Routinely armed police on Britain's streets

[Rhyfelwyr]

Britain's first armed police on routine patrol (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28656324)

Small numbers of police officers in Scotland have begun to carry firearms on routine patrol duties. This is of course unusual in Britain, which has a unique history of keeping its officers unarmed (with the exception of Northern Ireland, for obvious reasons).

I am worried that this may mark some sort of cultural shift in the police away from the 'friendly bobby', and towards the more aggressive style of policing you see in the USA and other places.

Plus I guess I just don't like authority figures having tools which could kill me in a flash. I realise that that is paranoia, but I think that regardless of the facts of the matter, at a more emotive level, this will make people view the police in a less friendly light for that reason.

I'm also a bit concerned that this could be a reflection of Scotland's more 'authoritarian' streak, especially with the prospect of independence looming. I don't believe that Scotland has such a healthy suspicion of the government as the wider Anglo tradition does.

It all just seems a bit 1984-ish. Especially when you consider its rather clandestine implementation - not necessarily done deliberately, but it makes me uneasy to think how this has flown under the radar. Apparently, it began with Strathclyde Police (which covers the Glasgow area and my home area) a few years ago, and has since been implemented throughout Scotland since the regional forces merged to form Police Scotland. The public only became aware of it when people began to notice armed officers in seemingly innocuous circumstances, eg at a shop or a traffic incident.

I blame a culture of fear that would rather trade away freedom than come to terms with violence or death.

Thoughts?

[Sp4]

It's really about time if you ask me. Personally, I trust the police enough that I feel better knowing that they're carrying guns. I have no idea what that says about me but I've dealth with police officers often enough to not feel uneasy about them =x

[HoreTore]

You don't need to go all 1984 to highlight undesirable consequences; an armed police force will kill by accident. That's as certain as the sun rising tomorrow. It will be innocent bystanders, it will be suspects who make a move misinterpreted by the police officer. That Brazilian guy who was shot after 7/7 wasn't shot because of an incompetent officer; he is dead purely because of the natural consequences of an armed police force.

Aside from innocents getting killed, there are two more considerations. The first is that we might see less flexible police. Currently, the police needs to take into account their own lives when assessing a situation. Give them guns, and they can be assured of their own lives. I feel rather confident that this will create more aggressive police. I like the type of cop who runs away instead, certain in the knowledge that they'll get the criminal in a day or two anyway. Now they'll probably just shoot him.

Second is the escalation. Criminals carry knives. While of course a danger, they're not terribly dangerous, and result in relatively few deaths. Cops now bring guns to the table. It seems unlikely this will not get a response, particularly among the Hells Angels types.

In conclusion, I like my police unarmed. Sure, let them have guns available when they need them, but not all the time. The situations I consider guns necessary would be one where an innocents life is in danger. Not when police lives are in danger. Not because I hate dem cops or anything, but because I would prefer the cops to run away. In situations where escape may not be an option, give them a gun.


Rather than blaming a culture of fear, I blame a culture of wanting easy answers to difficult problems.

EDIT: the situation is the same over here, btw. An unarmed police force with a conservative government who will probably arm them up before the next election. An interesting note is that the majority of the police leaders do not want to be armed, while a small majority of the police union wants it.

[Husar]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/11/11662345-german-police-fired-just-85-bullets-total-in-2011

Natural consequences I guess. Our police force has been armed as far as I can think back, but we still don't have the problems they have in the US. It's a matter of culture and circumstances. If an armed police officer scares you, would a second amendment help you be less scared because you can then carry your own rifle with you? Would that reduce the amount of times a police officer draws his gun on you?
IMO it's all about the underlying violence of a population, and the vunderlying violence in a country where many strictly demand to have killing toys and to kill more criminals is pretty high. You ge what you ask for and yes, fear is a part of it but it depends on more than just an armed police. An armed police trained to serve and protect the population rather than trained to bring their buddies home alive like every encounter with a civilian is a potential firefight makes a world of difference IMO.

[Sir Moody]

Honestly it isn't a big change - these are armed response officers who were already armed - the only difference is instead of keeping the guns in their cars when responding to normal calls they carry them.

This isnt a move to arm all of the Police and it doesn't look like there is any intention to do so.

I am pretty unconcerned by this since the number of armed response officers is considerable smaller than the normal constabulary.

Should an attempt be made to arm ALL officers then I will be concerned...

[HoreTore]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/11/11662345-german-police-fired-just-85-bullets-total-in-2011

Is this the federal police, or both the federal and state police?

[ICantSpellDawg]

If presented with a choice of potential realities; one where only government had access to firearms OR one where everyone had firearms, even criminals - I would prefer the later in every case.

Good luck having an armed police force with a disarmed populace. I'm sure that will go well for everyone.

[Pannonian]

If presented with a choice of potential realities; one where only government had access to firearms OR one where everyone had firearms, even criminals - I would prefer the later in every case.


Neither of these potential realities are familiar to me. I'm more familiar with my reality of a mostly unarmed police and a mostly unarmed populace, with suspicion of any in either group who are armed.

I think I've only seen armed police on the streets on one occasion, on one of the bridges (London Bridge?) when some personage or whatnot was passing through and IIRC it might have been just after the 7/7 bombings. Other than that, the only armed police I've seen in the UK is in airports. Although I'd presume the ones guarding Downing Street are armed, I've not noticed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Many people are armed without you noticing. Concealed carry is the preferred method of carry for plainclothes officers and civilians.

In a society that does not recognize the right to keep or bear arms, there are still police and from my understanding London Police have had arms for a long time - even though they may not carry them directly on their person.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Speak out about it now rhy. If there is no necessity in carrying guns on person, then it's only utility is fear and intimidation. The gun imparts power and while I do not know the laws Scotland has on police officer conduct, it only leads to bigger potential abuses. Frankly if the situation requires discharging a weapon, the police should go through a process of requesting firearms so it can be logged and recorded for later review.

[Pannonian]

Many people are armed without you noticing. Concealed carry is the preferred method of carry for plainclothes officers and civilians.

In a society that does not recognize the right to keep or bear arms, there are still police and from my understanding London Police have had arms for a long time - even though they may not carry them directly on their person.

If that's the case, then that's without me knowing. I've known a number of people who've been or who were police officers at the time, and all of them were against police being routinely armed. The police nowadays are more visible than they used to be, partly because they wear luminous yellow jackets as well as their bobby hats, but the beat patrol usually consists of a male and a female officer, probably for flexibility in resolving arguments, but they're not noticeably armed, and the patrol composition doesn't exactly plan for violent confrontation.

It's quite a difference from some foreign countries I've been to, where their police stations are more like fortified camps than the offices we're used to here, and where police are openly armed.

[Sir Moody]

Many people are armed without you noticing. Concealed carry is the preferred method of carry for plainclothes officers and civilians.


