Newtown School Shootings

[rvg]

When thinking about the big picture, government, diplomacy, society, economics, etc a good, (just, noble, etc) king is infinitely preferable to an armed populous.

Can you provide a "big picture" example that would support this?

Well you kinda have to think about the aspects of king hood when talking about a monarchy.

And when talking about British monarchy wouldn't it be better to think its specific aspects?

[Greyblades]

Can you provide a "big picture" example that would support this?

Well when I think of a good king I think of the actions of George VI, when urged to leave the capital during the London blitz he refused on the grounds that it would be running away when his people were in danger, he even spent several nights sheltering alongside the "commoners" in the london underground, the king and his family going through the same hardships as the common man was a great morale boost and added to the myriad of other equally important factors that kept britain from surrendering to the Nazi's.
I honestly haven't seen anything as beneficial come out of having an armed populous when people being gunned down in the streets, their homes, thier schools, all by people I find hard to believe being able to do anywhere near as much damage in the almost gun-less Britain before being stopped by the authorities. We haven't had any school shootings since 1996, america has had 40.

And when talking about British monarchy wouldn't it be better to think its specific aspects?

That too, but you need to at least be aware of what it is specifically supposed to do, which is look out for its people, a point of comparison when determining the success of each monarch. Good kings did this, bad kings generally didn't, you think America would have wanted to leave the empire so much if the British monarch wasnt insane and went to the front lines of the revolutonary war, taking part of each negotiation while treating the colonial Americans as if they were his countrymen (which they were at the time)?

[rvg]

Well when I think of a good king I think of the actions of George VI, when urged to leave the capital during the London blitz he refused on the grounds that it would be running away when his people were in danger, he even spent several nights sheltering alongside the "commoners" in the london underground, the king and his family going through the same hardships as the common man was a great morale boost and added to the myriad of other equally important factors that kept britain from surrendering to the Nazi's.

That was very kind of him, but I do not see any practical benefits of that action.

I honestly haven't seen anything as beneficial come out of having an armed populous when people being gunned down in the streets, their homes, thier schools, all by people I find hard to believe being able to do anywhere near as much damage in the almost gun-less Britain before being stopped by the authorities.

The gunless mob was able to go on a rampage because shopkeepers had no guns to protect their property. Looters and marauders are very effectively deterred by guns as happened in post-Katrina New Orleans. People organized armed neighborhood watch groups and put up the "You loot, we shoot" signs to ward off opportunists. Worked great for those neighborhoods where enough people were armed.

We haven't had any school shootings since 1996,america has had 40.

With guns being outlawed the Dunblane shooting shouldn't have happened at all. Yet it did. Strange, isn't it?

[Catiline]

With guns being outlawed the Dunblane shooting shouldn't have happened at all. Yet it did. Strange, isn't it?

The gun laws were all tightened up after Dunblane. Since then no shootings. Strange, isn't it.

[rvg]

The gun laws were all tightened up after Dunblane. Since then no shootings. Strange, isn't it.

This wasn't a shooting?

[Catiline]

This wasn't a shooting?

No shootings since then was wrong. But that Was done with legally held shotguns and .22 rifles, for which there are exceptions in the law. Its also more of a random rampage than a single mass shooting, so a different affair to try and stop.

[rvg]

No shootings since then was wrong. But that Was done with legally held shotguns and .22 rifles, for which there are exceptions in the law. Its also more of a random rampage than a single mass shooting, so a different affair to try and stop.

Does it matter? Either way people got shot and killed.

[Greyblades]

That was very kind of him, but I do not see any practical benefits of that action.

The blitz wast a battle of bombs it was a battle of public tolerance, if that tolerance was stretched too far people would have been refusing to work, pay taxes, go to war and the British would have been forced to withdraw from the war.
George's act that set the message of "we're all in this together", if he hadn't done it people would have been resentment about "royals sipping tea in thier palaces while we die". Look at what happened in the French revolution and the french Army mutiny of WW1 for what happens when people become resentful of their higher ups being in relative luxury while they suffer.

The gunless mob was able to go on a rampage because shopkeepers had no guns to protect their property. Looters and marauders are very effectively deterred by guns as happened in post-Katrina New Orleans.

Firstly full scale disasters are the exception not the rule, second the mob was able to loot London because the british police proved ineffective and undermanned.

People organized armed neighborhood watch groups and put up the "You loot, we shoot" signs to ward off opportunists. Worked great for those neighborhoods where enough people were armed.

Were there any "you loot we chase you down with baseball bats and 2x4s" that we can compare to? because it seems like the threat of guns could have been replaced with the threat of mob beating, like what the minority communities did during the London riots, which were about as successful.

With guns being outlawed the Dunblane shooting shouldn't have happened at all. Yet it did. Strange, isn't it?

Dunblane is the reason it is illegal to have personal firearms in the UK, the Firearms Amendment Act was introduced in 1997.

This wasn't a shooting?

