that I prefer. People for the most part are more polite. Like a normal human being should be. There's no childish screaming or someone being a jerk cuz they've had a bad day. Below is a shot from that match, on the shotgun stage. #4 buckshot or better were the loads we were required to carry. No birdshot.



I feel completely comfortable around others that are armed. I'm not intimidated in the least by someone carrying. In some ways, I believe that natural selection would work much better in a society where everyone was armed. Those that were too stupid (or rude) to get a clue wouldn't last long and society would be better off for it.

this... actually is a good advert for gun ownership. i'd hazard a guess and say it's the general attitude of your area that contributes as much as the gun ownership does though. nice folk are nice with or without arms, surely?

Originally Posted by Lixma

Guys, you know who you are, you really ought to give up on these (deleted word) apocalypse fantasies. You know the ones; It's finally happened - the 'sh*t has hit the fan' and you and your Glock are the only thing standing between a hoard of liberal, homosexual, zombie Democrats and your pregnant wife and subterranean stash of radiation-proof tinned goods.

It's not healthy, you know.

did make me laugh though