In the US maybe - in the UK not so much.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Are you saying that your plainclothes police don't carry a handgun?

[Sir Moody]

most don't no - very few are qualified to do so

[Sir Moody]

to put figures to what I am saying

In England and Wales there are 128,351 serving officers (numbers from an article on Police cuts from January this year)

of these officers 6,868 are qualified to carry a firearm (with ~2700 in London) (numbers from a BBC article published in June)

We really don't have a the same attitude to guns over here

[Husar]

Is this the federal police, or both the federal and state police?

I assume both, they're all not terribly trigger happy AFAIK.

[Pannonian]

to put figures to what I am saying

In England and Wales there are 128,351 serving officers (numbers from an article on Police cuts from January this year)

of these officers 6,868 are qualified to carry a firearm (with ~2700 in London) (numbers from a BBC article published in June)

We really don't have a the same attitude to guns over here

I'm sure the American answer is that British police carry guns without being qualified, and thus citizens have even greater need to carry guns to counter them.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As to Americans and their attitude on guns:

While some Americans do believe in carrying arms to protect themselves from the police, those persons tend to be either criminals or tinfoil hat types who assume that the government is, on some level, hunting them (we do have our whack jobs).

Most Americans believe in carrying arms to protect themselves until the police finally arrive.


As to UK police carrying guns:

As I understand it, regular carriage of firearms has long been restricted to SWAT and HRT groups -- who are not on regular patrol. I would be interested as to whether this change is being implemented as a means of deterrence or as a response to an increased use of firearms by the criminal element.


One thought on the difference in policing:

When visiting London, one of the things I admired was the fact that I could not go very far nor for very long without spotting a "bobby" on foot patrol. We used to have cops walking a beat in the USA -- using their presence to minimize petty crime -- but that has long since lapsed.

[Sir Moody]

As I understand it, regular carriage of firearms has long been restricted to SWAT and HRT groups -- who are not on regular patrol. I would be interested as to whether this change is being implemented as a means of deterrence or as a response to an increased use of firearms by the criminal element.


as to deterrence I am not sure but it isnt a response to increased firearms use - in the areas where this new policy has come into effect (mostly Scotland) firearms offences have been dropping year on year.

On a side note however Armed Response units have always been on regular patrol which is why this has suddenly become an issue - in the past the policy was for them to keep the guns locked in a safe in the boot of their car until needed - they are now carrying them even when responding to a non firearms call in certain areas.

As I said before I am not overly concerned by this as they are specially trained officers (I have a friend who is currently under going the training required and it is VERY tough).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

as to deterrence I am not sure but it isnt a response to increased firearms use - in the areas where this new policy has come into effect (mostly Scotland) firearms offences have been dropping year on year.

On a side note however Armed Response units have always been on regular patrol which is why this has suddenly become an issue - in the past the policy was for them to keep the guns locked in a safe in the boot of their car until needed - they are now carrying them even when responding to a non firearms call in certain areas.

As I said before I am not overly concerned by this as they are specially trained officers (I have a friend who is currently under going the training required and it is VERY tough).

The bulk of our Urban police forces no longer function in a deterrent role in practical terms, but as rapid response teams. We only have so many police and the bulk of them patrol in police cars.

take our largest city for example. There are 34,000 uniformed officers in the NYPD. Since the job is a 24-7 job, this means that no more than 12,000 of them are likely to be actively patrolling at any one time (actually it is less than that in practice). Those 12,000 are responsible for providing police protection to the 8.4 million New Yorkers -- over 10 millions during the standard work day -- and the half a million (or more) tourists and visitors who are there on any given day.

London has 31,400 constables, with another 5,400 part time constables (same training). With 8.3 million residents and a thriving financial center with plenty of museums and tourists, London would appear to be a direct comparison. Yet the police are far more visible in London -- and I think that has an effect.

Others comments?

[HoreTore]

I assume both, they're all not terribly trigger happy AFAIK.

Well, considering it's Germany, why should a criminal bother with a gun when they can just pay their way out of prison (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147762-I-ll-pay-a-bribe-to-end-a-bribery-trial!)?

[lars573]

Good luck having an armed police force with a disarmed populace. I'm sure that will go well for everyone.
Canada has got by just fine for over a century. Look at our crime rates.


As to Americans and their attitude on guns:

While some Americans do believe in carrying arms to protect themselves from the police, those persons tend to be either criminals or tinfoil hat types who assume that the government is, on some level, hunting them (we do have our whack jobs).

Most Americans believe in carrying arms to protect themselves until the police finally arrive.


As to UK police carrying guns:

As I understand it, regular carriage of firearms has long been restricted to SWAT and HRT groups -- who are not on regular patrol. I would be interested as to whether this change is being implemented as a means of deterrence or as a response to an increased use of firearms by the criminal element.


One thought on the difference in policing:

When visiting London, one of the things I admired was the fact that I could not go very far nor for very long without spotting a "bobby" on foot patrol. We used to have cops walking a beat in the USA -- using their presence to minimize petty crime -- but that has long since lapsed.
Most Canadian cities have foot patrols too. Usually it's only where petty crime and minor disturbances are more likely to happen.

[Husar]

Good luck having an armed police force with a disarmed populace. I'm sure that will go well for everyone.

You mean like in most countries of Europe that are doing just fine or better than the US regarding police brutality and democracy?


Well, considering it's Germany, why should a criminal bother with a gun when they can just pay their way out of prison (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?147762-I-ll-pay-a-bribe-to-end-a-bribery-trial!)?

Indeed, our way of dealing with crime is simply superior.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Canada has got by just fine for over a century. Look at our crime rates.


Most Canadian cities have foot patrols too. Usually it's only where petty crime and minor disturbances are more likely to happen.

Canada has one of the highest rates of civilian gun ownership in the world, so you are doing something right.

[HoreTore]

Canada has one of the highest rates of civilian gun ownership in the world, so you are doing something right.

....but these are not legal for self-defense. Your argument is void.

[Kadagar_AV]

Guns are not the problem, desperate people is.

Arm the police and desperate people will join in the arms race.

And for every SMG the police gets, gangs go get a grenade launcher.



That line of thinking, however, is based on some basic level of trust that police can handle situations unarmed. In my situation I want full out SWAT teams with in the minute access to all possible tactical equipment.

I would also prefer to arm myself up (which I have) than to trust the local police to handle things, armed or not.

Heck, I called the police because a guy was beaten half to death outside my house, and they arrived after 45 minutes. I call pizza and it delivered in 25 minutes. Seems like something is rotten, and the more people who arm themselves without a will to use the arms negatively, the better.

[Kadagar_AV]

Sidenote:

I've read somewhere that guns spread in the population lead to more death over all. However, these deaths were foremost criminals and mainly gang related.

I can easily accept that Muhammad Mb'Mwese in the hood get shot to bits by an armed policemen or civilian, if it means I can legally arm myself and be able to protect myself more efficiently.

