Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 99

Thread: Gunman kills several in west Cumbria

  1. #41
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,603

    Re: Gunman kills several in west Cumbria

    There is certainly a difference in the mental mindset of the Brits vs Americans. And mind you...Im not putting it down...aint wrong...just different. I belonged to a shooting club there...different mindset. I also belonged to 2 golf clubs there. Again...different mindset.

    I dont know what we can take from this incident other than it was a tragic event. I DO know however that politicians look to EVERY event as a means of furthering their cause and the only steady and continuing effort that has been ongoing for 30 years is denial of firearm ownership. My points would be that 1-it hurts individual rights and 2-its ineffective. Criminals want firearms they get firearms. Its no different from the ineffective drug 'bans'.

    I KNOW private ownership of firearms and concealed carry saves lives. I can personally attest to the fact. I also know that people that choose to carry firearms TEND to be better prepared and more aware which tends to create LESS of an environment for criminal activity...criminals are looking for sheep. And contrary to the wild west mentality that people believe accompanies firearm ownership, the exact opposite is true. people are taught how to AVOID conflict...educated on the cost of trial defense and liability, etc. Massad Ayoob, one of the best experts on concealed carry (and best teachers Ive ever known) teaches the value of carrying a throwaway $20 wrapped around a box of matches as a means of non-lethal defense...flip the cash to a would be troublemaker and tell him to buy a case on you and then go off about your business. His advice...wehn it comes to court fees and the potential for loss, $20 is a bargain.

    Perhaps it has happened but personally I have never read of a shooting victim that was carrying a concealed firearm. Again...people tend to be just a wee bit more conscious of the world when they make a conscious decision to carry. And i would also reiterate...concealed carry has been going on for 4 decades now. the wild west shootout scenario hasnt occured.

    meanwhile, with all the bans, gangs still own automatic firearms...

  2. #42
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Gunman kills several in west Cumbria

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    ...
    .

    The British as a whole (and countless opinion polls and consultations with police officers reveal the same) DO NOT WANT an armed population or police force, not because they want to behave as sheep, as per your link article, but because if you limit access to firearms to all, you limit access to sheep, sheepdogs AND wolves. If you make gun ownership and the procurement of weapons more difficult, vigilance of the illegal trade becomes tighter too; you cannot then mistake an illicit trade transaction for a legitimate one if there are no legitimate ones.

    In fear of repeating myself, you cannot turn a non-gun-owning society into a gun-owning society in the hope that the small number of shocking incidents such as yesterday's, the like of which happen on average about once a decade, might possibly have been prevented had someone, somewhere had a gun to hand.

    I'm making no recommendations about what the attitude of Americans should be towards gun ownership as yours is clearly not a society I'm too familiar with. I am saying that any move towards turning British society from a gun-rejecting into a gun-accepting culutre would be a very, very bad transformation and would lead to a situation where the gun death rate, which currently stands at less than a third of that of the US, would supersede it very quickly because of the ignorance and unfamiliarity of using, storing and maintaining weapons and through ignorance of the dangers and consequences of gun ownership and misuse - a practice and tradition that is entirely alien to the vast majority of Britons.

    I tend to be enthusiastic about armed citizens. There are many reasons: ex-cop who has seen a lot of crap, and who has suffered the loss of a close friend due to violent crime; also I teach defensive handgunning as a side business and enjoy seeing citizens empowered to protect themselves. Having used a firearm in personal self-defense I have a first-hand appreciation of their utility in that role.

    One thing I quit doing some years ago, though, was trying to get someone who does not WANT a gun, to have one or carry one. It's pointless. Even if you manage to push them into it, their lack of enthusiasm will tend to keep them from seeking out the training they need or getting in the practice time they need. They will tend to stick the gun in a drawer and forget which drawer... not much use to them.

    A person has to recognize the value of being an armed citizen for themselves, and make a conscious decision to choose that mode of living.

    If most Brits don't want it, then I wish Britain well with a smile and a shrug.... it's not my country, so it's not my call.