I only stated school shooting numbers, If I had included all shootings it would have been somewhere in the realm of 10000 in the USA and 20 in UK

[rvg]

The blitz wast a battle of bombs it was a battle of public tolerance, if that tolerance was stretched too far people would have been refusing to work, pay taxes, go to war and the British would have been forced to withdraw from the war.
George's act that set the message of "we're all in this together", if he hadn't done it people would have been resentment about "royals sipping tea in thier palaces while we die".

That's a pure speculation on your part.

Look at what happened in the French revolution...

Indeed. They have no king and are doing just fine.

Firstly full scale disasters are the exception not the rule, second the mob was able to loot London because the british police proved ineffective and undermanned.

Which is why the people should be able to protect themselves.

Were there any "you loot we chase you down with baseball bats and 2x4s" that we can compare to? because it seems like the threat of guns could have been replaced with the threat of mob beating, like what the arab communities did during the London riots.

2x4 isn't quite as good as a gun. As Al Capone once said: "You can get a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than just with a kind word."

Dunblane is the reason it is illegal to have personal firearms in the UK, the Firearms Amendment Act was introduced in 1997.
I only stated school shooting numbers, If I had included all shootings it would have been somewhere in the realm of 10000 in the USA and 20 in UK

Still, the point is that Britain has some of the most stringent gun laws and people still get shot. Not only that, but people are also unable to protect themselves from mob violence.

[Catiline]

Still, the point is that Britain has some of the most stringent gun laws and people still get shot. Not only that, but people are also unable to protect themselves from mob violence.

Yes people still get shot. The point is that it's a gigantic proportion fewer of us.

[rvg]

Yes people still get shot. The point is that it's a gigantic proportion fewer of us.

If the state renders people unable to defend themselves, the state better be damn sure that it can make up for that. But that's the thing, it can't. Unarmed civilians can't protect themselves, their unarmed neighbors can't help them either. Perceived public safety gain at the cost of total individual helplessness in the face of adversity. Hardly a worthwhile exchange.

[Greyblades]

That's a pure speculation on your part.

Ha ha ha, you funny man, I kill you last.
http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-GB/....asp?aid=35657

Duty during the war for the King and Queen meant engagements around the country related to the war effort. These included visits to military units, civil defence workers, to factories, to farms and to hospitals. When the Blitz started the King and Queen visited bomb struck cities as soon as possible after the attacks. Very often this was in London especially in the East End. Buckingham Palace itself suffered nine direct hits. But this had the opposite effect to that which the Germans had intended. Britain now felt that their Royal Family shared their suffering and were united with the people.

Many people thought it too dangerous for the King and Queen to remain in London, but Queen Elizabeth said "the Princesses will not leave us, I cannot leave the King and the King will never leave." They worked from Buckingham Palace during the week, visiting Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret at Windsor Castle at the weekends.

Indeed. They have no king and are doing just fine.

Look up Robespierre's reign of terror, france basically went though hell after for years after its revolution and it ultimately failed when napoleon crowned himself emperor, a king by another name, they are doing fine now but it did not become that way because of the revolution.

Which is why the people should be able to protect themselves.

Yes and you can defend yourself quite well with mace, baseball bats, tazers, putting intruder alarms on you house and and staying near other members of the public while outside.

2x4 isn't quite as good as a gun. As Al Capone once said: "You can get a lot more with a kind word and a gun, than just with a kind word."

He was a mobster who was referring to illegal acts of intimidation. And a gun is generally useless for anything but letting yourself get a chance to drop everything and run when facing more people than you have bullets in the gun.

Still, the point is that Britain has some of the most stringent gun laws and people still get shot. Not only that, but people are also unable to protect themselves from mob violence.

Yes, people get shot, people are always going to get shot, people are always going to rob liquor stores. That's life, nothings perfect, complete success is rare but you have to try because its not going to get better on its own. Gun restriction is the most effective method we have and it works to a point, but it is a higher point than places with personal firearms.

[rvg]

Ha ha ha, you funny man, I kill you last.
http://www.annefrankguide.net/en-GB/....asp?aid=35657

Visiting cities after the bombings? What's so heroic about it?

Look up Robespierre's reign of terror, france basically went though hell after for years after its revolution

Is it in that hell now?

Yes and you can defend yourself quite well with mace, baseball bats, tazers, putting intruder alarms on you house and and staying near other members of the public while outside.

Do you genuinely think that a can of mace would stop a looting mob?

He was a mobster who was referring to illegal acts of intimidation.

And?

And a gun is generally useless for anything but letting yourself get a chance to drop everything and run when facing more people than you have bullets in the gun.

Oh really? Mob is willing to kill, but it's not very willing to die. Before the guy with gun can be overpowered, a few guys with pitchforks will have to die, something that none of them would be willing to do. Which is why guns are effective in pacifying the mob while mace spray is not.

Yes, people get shot, people are always going to get shot, people are always going to rob liquor stores. That's life, nothings perfect, complete success is rare but you have to try because its not going to get better on its own. Gun restriction is the most effective method we have and it works to a point, but it is a higher point than places with public guns.

Americans in general don't think like that and do not buy this line of thinking.