And yes Muhammad Mb'Mwese is a name I totally made up on the spot. You still get what I reference to though.

[ICantSpellDawg]

....but these are not legal for self-defense. Your argument is void.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/karen-selick/ian-thomson-charged-with-defending-self_b_2410861.html

Prove it. Also, this suggestion is nonsense, although it may be harder to prove self defense than in a US castle law state. If anyone believes that you have no right to defend your life or property with lethal force, that person is out of their mind.

No reasonable person could let a man in danger of losing his life go to jail or be fined for defending himself with a legally owned firearm.

[HoreTore]

Prove it.

Allright:

1. Canadians are heavily restricted by the type of weapon they are allowed, mostly hunting weapons.
2. Canadians are required to keep guns locked away, not keep them available.
3. Canadians are not allowed to carry weapons in public.
4. As you note, Canada has nothing resembling US castle laws. Instead, like other civilized countries, they have laws mandating you to consider escape before resistance.

[Kadagar_AV]

Hah, how quickly you become the things you hate. How do you get off ever criticizing America when your last post could just as easily be a caricature of any ignorant redneck going off about inner city problems?

Oh... I was grown up having the perspective that guns kill and all that.

My adult life and meeting with reality has made me change my view. I remember back when a shooting would be headline news, this summer we broke the "record" of one shooting a day.

And no, it wasnt cops doing the shootings.

So yeah, with the people surrounding me that I do have, I would very much like to arm myself up to the best of my ability. Wasn't even a year ago when a guy my age got stabbed 17 times just outside where I live.

And, mind you, I live in one of the BETTER parts of Stockholm. Real estate values here are skyrocketing because people want to flee the immigrants, however, we have no huge wall, so they are still free to roam.

I want to live in a gated community, something I despised the very idea of, growing up. Oh how times change.

[Pannonian]

Allright:

1. Canadians are heavily restricted by the type of weapon they are allowed, mostly hunting weapons.
2. Canadians are required to keep guns locked away, not keep them available.
3. Canadians are not allowed to carry weapons in public.
4. As you note, Canada has nothing resembling US castle laws. Instead, like other civilized countries, they have laws mandating you to consider escape before resistance.

Those arguments are irrelevant when you start with a mindset that:


If presented with a choice of potential realities; one where only government had access to firearms OR one where everyone had firearms, even criminals - I would prefer the later in every case.

Good luck having an armed police force with a disarmed populace. I'm sure that will go well for everyone.

And when I point out that British police aren't routinely armed, responds with:


Are you saying that your plainclothes police don't carry a handgun?

In that mindset, self-defence isn't against criminals, it's against the state. You're not arming yourself against burglars who might be breaking in, you're arming yourself against the state who will be coming for you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Allright:

1. Canadians are heavily restricted by the type of weapon they are allowed, mostly hunting weapons.
2. Canadians are required to keep guns locked away, not keep them available.
3. Canadians are not allowed to carry weapons in public.
4. As you note, Canada has nothing resembling US castle laws. Instead, like other civilized countries, they have laws mandating you to consider escape before resistance.

1.I wouldn't call it a "heavy restriction"
Case in point:
Buying A TAVOR Battle Rifle From A Gas Station?! …: http://youtu.be/kyeE6Yx9lYI

2.Americans used to have the locking restriction until the supreme court threw it out because it was an absurd abuse of the natural right of self defense.

3.Carrying firearms in public is extremely limited and difficult to do legally, hopefully we can help our neighbors change this over time.

4. The idea that an Individual has a responsibility to run away when faced with lethal force in their own home rather than engage to ensure survival flies in the face of everything that most reasonable people believe. Criminals are under no obligation not to harm you and very often will. Laws suggesting this in the US have been changed everywhere and overturned when the locals are too stubborn to get it.

The rights and value of each person is increasing worldwide. Part of this new reality is the dawning of a golden age of self-defense. We want everyone to carry guns and rarely have to use them. I believe that this is possible, like in so many states with gun ownership rates in the stratosphere and homicide rates hiding in the dirt.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Those arguments are irrelevant when you start with a mindset that:



And when I point out that British police aren't routinely armed, responds with:



In that mindset, self-defence isn't against criminals, it's against the state. You're not arming yourself against burglars who might be breaking in, you're arming yourself against the state who will be coming for you.


I am incorrect about the rate of firearm usage among police in the UK.in Northern Ireland it has always been high and in England it ebbs and flows based on what they are dealing with. The last time I checked in the mid 2000's they were beginning to arm nearly 30% of all London metro police.

[HoreTore]

I believe that this is possible, like in so many states with gun ownership rates in the stratosphere and homicide rates hiding in the dirt.

This argument confuses the purpose and nature of gun ownership in states with high gun ownership. For example Canada(hunting, that rifle you linked to has a 5-bullet mag), Switzerland(national service) and Norway(national service and hunting).

Despite being a stinkin' liberal, I do have a gun in my home. It is definitely not contributing to lowering crime rates, and will absolutely not be used. Not for self-defense, not for anything.


It is not the number of guns that's important, rather it is what those guns are used for that's the problem. The US situation is problematic. The Canadian one is not.

[HoreTore]

I am incorrect about the rate of firearm usage among police in the UK.in Northern Ireland it has always been high and in England it ebbs and flows based on what they are dealing with. The last time I checked in the mid 2000's they were beginning to arm nearly 30% of all London metro police.

To be fair, London does have a lot of chavs. The guns are probably justified.

[Pannonian]

I am incorrect about the rate of firearm usage among police in the UK.in Northern Ireland it has always been high and in England it ebbs and flows based on what they are dealing with. The last time I checked in the mid 2000's they were beginning to arm nearly 30% of all London metro police.

The situation in Northern Ireland was such that it needed actual soldiers to police it, and not just civilian police. To use that as the basis of the UK's comparison with is a bit biased towards the gun-rate. It's a bit like using the worst inner city ghetto in the US and using that to define the whole of the US, except that even that doesn't compare with the situation in Northern Ireland. As for the metropolitan police, Moody's and Seamus's figures indicate that less than 9% (somewhat less than 30%) of London's police are armed, and you're talking about a city that contains the national government, the centre of commerce, and centre of just about everything else in Britain (Paris's importance to France might just compare with London's importance to the UK, but I can't think of many other cities that so dominate a major western country). If your five largest cities plus DC go down to civil disruptions, the effect on the US would be a fraction that on the UK if the same thing happened to London. And yet our police is overwhelmingly dominated by unarmed civilians. And we prefer it that way.

[HoreTore]

In that mindset, self-defence isn't against criminals, it's against the state. You're not arming yourself against burglars who might be breaking in, you're arming yourself against the state who will be coming for you.

Yeah....

I'm ignoring that line of argument, as it's just too braindead to engage with... They can keep their militia fantasies for all I care, I won't engage with it.

