Crime is nowhere on my radar, never been a victim, never seen a crime: then again I’ve lived mostly in the provinces, never in a city. I don’t even lock my back door when I go out for the day.
However, I feel utterly apathetic when it comes to being allowed guns or not — sometimes I wish I had a gun or two, not for self-protection, but since it would be kind of hilarious to strap one on in the morning before going out, kind of outlandish; and I have no objection to anyone not disturbed having a gun, it just wouldn’t worry me since I’d be in more danger of being hit by a car.
As a matter of *principle, *just as I would prefer the entire abolition of drug laws, although not a partaker, I would prefer that our gun laws were the same as in Victorian times up to the First World War, when you could carry any weapon you damn well chose except for spring-guns which were forbidden, but then very few people have ever carried a spring-gun on their person — yet even then homicides were very few compared to America in the same period: one reason being that Americans were even then more violent and suspicious, and another being that we didn’t have the same range of gangs such as those who made Old New York more interesting even in the 1870s to 1914.
But being forbidden them, although due to hysteria, is not something to worry about either; if I were a sportsman I could fire off longarms, and if I wanted to shoot pistols I would visit a range on the continent where they are allowed: I don’t actually need them, even if I would want them. There is however a knock-on effect, entirely purposed by the authorities, of making a people less martial, which leaves a nasty aftertaste. Britons of previous centuries were not only as extremely obnoxious to other peoples as they are today, but they wouldn’t take anything they deemed nonsense from anyone, quite insufferably. It had it’s points.
Still, the whole purpose of such discussions is to vaunt the superiority of whatever system one lives in regardless of facts. Gun-nut Americans will assert how splendid it is where any loony can pack heat; Anti-gun Brits, and those Americans contrary to gun freedom, feel smug at those crazy Americans who need their guns.
Personally, and especially since there is no chance of ever removing 300 million guns from society, I think Americans ought have their gun freedoms. Not because I want them to kill each other in ever-increasing rates; but because it is an integral party of their society, and because it is more violent it would be stupid to disarm people in the face of criminals on a large continent where the latter can range free. Places with small populations can forgo arms and may more easily catch bad actors; places the size of the USA and Russia ( an equally violent federation with many homicides ) can do neither; and people who feel threatened frequently really shouldn’t lay down their arms.
In such a case as on the O.P. I have absolutely no idea how I would react; nor if having a weapon would change that in any way.
Actually handgun crime in Britain has doubled since the gun ban was initiated according to an article in a December Wall Street Journal. For the first time British police are beginnning to arm themselves. The decrease in gun violence didn’t happen as expected. So its possible a new generation may see a need for weapons that the older generation didn’t.
Mass shootings did continue and in one case the perpetrator roamed the streets for eight hours before he could be stopped because no one was armed.
What’s unadvised about being sure you have the answers to what’s right for the public is that populations and attitudes change. What works for one generation may not be what the next one wants. And people can only be assured a sense of security as long as they aren’t seeing violence as increasing. A poll isn’t reasurring if you don’t know who’s financing it or if your area isn’t safe.
The government seems to want us to depend on it to take care of things for us and most of us are willing to let it as long as it seems competent to do so. When the balance tips, changes are made.
That is if we haven’t already turned too much of the power over to the government and are unable to get our fair share back. Indeed, eleven people have currently been arrested in England for improperly tweeting regarding the beheading. I don’t know what charges will be made, if any. I don’t know the nature of the tweets.
But I find thought police much more frightening than gun police to freedom and democracy any day of the week. What I like about the States is that so far we are still allowed to have different thoughts and ideas. I hope.
My neighborhood? I suppose people would be on their phones to the police rapidly. Several of the middle-aged men may go outside to see what they could do. I don’t know.
I do know that the police would be here, several squad cars, within five minutes or less. I know of no one who would be taking pictures on my block.
I’ve been involved in a number of fights where we as bystanders intervened and stopped the attack. It’s not fucking rocket science or an act of bravery to gang up on assholes.
I find it hard to believe anything on that website after seeing this:
Drug offences (UK)183,419 per 100,000 people (US)560.1 per 100,000 people
And this:
Murders committed by youths per capita (Columbia)84.4 (US)11.0
Now I’d like to know which child managed to learn HTML?
