The Telegraph: "If British shopkeepers had the right to bear arms, vicious thugs would think twice before looting"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 12:19 AM GMT
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100100323/if-british-shopkeepers-had-the-right-to-bear-arms-vicious-thugs-would-think-twice-before-looting/

    During the Los Angeles riots in 1992, many store owners in the south central part of the city defended their property against marauding gangs with their own weapons, and succeeded in protecting their livelihoods and thousands of jobs that depended on them. And across the country, Americans admired their bravery, thankful for the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which protects their right to keep and bear arms, and thereby defend themselves, their families and their property. In contrast in London in 2011, shopkeepers were left at the mercy of feral, brutal thugs acting with impunity across whole swathes of the capital as the police were overwhelmed. If they had the right to bear arms and defend their stores with force, it would have been a very different story, and brutal looters would have met firm resistance.

    Britain’s gun laws are among the most draconian in the world, yet the nation has some of the highest levels of violent crime and burglary in the West, and there is no shortage of gun crime in major cities such as London and Manchester. While criminal gangs are often able to acquire firearms on the black market, ordinary law-abiding British citizens are barred from owning guns for self-defence.

    The riots in London, the West Midlands and the North West should prompt a renewed debate in Britain over the right to bear arms by private citizens. The shocking scenes of looting across the country are a reminder that the police cannot always be relied upon to protect homes and businesses during a period of widespread social disorder. The defence of life and property can never be entrusted solely to the state, not least when there is a complete breakdown in law and order. As we have seen this week in Britain, when individuals are barred from defending their own property from mobs of vicious thugs, sheer anarchy and terror reins.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 12:59 AM GMT
    I am liberal leaning on a lot of subjects, but I don't believe any government has the right to tell me that I cannot have a gun for self protection in my home or business. If I found myself in the position of those whose businesses were threatened, I would have used a gun to bring the looters to a quick realization that robbing my place would be followed by some buckshot in their asses.

    When guns are outlawed the law abiding citizens won't have guns, but the outlaws will always find a way to get them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 1:01 AM GMT
    realifedad said I am liberal leaning on a lot of subjects, but I don't believe any government has the right to tell me that I cannot have a gun for self protection in my home or business. If I found myself in the position of those whose businesses were threatened, I would have used a gun to bring the looters to a quick realization that robbing my place would be followed by some buckshot in their asses.

    When guns are outlawed the law abiding citizens won't have guns, but the outlaws will always find a way to get them.


    Color me surprised. I don't think I'd ever want to own a gun for myself since I am more likely to accidentally shoot myself than the other guy, but I do think people should have the right to choose.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 1:49 AM GMT
    Well riddler, i do on occasion agree with you and its good to point those times out isn't it. You know I live at the end of a 1/2 mile long private driveway and I like you don't have a gun and I have no fear either. But if I owned a business in town or re-opened my campground and lived there, I probably would get one for protection.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 2:08 AM GMT
    And this is what I've been saying!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2011 2:31 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidAnd this is what I've been saying!




    One of the most dominant motivators behind the way our constitution was written, was the distrust of governments, that fact was behind the rights of gun ownership, human nature hasn't changed since then, people in power often want more power and we should not trust a government (run by people of power) who doesn't want its citizens to be able to defend themselves.
  • kew1

    Posts: 1595

    Aug 11, 2011 10:17 AM GMT
    It's slightly ironic that those "draconian" gun laws were mainly enacted by Conservative governments, the party the Telegraph supports.
    The 1st law was passed by Thatcher, the woman most Telegraph readers had wet dreams about, after the Hungerford shootings.The 2nd by ,damn,a PM so forgettable I can't remember his name, after Dunblane.

    Had to look him up,John Major.

    Later amended by Blair in 1997 to include .22s.


  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 11, 2011 10:58 AM GMT
    Guns on the Street when there are riots going on

    Can you spell Bloodbath??

    When you put guns in the hands of the public .... the guys you class as the "bad guys" USE THEM

    ie: Virginia Tech
    Gabbie Giffords shooting
    Ummmmm ... IRAQ