[Kadagar_AV]

Safe little fantasy-Sweden became a bit more dangerous, so you became a delusional reactionary?

I see it more like: "I was assaulted in a way that change my everyday life in a negative way, and would like to protect myself from it happening again".

You don't have to be Freud to understand this line of thoughts. It's not really delusional when you get assaulted and your fiance is a minute away from being blown up by a muslim bomber.


I don't buy it. There's no doubt Sweden is undergoing a demographic shift, but the claims made by you and Frags are routinely shown to be overblown whenever people post sources and facts that dig a little deeper.

Actually, threads are having people spewing **** and very little actual debate is going on.

* Gypsies are more criminal than the rest?
* Immigrants from MENA nations leads to a rise in violent crime.
* immigration from MENA leads to way more rapes.
* Immigration from MENA leads to social insecurity.

You argue any of those points? Seriously?


You absolutely cannot deal with immigration by alienating the newcomers and proving to them that they are outsiders who must fight for a piece of the pie. It is a flawed approach that ignores reality and won't work. You can't just make them go away, and you can't make them completely assimilate. You will have to meet them somewhere in between, and your country will be changed. Tough shit, its no excuse to be reactionary. :rtwno:

How come nobody ever uses that word in political discourse any more? There's a reactionary wave of sentiment spanning the whole world right now, causing all kinds of trouble in all kinds of places, and its like people don't remember even what to call it. :shrug:

Yes, immigration leads to meeting somewhere in between.

However, I prefer a western country than a country that is in between western standards and muslim standards. What are they going to contribute with? Their fantastic view on womens equal rights, or what?

Sweden was fully functional when ethnically more robust, nowadays with the immigration I want to arm up. And it's obviously NOT just me. As I said, we just broke a record with one shooting a day.

If the criminal immigrant thugs have guns, I'd like the police to carry heavier equipment than that, and myself to at the very least have a gun to be somewhat level with them in a conflict.

[Pannonian]

To be fair, London does have a lot of chavs. The guns are probably justified.

Are you claiming the guns will be used for self-defence, or for hunting?

[ICantSpellDawg]

This argument confuses the purpose and nature of gun ownership in states with high gun ownership. For example Canada(hunting, that rifle you linked to has a 5-bullet mag), Switzerland(national service) and Norway(national service and hunting).

Despite being a stinkin' liberal, I do have a gun in my home. It is definitely not contributing to lowering crime rates, and will absolutely not be used. Not for self-defense, not for anything.


It is not the number of guns that's important, rather it is what those guns are used for that's the problem. The US situation is problematic. The Canadian one is not.

The number of guns isn't problematic. Some combination of guns as a deterrence of violent crime/bad government and ensuring that guns are not in the hands of those who would torment others with them is the future.

You have a gun in the home for no reason? That I do not get, but I don't believe that you would stand by and let someone just break in and not use it against them or at least grab it. Likewise, if your government started targeting minorities for concentration camps I don't believe you would stand by and watch that happen. You can say that being armed against government is a fantasy but I would bet that some of you had grand parents or neighbors in the resistance against the Third Reich.

[Husar]

How come nobody ever uses that word in political discourse any more? There's a reactionary wave of sentiment spanning the whole world right now, causing all kinds of trouble in all kinds of places, and its like people don't remember even what to call it. :shrug:

I think you Americans ruined it by applying a whole lot of the labels wrong.
But I also notice a very strong trend towards complete ignorance of grammar rules. The amount of genitive forms people try to pass off as plurals lately is astounding. But I see it here in Germany as well, both the wrong plural and other mistakes such as using plural and singular forms intermixed. It's like a lot of people don't really care about correctness anymore at all and all communication goes down the gutter in the long term. No wonder divorce rates are at 50% if people are unable to communicate. :drama1:

[HoreTore]

The number of guns isn't problematic. Some combination of guns as a deterrence of violent crime/bad government and ensuring that guns are not in the hands of those who would torment others with them is the future.

It is indeed the idea that civilian gun ownership works as a deterrent that is the problem. The guns in Norway, Canada and Switzerland do not function in that way, and yet we have little crime.

We do, however, have very little inequality in our countries. That's what lowers crime. How 'bout trying that in the US, eh?


You have a gun in the home for no reason? That I do not get, but I don't believe that you would stand by and let someone just break in and not use it against them or at least grab it.

It's my service rifle. It's locked down, and I neither can(it's under a ton of crap in my storage room) nor will "grab it" in case of a burglary. I still haven't taken it out since I got it, and I won't do so until the next time the government orders me to prance around the woods for a week again.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It is indeed the idea that civilian gun ownership works as a deterrent that is the problem. The guns in Norway, Canada and Switzerland do not function in that way, and yet we have little crime.

We do, however, have very little inequality in our countries. That's what lowers crime. How 'bout trying that in the US, eh?



It's my service rifle. It's locked down, and I neither can(it's under a ton of crap in my storage room) nor will "grab it" in case of a burglary. I still haven't taken it out since I got it, and I won't do so until the next time the government orders me to prance around the woods for a week again.

And why do they make you do that?

[HoreTore]

Are you claiming the guns will be used for self-defence, or for hunting?

Hunting, of course.

[Pannonian]

The number of guns isn't problematic. Some combination of guns as a deterrence of violent crime/bad government and ensuring that guns are not in the hands of those who would torment others with them is the future.

You have a gun in the home for no reason? That I do not get, but I don't believe that you would stand by and let someone just break in and not use it against them or at least grab it. Likewise, if your government started targeting minorities for concentration camps I don't believe you would stand by and watch that happen. You can say that being armed against government is a fantasy but I would bet that some of you had grand parents or neighbors in the resistance against the Third Reich.

Currently the majority of European countries don't have capital punishment. I can't think of any "western" European countries that do. Any deaths brought about by the authorities are investigated with varying amounts of competence, but at the very least they're brought to light.

[HoreTore]

And why do they make you do that?

Because, apparently, they're having trouble blowing all the tax money they're collecting.

And/or:

VLADIMIR IS COMING TO EAT OUR BABIES!!!!!111




(it's the follow-up service to the conscript year, similar to the national guard)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Currently the majority of European countries don't have capital punishment. I can't think of any "western" European countries that do. Any deaths brought about by the authorities are investigated with varying amounts of competence, but at the very least they're brought to light.

I don't follow. Are you suggesting that defending your life from a violent criminal is morally equivalent to putting a locked up criminal to death?

[HoreTore]

I don't follow. Are you suggesting that defending your life from a violent criminal is morally equivalent to putting a locked up criminal to death?

You know just as well as we do that US laws go well beyond allowing lethal force just in the case of life-threatening situations.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Because, apparently, they're having trouble blowing all the tax money they're collecting.