Back to the OP; the situation escalated so quickly (the soldier was reported to have been dead on impact with the assailants’ car) that it wouldn’t have been possible for an armed passer by to stop it. That there will be a court case and leads to track any possible links with terrorism networks seems to me to be a good thing. Similarly there will be information from the Boston marathon terrorists which wouldn’t have been available had both the crazy nutjobs been killed.
Mangetout, I think this may be a case in point.
Whether the USA can wean itself off of guns or instead will continue to have a ridiculously high murder rate is irrelevant to the discussion. Also irrelevant to the discussion are proposals that the UK should go down the same violent path that the USA chose.
…there are so many inaccuracies in this post it almost makes the assertions by adaher look half way accurate. So lets start with the assertion that " For the first time British police are beginnning to arm themselves." This is obviously untrue. You are aware that an increase from “one crime to two” is a doubling of offenses, correct? So a “doubling” of handgun crime in the absence of the statistics is meaningless. Please provide your sources. Here is a guy in the United States who was arrested for making a tweet. There is so much wrong with your post I doubt your assertion you know what your neighbours would do.
But the bystanders, in the case we’re talking about, had no chance to intervene and stop the attack - well unless there were enough selfless souls prepared to line up and stop a car. And assuming they knew in advance that this wasn’t just an unfortunate car accident. Which they didn’t.
Still they talked to the perpetrator, tried to comfort the victim (albeit perhaps to no avail) until the police arrived and, well, it should be noted, said police did actually shoot the perps dead.
Would it have been better if every passerby had got out their hand cannon and started blasting?
uh, yeah. Did you happen to miss the declaration of intent? What would lead you to accept that he’s met his quota for the day?
…did any of these fights you were involved with include people who had just finished driving someone over, hacking them to death, and were covered in blood whilst waving a machete and a pistol in the air?
No they could not stop the car but if they shot them then maybe he would have lived. It would also make it impossible for additional attacks.
No it involved assholes who attacked other people with chairs and bottles. After they were chased away the cops found guns in the cars left behind.
Are you suggesting it’s better to take a wait and see attitude?
…I’m not suggesting anything at all. Was just interested to see if your anecdote had any relation to the incident in the OP. Obviously it doesn’t.
and why is it not applicable? The guy’s standing there narrating what he just did. Stomp his ass.
Ah, see, that’s where we differ. Because, well, at what point should they have shot him? When the car ran someone over? OK, probably not. When a guy got his throat cut? Yes, makes more sense.
So what’s a bystanding pistol holder to do? Who do you shoot? The guy with the blood and the knife? Yeah, of course, easy. But you’re some distance away, you can’t see the blood, or the knife. And yet it’s your civic duty to shoot someone, apparently. Those folks who behaved in a non-threatening manner and actually did prevent further deaths better get tooled up, because next time they fail to open fire, the NRA will be onto them.
ROFL!
…your anecdote has nothing to do with the OP. I’ve broken up fights as well. And fights get broken up in England all the time.
This wasn’t a fight. Its been described as a Terrorist Attack. If someone is covered in blood after having hacked a soldier to death and he points a pistol at me I’m not going to stomp his ass and you would be mad to attempt to under the exact same circumstances as what happened in this incident. Your personal anecdote about breaking up a fight bears as much relation to my own personal anecdote about breaking up a fight: which is absolutely nothing at all.
it’s easy to add a caveat to make your case. but if they’re attacking someone else then they’re focused on the person they’re attacking.
It’s not a matter of bravery, which by the way the woman filming them had in spades, it’s a matter of taking a calculated risk.
…what caveat did I add? You added the caveat of a scenario that was completely different to what happened. These guys had machetes and pistols. You have no idea how quickly this situation actually happened and how often these guys were looking around and how often they pointed their pistol at people. Breaking up a fight is different to being involved in a terrorist attack. Fights happen every day in the western world. Terrorist attacks do not. Stop pretending that the “breaking up fights” rulebook is the same as the “stop terrorist attacks” rulebook: they are not.
Your caveat was that they pointed the gun at you. I pointed out that they were busy hacking up the soldier and not taking pot-shots at people. I also pointed out that a woman stood in front of them while they held their knives and guns.