Newtown School Shootings

[rvg]

One good king can create an empire that stretched from Greece to India in under 30 years, What can one good gun do that can compare?

Can one good king teach Greyblades some reading comprehension?
What can a British monarch currently do? Nothing.

[Greyblades]

Can one good king teach Greyblades some reading comprehension?
What can a British monarch currently do? Nothing.

Beyond triggering a minor civil war? Seriously the queen is so popular among those who identify themselves as royalists that if she told them parliament was corrupt and needed to be overthrown a number of the less than smart ones would probably try. And that's even ignoring the amount of damage she could cause to British relations if she purposely messed up a royal visit. Besides, you didn't say the British monarch you said one good king vs one good gun, and I have yet to hear of a country that exists only due to one good gun.

[rvg]

Beyond triggering a minor civil war? Seriously the queen is so popular among those who identify themselves as royalists that if she told them parliament was corrupt and needed to be overthrown a number of them would probably try. And that's even ignoring the amount of damage she could cause to British relations if she purposely messed up a royal visit.

And this is useful how exactly?

Besides, you didn't say the British monarch you said one good king vs one good gun, and I have yet to hear of a country that exists only due to one good gun.

What other king would I be discussing when talking to brits about the usefulness their monarchy? King of Swaziland?

[rory_20_uk]

Can one good king teach Greyblades some reading comprehension?
What can a British monarch currently do? Nothing.

Do you know what the Queen and PM discuss at their weekly meetings? I don't.
Do you think no politician ever listens? I think it highly unlikely.

[rvg]

Do you know what the Queen and PM discuss at their weekly meetings? I don't.

Exactly.

Do you think no politician ever listens? I think it highly unlikely.

Listen? They might or they might not. Politicians are not required to follow the wishes of the monarch. Their mind might just as well be swayed on an issue by a photo of a crying baby or a particularly sappy movie. Or the sound of a rifle discharge.

[Greyblades]

And this is useful how exactly?

How useful something is depends on your point of view, assume the hypothetical situation of a tyrannical government, what's more useful to a rebel? A figurehead who inspires a number of people into resisting, or one good gun? And the inverse, what is more useful to a tyrannical president, a popular figure head who can persuade people to keep calm and carry on, or one good gun? Even to the average person on the street trying to get on with his life, what is more useful to them, a person who matters like a king who at least appears to sympathize with the problems of people like him, or a good gun?

What other king would I be discussing when talking to brits about the usefulness their monarchy? King of Swaziland?

The very concept of a king, which is what I and PVC have been talking about. A good king with absolute power like Alexander the Great can create an empire that is still admired over 2000 years ago. Even without power, a good king with a constitution like George VI can inspire a nation into struggling far past the ordinary breaking point just by showing solidarity by not fleeing in the face of danger.

I ask again what can a good gun do that can compare?

[rvg]

How useful something is depends on your point of view, assume the hypothetical situation of a tyrannical government, what's more useful to a rebel? A figurehead who inspires a number of people into resisting, or one good gun? And the inverse, what is more useful to a tyrannical president, a popular figure head who can persuade people to keep calm and carry on, or one good gun? Even to the average person on the street trying to get on with his life, what is more useful to them, a person who matters like a king who at least appears to sympathise with the problems of people like him, or a good gun?

Good gun of course. Armed populace is a far better safeguard against tyranny than some aristocratic figurehead. And it's useful for hunting and home protection.

The very concept of a king, which is what I and PVC have been talking about...

And I haven't been talking about that. I've been talking specifically about contemporary British monarchy.

[Catiline]

Rather entertainingly this whole discussion is taking place on the day the the Queen went to that cabinet meeting. It's the first time a monarch's done that since George III during the war of Independence.

Presumably she's decided there's so much stupidity being demonstrated over there that it's time that you lot have had your fun, and it's Independence revocation time.

And given that the alternative is President Cameron and VP Clegg, or, God forbid, POTUK Blair, I think the modern monarchy is a very good thing indeed. God bless her and all who sail in her.

[Sir Moody]

Good gun of course. Armed populace is a far better safeguard against tyranny than some aristocratic figurehead. And it's useful for hunting and home protection.

Maybe true when the best a government could bring to the table was a Musket and Cannon - I would really love to see a "Militia" take on an Apache Helicopter - would be brilliant, if short, viewing

That said a Monarch isn't exactly a good safeguard either since the Army only technically takes orders from them - the real orders still come from the Government... a figure head is just as useful as a good gun against a Apache...

[Lemur]

Rather entertainingly this whole discussion is taking place on the day the the Queen went to that cabinet meeting.

I am not the author, but this seems like a fine time to reprint this firsthand account of how that went down:



The meeting ended. A mere fifteen minutes into the agenda. Elizabeth dropped the pen, it was crimson with the blood of the fallen so called politicians. They had failed her. They had failed the country. The country she held so dear to her heart. For Elizabeth was not merely the queen of this one realm. But the government of this, her home nation had disappointed her so. It was time for a change she thought.