And/or:

VLADIMIR IS COMING TO EAT OUR BABIES!!!!!111




(it's the follow-up service to the conscript year, similar to the national guard)

Is 70 years since the last time government kicked in Norwegian doors and forced unspeakable evil down the throat of Europe really that long of a period of time? Long enough for people to ridicule those who suggest that an even more tech savvy government could do similar?

[ICantSpellDawg]

You know just as well as we do that US laws go well beyond allowing lethal force just in the case of life-threatening situations.

Yes, we are pioneers of self defense and will push our views as far as possible. I'm just reminding you of what reasonable people everywhere currently believe. Hopefully that changes to include even more firearms rights.

Personally, I'm not sure that I would leave my bedroom to defend my property during a break in. I don't really care much about property. If I had kids in the house, you know I would go door to door ready to blast any non family that I encountered.

In most states, you have the right to use a firearm to protect your life and the lives of others from serious or capital crimes. You also have the right to deter serious crimes which are in the process of being committed with lethal force if necessary; crimes such as arson, burglary, grand theft auto, rape, etc. Personally, I might just call the cops of my neighbors house is unoccupied and being broken into - but if someone is being carjacked or if there is a home invasion - I'm going to stop it with as much force as necessary because lives are at risk

[Pannonian]

I don't follow. Are you suggesting that defending your life from a violent criminal is morally equivalent to putting a locked up criminal to death?

You're the one who brought up state-established concentration camps as a reason for arming yourself in case the state got uppity. Not only do EU (and quasi-EU) countries not have concentration camps, we don't even have capital punishment.

[HoreTore]

Is 70 years since the last time government kicked in Norwegian doors and forced unspeakable evil down the throat of Europe really that long of a period of time? Long enough for people to ridicule those who suggest that an even more tech savvy government could do similar?

An armed populace didn't do squat then, it won't do squat now.

And if the Russkies come, I'll be at the border waving them in. Or ordering another Piña Colada at a beach in Cuba.

You do miss the fact that this government can easily arise from an armed population, ie. Blackshirts. When the Germans came to Norway, parts of Norway was German before any German had set foot on dry land; parts of the armed forces joined the nazis the instant they heard they were coming. Likewise, Quislings gang was ready to move in.

[ICantSpellDawg]

An armed populace didn't do squat then, it won't do squat now.

And if the Russkies come, I'll be at the border waving them in. Or ordering another Piña Colada at a beach in Cuba.

No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood. Resistance was important and not futile during WWII. It may not have been the deciding factor, but remember when Heydrich was killed? He wasn't killed by the the British or the Americans directly.

[HoreTore]

No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood. Resistance was important and not futile during WWII. It may not have been the deciding factor, but remember when Heydrich was killed? He wasn't killed by the the British or the Americans directly.

Franco says hello.

[Pannonian]

No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood. Resistance was important and not futile during WWII. It may not have been the deciding factor, but remember when Heydrich was killed? He wasn't killed by the the British or the Americans directly.

A foreign state occupying another state is easy enough to distinguish. Unless you're arguing for distinctions between separate states to be blurred, and for armed resistance groups to assassinate members of its own country's government.

[ICantSpellDawg]

A foreign state occupying another state is easy enough to distinguish. Unless you're arguing for distinctions between separate states to be blurred, and for armed resistance groups to assassinate members of its own country's government.

Yes, members of a state have the right and responsibility to resist any illegitimate and abusive government that is killing innocent people. This isn't unusual thinking. If only Germans more successfully countered the Nazis before the rise. Spain was un fortunate because you had 2 abusive anti-freedom sides fighting each other.

Resistances also need support from allies. Small arms on the ground and existing counter government civic groups are useful for resistance.

Also, are you suggesting that the Czechs had a moral right to fight the German government occupying them but that Germans had no right to fight their own government?

[HoreTore]

If there is one thing that is never in short supply during wartime, it is small arms.


Also, the claiming the Spanish Republic was "anti-freedom" is just retarded. The republican coalition included everyone who wasn't a fascist or a monarchist, ie. everything from the left and up to and including the US republican party.

The PCE was an insignificant power in the early republic, it was only through the embargo that they gained power.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If there is one thing that is never in short supply during wartime, it is small arms.

When you have powerful allies supplying. What allies would be supplying Americans? We supply our own party.

Do you think they grow on trees?

[Pannonian]

Yes, members of a state have the right and responsibility to resist any illegitimate and abusive government that is killing innocent people. This isn't unusual thinking. If only Germans more successfully countered the Nazis before the rise. Spain was un fortunate because you had 2 abusive anti-freedom sides fighting each other.

Resistances also need support from allies. Small arms on the ground and existing counter government civic groups are useful for resistance.

Also, are you suggesting that the Czechs had a moral right to fight the German government occupying them but that Germans had no right to fight their own government?

And how does that theoretical argument translate to countries that don't have capital punishment and where any state-induced deaths are automatically investigated and reported? I'm sure there are philosophical arguments that could be applied to the US of the 19th century. However, unless directly relevant, I'm not sure how useful they'd be when talking about the US of the 21st century.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And how does that theoretical argument translate to countries that don't have capital punishment and where any state-induced deaths are automatically investigated and reported? I'm sure there are philosophical arguments that could be applied to the US of the 19th century. However, unless directly relevant, I'm not sure how useful they'd be when talking about the US of the 21st century.

I am against capital punishment. I am not against using a firearm to defend yourself from violent attack or those who make it clear that they mean you unknowable amounts of harm.

[HoreTore]

When you have powerful allies supplying. What allies would be supplying Americans? We supply our own party.

Do you think they grow on trees?

During wars, they do seem to do so, yes. Who cares about allies, when there's a friendly local international arms dealer around every corner? He'll get you some delicious AA missiles as well, ya know...

How many african guerillas under strict embargo and no ally are lacking guns?

[ICantSpellDawg]

During wars, they do seem to do so, yes. Who cares about allies, when there's a friendly local international arms dealer around every corner? He'll get you some delicious AA missiles as well, ya know...

Hey, you're preaching to the choir.
I see a veiled reference to Russian insolence there.

[LittleGrizzly]

This isn't exactly on topic... and actually merges with another political issue we have a topic for.... but I have a little question for ICant so I will ask it and leave the distraction stop there...

ICant how would all this work in say the Palestine situation?

They seem to have some pretty decent weaponry, some that I assume you wouldn't even sell to private citizens, but this doesn't seem to have helped them much.

As for the actual topic can't say I am a fan of the move. It does seem to be fairly limited and we aren't just arming the entire police force, although it is always hard to hold back the slippery slope paranoia!

[HoreTore]

Hey, you're preaching to the choir.
I see a veiled reference to Russian insolence there.

I am indeed referring to shady russians shipping soviet arms around and not US arm dealers, yes.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This isn't exactly on topic... and actually merges with another political issue we have a topic for.... but I have a little question for ICant so I will ask it and leave the distraction stop there...

ICant how would all this work in say the Palestine situation?

They seem to have some pretty decent weaponry, some that I assume you wouldn't even sell to private citizens, but this doesn't seem to have helped them much.

As for the actual topic can't say I am a fan of the move. It does seem to be fairly limited and we aren't just arming the entire police force, although it is always hard to hold back the slippery slope paranoia!

Palestinians are already in one big gulag. Small arms seem to be completely ineffective for them faced with overwhelming force and a surrounding population overwhelmingly hostile to them. Even modern ballistic missiles used to great effect elsewhere are completely useless in that situation.

[Pannonian]

I am against capital punishment. I am not against using a firearm to defend yourself from violent attack or those who make it clear that they mean you unknowable amounts of harm.

What I'm asking is, how does your anti-Nazi and anti-concentration camp argument apply to countries where there is no capital punishment and where every death caused by the state is automatically investigated and freely reported? You're not talking about 1939 Europe here, but 2014 Europe.

[ICantSpellDawg]

What I'm asking is, how does your anti-Nazi and anti-concentration camp argument apply to countries where there is no capital punishment and where every death caused by the state is automatically investigated and freely reported? You're not talking about 1939 Europe here, but 2014 Europe.

Because nothing gold can stay.

[HoreTore]

Because nothing gold can stay.

...And because of that, we should arm the next incarnation of blackshirts...? I am sorry, I do not see the logic here.

[Pannonian]

Because nothing gold can stay.

England has been in pretty much the same political state since Charles II in the 17th century. The relationship between the state and the populace hasn't changed much in the last 300-odd years, except for a more planned economy in 1915-18 and 1939-51.

[ICantSpellDawg]

...And because of that, we should arm the next incarnation of blackshirts...? I am sorry, I do not see the logic here.

That's a matter of perspective. You say we are arming blackshirts, I say patriots. Depending on your biases you see it as arming good or bad. I don't think that civil resistance works when occupiers are not dealing with the after effects of massive crisis, world war, economic collapse.

Do you believe that we should prepare for nothing and simply scurry away from conflict? I don't believe in a humanity that would run away when others are threatening to harm. I also believe in humanity that knows how to use the right tools for a job and doesn't leave them difficult to find under piles of debris.

[ICantSpellDawg]

England has been in pretty much the same political state since Charles II in the 17th century. The relationship between the state and the populace hasn't changed much in the last 300-odd years, except for a more planned economy in 1915-18 and 1939-51.

And the fact that a massive part of the empire has broken away from by using hyper violence or by exploiting the staggering collapses of successive world wars.

[Pannonian]

And the fact that a massive part of the empire has broken away from by using hyper violence or by exploiting the staggering collapses of successive world wars.

We were in this state before we got our empire. We're in this state after we've lost our empire. Heck, we were in this state before we became a United Kingdom. Why should things drastically change now?

[ICantSpellDawg]

We were in this state before we got our empire. We're in this state after we've lost our empire. Heck, we were in this state before we became a United Kingdom. Why should things drastically change now?

Listen , I'm not arguing one way or the other about the topic at hand. I argue only for sensible gun control - namely directing firearms into the hands of the law abiding.

Law enforcement won't have a hard time getting them if they are needed in a pinch. Let each constabulary make their own decisions. And have Downing involve itself if their numbers are lopsided against the rights of citizens.

[HoreTore]

That's a matter of perspective. You say we are arming blackshirts, I say patriots. Depending on your biases you see it as arming good or bad. I don't think that civil resistance works when occupiers are not dealing with the after effects of massive crisis, world war, economic collapse.

Tyrannies do not grow out of government, tyrannies are formed when charismatic individuals rouse a population into revolution, usually by a relatively small cadre of thugs. You want to give these thugs guns.

It's not a matter of perspective, it's a matter of fact. The phalange, the blackshirts, the brownshirts and Lenin's vanguard boys were all civilians. If you wish to arm the population, you are also arming those who desire a tyranny. The world is not so black and white that "common man = good, government = bad".

Even today we see these movements appearing again. Blackshirts are patrolling the streets in Hungary, Italy and Greece, routinely beating up immigrants and political enemies. And you wish to give these thugs guns....?

European liberty isn't threatened by overreaching government. European liberty is, and has always been, threatened by the civilian population.


Do you believe that we should prepare for nothing and simply scurry away from conflict? I don't believe in a humanity that would run away when others are threatening to harm. I also believe in humanity that knows how to use the right tools for a job and doesn't leave them difficult to find under piles of debris.

I believe in the methods of Camara, King, Havel and Gandhi.

Because they work.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Tyrannies do not grow out of government, tyrannies are formed when charismatic individuals rouse a population into revolution, usually by a relatively small cadre of thugs. You want to give these thugs guns.

It's not a matter of perspective, it's a matter of fact. The phalange, the blackshirts, the brownshirts and Lenin's vanguard boys were all civilians. If you wish to arm the population, you are also arming those who desire a tyranny. The world is not so black and white that "common man = good, government = bad".

Even today we see these movements appearing again. Blackshirts are patrolling the streets in Hungary, Italy and Greece, routinely beating up immigrants and political enemies. And you wish to give these thugs guns....?

European liberty isn't threatened by overreaching government. European liberty is, and has always been, threatened by the civilian population.



I believe in the methods of Camara, King, Havel and Gandhi.

Because they work.

Technically, I am against arming violent felons and in favor of background checks, so "your argument is invalid". My argument is precisely the opposite of intending to arm xenophobic thugs. I want to arm the educated and white collar demure. Men and women, from all cultural backgrounds. I want everyone to realize that they don't have to cower and run away from their own homes in the middle of the night when they wait for law enforcement to come pick up their bodies.

Also, I thought you said government has nothing to fear from civilians and that civilian held small arms are completely ineffective at countering government?

Where governments can crumble and devolve without the use of force, clearly it is better not to use force.

[Pannonian]

Listen , I'm not arguing one way or the other about the topic at hand. I argue only for sensible gun control - namely directing firearms into the hands of the law abiding.

Law enforcement won't have a hard time getting them if they are needed in a pinch. Let each constabulary make their own decisions. And have Downing involve itself if their numbers are lopsided against the rights of citizens.

Why would sensible gun control be defined as directing firearms into the hands of the law abiding? We have a general suspicion of anyone who might be interested in guns. How is that not sensible gun control?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Why would sensible gun control be defined as directing firearms into the hands of the law abiding? We have a general suspicion of anyone who might be interested in guns. How is that not sensible gun control?

It sounds sensible to you. I don't agree with that idea as I've always been interested in guns, as have most males that I've ever met.

[Pannonian]

Technically, I am against arming violent felons and in favor of background checks, so "your argument is invalid".

Also, I thought you said government has nothing to fear from civilians and that small arms are completely ineffective at countering abusive government?