She licked her lips, and took a deep nasal breath, remembering the day when she last smelled the blood of her victims. So long ago in Zimbabwe. Her second breath brought a different memory though. What was that odour? Gunpowder? No, more subtle that that. Liquorice? Nearly... Elizabeth surveyed the room, slowly taking in the mental panoramic of the glorious dead, then there it was. The lone survivor.

"Fear." Elizabeth mouthed. That was the smell. The lone politician cowered. Hiding behind the bodies of so many fallen. he sobbed slightly. Elizabeth was not amused. "Arise, whelp," the monarch said. "Is this how you wish to die? Clutching the bloated corpse of Kenneth Clarke? Arise, and accept your fate."

The politician pushed the body aside and slowly stood up. Still sobbing. She had not seen sobbing like this since Charles announced his divorce. A young, clean faced man stood before her. Awaiting his fate. "What is your name?" Elizabeth hissed.

"Clegg ma'am. Nick Clegg"

"So, Nicholas. Did you really think you could escape? Are you not aware who I am? Are you not aware of my power? I, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of your God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith! Did YOU believe you could escape ME?" Clegg fell to his knees. His fearful sobbing turned to pathetic begging for his life.

"Mercy!" He pleaded

"NO." Stated the monarch. "Your words are nothing to me. I will show you my Mercy." She lifted her sword high. The small square blade slowly extending in the dim Downing Street lights, as if by a darker power. The stub became a blade. The blade became an edge, then she struck the blow.

Cleggs head slumped from his neck. Blood sprayed across the room. Elizabeth could literally taste Cleggs life draining from his useless flesh. She sheathed the Sword of Mercy. Lifted the head of the final politician and headed for the door.

Hordes of people were in Downing Street. Cameras, reporters, from every possible news outlet. The Queen held the head of Clegg aloft, triumphantly.

[Greyblades]

Ah, if only.

Good gun of course. Armed populace is a far better safeguard against tyranny than some aristocratic figurehead. And it's useful for hunting and home protection.

Admittedly in those situations a rifle is the better option, (except for Henry VIII, guy was badass, an avid hunter in his youth, an ideal king before he turned sour and he had a mace with a gun installed in the head. Gaving him in the house when a robber turns up would be 100 times more useful than a 12 gague), though personally some form of legal safeguard, a burglar alarm system and a crossbow are preferable to a gun respectively. When thinking about the big picture, government, diplomacy, society, economics, etc a good, (just, noble, etc) king is infinitely preferable to an armed populous.

And I haven't been talking about that. I've been talking specifically about contemporary British monarchy.

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

[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?

[rvg]

... a figure head is just as useful as a good gun against a Apache...

riiiiight...

[Catiline]

riiiiight...

Reeeeeallly

[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)?

[Sir Moody]

riiiiight...

are you seriously telling me you can buy 50 Cal armor piecing sniper rifles legally in the states?

wow... well I am sure that will make the militia members feel better as hellfire missiles are raining down on them - they at least can shoot back - assuming the Helicopter comes into range carelessly

[Catiline]

It might also be worth asking the Palestinians how guns vs Apaches is going for them.

[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?

[rvg]

are you seriously telling me you can buy 50 Cal armor piecing sniper rifles legally in the states?

wow... well I am sure that will make the militia members feel better as hellfire missiles are raining down on them - they at least can shoot back - assuming the Helicopter comes into range carelessly

Yes sir. You can legally buy a Barrett in all states except the People's Republic of California.

[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?

[Ronin]

Yes sir. You can legally buy a Barrett in all states except the People's Republic of California.

is this in case the transformers invade?

[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]

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.

[Catiline]

is this in case the transformers invade?

The transformers do come from hollywood...

[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.

[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.

[Lemur]

Unarmed civilians can't protect themselves, their unarmed neighbors can't help them either.

Strange, the most serious conflicts I've been in involved non-firearm weapons. Not having a gun does not equal unarmed. People manage to damage and even kill one another without gunpowder, it just requires a little more commitment.

Also note that the vast majority of guns obtained by criminals are purchased, not stolen. So even if the gun becomes "illegal" once a felon possesses it, the act of purchasing is usually done within our legal framework.

Drudge Report is already screaming about how any attempt at any modification of gun law is a "gun grab" by (who else?) Obama. Raise your hand if you didn't see that coming, and then slap yourself for obtuseness.

If I'm understanding the position of the 2A absolutists on this board:

• Mass shootings are rare, inevitable, and (while sad) a price of freedom
• Any attempt at registration, mandated safety measures, or anything, really, will just be a nanny-state infantilization of the citizenry (part of the larger degredation of rights which we will only tolerate when originating with acts committed by people with Muslim names)
• Therefore US citizens should suck it up, arm themselves, and never speak of this again