Where governments can crumble and devolve without the use of force, clearly it is better not to use force.

I toppled an 18 year long government at the ballot box. Humiliated them, even.

[HoreTore]

Technically, I am against arming violent felons and in favor of background checks, so "your argument is invalid".

Technically, the brownshirts were not violent felons. Argument valid.


Also, I thought you said government has nothing to fear from civilians and that civilian held small arms are completely ineffective at countering government?

The guns will not bring down government, the charismatic leader will do that. However, they are currently beating up people in the streets of Budapest, Rome and Athens. Arming them will undoubtedly cause (more) deaths and suffering. I cannot for the life of me see how that is a good idea.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Technically, the brownshirts were not violent felons. Argument valid.



The guns will not bring down government, the charismatic leader will do that. However, they are currently beating up people in the streets of Budapest, Rome and Athens. Arming them will undoubtedly cause (more) deaths and suffering. I cannot for the life of me see how that is a good idea.

Well, you said thugs where were going around beating people up, so... Like I said, do not arm those people who are committing violent felonies.

What about the people being beaten up? Would you have advocated for the disarmament of free blacks in the American south? Do you think that their owning firearms protected them then or just caused more to be harmed?

[HoreTore]

Well, you said thugs where were going around beating people up, so... Like I said, do not arm those people who are committing violent felonies.

No, you do not arm those people who are convicted of beating up people. In the case of Hungary and Italy, that's practically nobody. In the case of Greece, it's a tiny minority.

There are more than enough in each country with spotless records to supply the movement.

For the historical movements, neither the phalange, brown or blackshirts were convicted felons. Lenin's boys were, however.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, you do not arm those people who are convicted of beating up people. In the case of Hungary and Italy, that's practically nobody. In the case of Greece, it's a tiny minority.

There are more than enough in each country with spotless records to supply the movement.

For the historical movements, neither the phalange, brown or blackshirts were convicted felons. Lenin's boys were, however.

You are focusing on one angle. I have addressed both. Don't give guns to those who are guilty of violent assault and prosecute straw purchases who buy guns for felons.

[Pannonian]

Well, you said thugs where were going around beating people up, so... Like I said, do not arm those people who are committing violent felonies.

What about the people being beaten up? Would you have advocated for the disarmament of free blacks in the American south? Do you think that their owning firearms protected them then or just caused more to be harmed?

American solutions for an American problem in an American situation. What I don't understand is why you advocate an American solution to a British problem in a British situation. Our view of guns is different from your view of guns. Demanding that every adult male should be armed has a different effect on us from what it would have on you.

[HoreTore]

You are focusing on one angle. I have addressed both. Don't give guns to those who are guilty of violent assault and prosecute straw purchases who buy guns for felons.

An irrelevant obstacle for all major fascist movements in Europe. Only the much smaller skinhead groups consist primarily of convicts.

The blackshirts will have their guns.

I do believe you are focusing so much on the possibility of evil arising from government that you are blind to the evils arising from other sources. If you wish to prevent fascism, you need to keep more groups than just the government in check. And no, a tax increase does not a fascist make.

[ICantSpellDawg]

An irrelevant obstacle for all major fascist movements in Europe. Only the much smaller skinhead groups consist primarily of convicts.

The blackshirts will have their guns.

I do believe you are focusing so much on the possibility of evil arising from government that you are blind to the evils arising from other sources. If you wish to prevent fascism, you need to keep more groups than just the government in check. And no, a tax increase does not a fascist make.

Yes, I am wary of the right-wing theocrats in my party. In fact, we should be arming against them as well.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Tyrannies do not grow out of government, tyrannies are formed when charismatic individuals rouse a population into revolution, usually by a relatively small cadre of thugs. You want to give these thugs guns.

Pretty sure tyrannies arise out of governments that don't have a separation of powers. I didn't realize Roman citizens overthrew the Senate and declared Caesar dictator for life. Pretty sure it was the ability for generals to be political players that allowed Caesar and Sulla before him to usurp power.

[Montmorency]

Separation of powers is only complemenentary to the point here, which is that popular minority movements, not necessarily well-armed, often led by demagogues, are what create, enable, or abet tyrannies. I have never heard of a stable regime or series of regimes that gradually "degenerated" into tyranny (EXCEPT THE USA LOL).

Caesar had the popularity of the people - don't you ever think it wasn't important, that all he needed were his legions.

Comparing modern national states with premodern incidents is of course difficult, but if you insist, take a look at Savanarola's rise.

[Husar]

Pah, language is ruined when you try to get so technical anyway. That's why American English is the best, because the only rules that matter are the ones you make up. :rtwyes:

It becomes problematic when someone tries to tell you something and screws up the their/they're/there so bad that you don't even know what he is trying to tell you because the sentence would mean something completely different depending on which is the right one.
I also hardly doubt that there were quite a few communication errors in history that lead to lots of people dying. It's not about being 100% accurate, I find enough typos in my own texts, it's about getting at least some of the basic rules right so that you can actually get a point across without looking like you don't care. Or in other words, if people start to put as much effort into their regular work as they do into their grammar, welcome to the new banana republic.
:soapbox:

[Kadagar_AV]

English is awesome...

The money he had had had had no effect on his happiness.

[Pannonian]

It becomes problematic when someone tries to tell you something and screws up the their/they're/there so bad that you don't even know what he is trying to tell you because the sentence would mean something completely different depending on which is the right one.
I also hardly doubt that there were quite a few communication errors in history that lead to lots of people dying. It's not about being 100% accurate, I find enough typos in my own texts, it's about getting at least some of the basic rules right so that you can actually get a point across without looking like you don't care. Or in other words, if people start to put as much effort into their regular work as they do into their grammar, welcome to the new banana republic.
:soapbox:

This post puzzled me, as it presented no argument apart from painting a picture, as though the picture itself is an argument.


And the fact that a massive part of the empire has broken away from by using hyper violence or by exploiting the staggering collapses of successive world wars.

It reminds me of Tony Blair's rhetorical habit of listing noun after noun without any verbs to describe what he means by those nouns. At times he wouldn't even bother with nouns, but would just go on with adjective after adjective.

[Papewaio]

And the fact that a massive part of the empire has broken away from by using hyper violence or by exploiting the staggering collapses of successive world wars.

Yet Britain is on very good terms with most of its colonies.

Also some would say technically USA was pre British Empire and when the Empire dissolved it was relatively peaceful compared with say the American Civil War.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It reminds me of Tony Blair's rhetorical habit of listing noun after noun without any verbs to describe what he means by those nouns. At times he wouldn't even bother with nouns, but would just go on with adjective after adjective.

I was specifically referring to the collapse of Empire precipitated by the end of WWII, where British former colonies broke away with minimal bloodshed. IE India

With a government that did not experience the devastation of WW2, it could be argued that Great Britain would have made it harder for them to leave.

Also, WWI made it easier for Ireland to finally break away, without which they may still be under the yolk of John Bull

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yet Britain is on very good terms with most of its colonies.

Also some would say technically USA was pre British Empire and when the Empire dissolved it was relatively peaceful compared with say the American Civil War.

That is only be cause the engine of repression was so far away compared to the North (or South, depending on your perspective) during the civil war. Also, if a European power had come down more forcefully on the side of the Confederacy (as they did for the colonies), it may have upped the ante for continued Northern aggression early on.

[Montmorency]

With a government that did not experience the devastation of WW2, it could be argued that Great Britain would have made it harder for them to leave.

No, it could not be argued. Any number of alternative constraints might have arisen, which is why "what-if" on the scale of whole wars is never interesting outside of speculative fiction. It is akin to 'How would John have behaved if I had pulled out an eyelash of his yesterday", where "pulled out an eyelash" is taken as equivalent to 'excised his entire vascular system with a dull spoon".

[Pannonian]

I was specifically referring to the collapse of Empire precipitated by the end of WWII, where British former colonies broke away with minimal bloodshed. IE India

With a government that did not experience the devastation of WW2, it could be argued that Great Britain would have made it harder for them to leave.

Also, WWI made it easier for Ireland to finally break away, without which they may still be under the yolk of John Bull

AFAIK there were plans to turn India into a dominion a la Canada and Australia, which were superseded by independence. Similarly with home rule and Ireland. There were no plans to keep them under the British yoke forever. In fact, Mountbatten was appointed to oversee the Indian transition to independence, so that a distinguished and well-respected figure can recommend getting out of dodge ASAP, thus covering for the British government (De Gaulle played a similar role for France wrt Algeria).

[Pannonian]

No, it could not be argued. Any number of alternative constraints might have arisen, which is why "what-if" on the scale of whole wars is never interesting outside of speculative fiction. It is akin to 'How would John have behaved if I had pulled out an eyelash of his yesterday", where "pulled out an eyelash" is taken as equivalent to 'excised his entire vascular system with a dull spoon".

And since ICSD has put forward the moral argument of fighting against Nazism, it should be noted that in 2013, Irish servicemen who volunteered to fight against the Nazis in WWII were finally pardoned by the Irish government. Prior to that, they were officially deserters and had been ostracised by Irish society, being barred from state jobs among other measures. So thousands of Irishmen who had been freed from the British yoke, nonetheless went back under the yoke to fight against the Nazis (and were duly appreciated for doing so), and were afterwards persecuted and prosecuted by the government of a free Ireland.

The bill also grants an amnesty and immunity from prosecution to the almost 5,000 Irish soldiers who fought alongside the allies (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22425684)

So much for the narrative of liberty won from the British by the Irish, and the same needing to be upheld against the Nazis.

[Husar]

This post puzzled me, as it presented no argument apart from painting a picture, as though the picture itself is an argument.

Just like that text that I had to read lately puzzled me because it was trying to tell me something but the grammar was so bad that I couldn't be sure what it was trying to tell me. I guess I succeeded in conveying that feeling. ~;)

As for the guns thing, the Taliban and the IS succeeded to break free from the yoke of oppressive imperialist invaders and their tools using personal gun ownership, I guess we all have to support it now.

[lars573]

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/karen-selick/ian-thomson-charged-with-defending-self_b_2410861.html

Prove it. Also, this suggestion is nonsense, although it may be harder to prove self defense than in a US castle law state. If anyone believes that you have no right to defend your life or property with lethal force, that person is out of their mind.
Actually you don't have the right to use lethal force to defend your person or property in Canada. There's a reason that guy was charged with a whole host of firearms violations. There's also a reason the crown prosecutor is appealing the verdict. To discourage people from using guns to defend themselves. This guy being an expert was able to fire over their heads effectively. Some other idiot could've plugged the guy, and been on the hook for manslaughter or murder 2.


No reasonable person could let a man in danger of losing his life go to jail or be fined for defending himself with a legally owned firearm.
In Canada you totally could find reasonable people who feel that way (especially in Quebec our most euroweenie of provinces). You see there is a vague concept in common law about the defense of ones person and property. It's called reasonable force. Yank Castle doctrine and stand your ground are macho dick waving BS exaggerations of that. Problem is reasonable force is highly subjective, and it's generally decided on a case by case basis by the courts. The only situation where getting a gun might qualify as reasonable force is if the other guy has a gun and you see it.



1.I wouldn't call it a "heavy restriction"
Case in point:
Buying A TAVOR Battle Rifle From A Gas Station?! …: http://youtu.be/kyeE6Yx9lYI

2.Americans used to have the locking restriction until the supreme court threw it out because it was an absurd abuse of the natural right of self defense.

3.Carrying firearms in public is extremely limited and difficult to do legally, hopefully we can help our neighbors change this over time.

4. The idea that an Individual has a responsibility to run away when faced with lethal force in their own home rather than engage to ensure survival flies in the face of everything that most reasonable people believe. Criminals are under no obligation not to harm you and very often will. Laws suggesting this in the US have been changed everywhere and overturned when the locals are too stubborn to get it.

The rights and value of each person is increasing worldwide. Part of this new reality is the dawning of a golden age of self-defense. We want everyone to carry guns and rarely have to use them. I believe that this is possible, like in so many states with gun ownership rates in the stratosphere and homicide rates hiding in the dirt.
1. First that gas station was also a licensed gun dealer. And it possible to own semi-auto military-ish rifles. So long as it's been modded to meet none restricted status (long barrel, 5 round mag, none select fire). You can also own M14's. I mean you can buy guns in retail stores too.

2. Again using a gun to defend yourself is very likely not going to be legal. Unless you can prove in court it was reasonable force.

3. Actually carrying (as in locked and loaded) firearms in public is completely illegal under any circumstances in settled areas (city, town, etc). If you hear of a Canadian getting a carry permit that doesn't refer to in settled areas. It refers to being able to legally carry a pistol in a hip holster in the bush. It evapourates in settled areas just the same as a long gun. And it's actually hard to get, as that sort of permit is not "shall issue" but "discretionary issue." Meaning even if you meet all legal requirements for it's issue the RCMP can still tell you tough shit your not getting it.

4. Canadians have more leeway with use of force and citizens arrest inside their homes. But again lethal force takes is not reasonable.

And if you courious about Canada's gun culture (and laws) a better youtube channel is Skallagrim's. Norwegian who seeking a more active gun culture with more lenient gun laws, without losing social democratic society, moved to Prince George BC.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Thanks for the info. Either way, if your life or health are threatened by someone breaking into your home and you have a gun, it is totally reasonable to use it to defend yourself and stop crime. They used to say "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" when our laws used to destroy the lives of good people trying to defend themselves. Now they don't, and I hope that the similar laws in Canada suffer the same fate.