    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post

    but see, it is a one size fits all approach. Freedom, fits everyone. Just because one ends prohibitions on freedoms, guns in this case, would not mean that the hordes of british masses would all seek out guns and ammo but would mean the average brit would have the freedom of choice to choose his own destiny not rely on an inneffective govermnent to protect him.
    Very well-said sir, I agree entirely. Unfortunately it looks like most Brits don't.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #43
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Gunman kills several in west Cumbria

    What!? There's no guns in England.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #44
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Gunman kills several in west Cumbria

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend_Hellh0und View Post
    Thank you for this.






    but see, it is a one size fits all approach. Freedom, fits everyone. Just because one ends prohibitions on freedoms, guns in this case, would not mean that the hordes of british masses would all seek out guns and ammo but would mean the average brit would have the freedom of choice to choose his own destiny not rely on an inneffective govermnent to protect him.
    But Rev, that's one of the major points of difference between our societies. The freedom to carry arms is a very historic, fundamental and iconic part of the American political and philosophical psyche. Over here it does not have that resonance any more than the freedom to take hard drugs, the freedom to fight cocks and dogs or... well, you catch my drift. It doesn't play a part in conditioning the relationship between the individual and society, which the constitutional status of firearm ownership does in the US. The private ownership and use of arms, as a responsibility towards the defence of society and the state, as well as a personal freedom, has simply never existed. It's a morally neutral observation, but it's accurate I believe.

    Thinking more about this, I think you'll find that this situation exists because of the historic role of the individual in society. In Britain the idea of citizenship is complicated in a way it isn't in the US because there is a fundamental paradox between being a citizen and being a subject. Technically and legally Brits are still subjects of the Queen. The social contract was originally that a subject had no "rights", they were subject to the rule of kings and could not object, claim or complain about that relationship. The monarch's responsibility was one of protection, nothing more. Magna Carta began to change this and civil wars, social evolution and much strife and bloodshed have changed that social contract, but fundamental echoes of that subject/ruler relationship remain and are not entirely negative in their effect. One of those echoes is the expectation of protection and the displacement of the responsibility for that protection from the individual to the wider society. Hence, even when gun ownership was less controlled, the idea of owning a gun for personal protection was something limited to the nervous rich or the slightly paranoid, or the criminally oriented.

    I think I've been going on a bit, but this is a really interesting and important subject to debate. I'm glad DP gives us (me) the chance to work through the arguments.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  5. #45
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Gunman kills several in west Cumbria

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    Thanks for that post, really very thoughtful and convincing, but in its American context. Your analysis of the difference in the historical social evolution of our societies is spot on. The two societies are not the same and to try to fix the problems of one using the methods of another isn't always advisable. We have and do exchange many ideas and social innovations across the Atlantic and with much success, but I think that success only derives from a rigorous process of contextualising those ideas and making them relevant where they can be relevant. There are European countries where gun ownership and attitudes to it are more comparable with the US (Switzerland and Sweden spring to mind) but others, like the UK, Ireland and Spain, have an utterly different mindset.

    Thank you. I appreciate your understanding that the USA and much of western Europe constitute very different cultures, and that what works in one is not necessarily good for the other. I use this same argument in opposing the use of international or foreign law within the context of US Supreme Court decisions.

    Once upon a time, I believed that the entire world would be better off if they were more like America. Then, I saw the Palistinians, voting in (relatively) free elections for the first time, elect a terrorist organization to run their country. I shook my head in amazed sorrow and thought, "maybe some cultures really aren't ready for democracy and individual liberty after all."

    While I still tend to think that allowing firearm ownership to be more the decision of individual citizens, and holding self-defense in higher regard, would be good for Britain... as I said, it isn't my country so it isn't my call to make.

    Best,

    G.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  6. #46
    Global Moderator
    Bodhidarma approves bigly
    Andalublue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Granada, España
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 01:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    26,111

    Re: Gunman kills several in west Cumbria

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    What!? There's no guns in England.
    Of course there are. They are in the hands of the authorities, farmers, the criminals who can get them and a few sportspeople. I would be very surprised to learn that any private citizen legally owns a handgun or an assault rifle. Of course, I could be wrong.
    "The crisis will end when fear changes sides" - Pablo Iglesias Turrión

    "Austerity is used as a cover to reconfigure society and increase inequality and injustice." - Jeremy Corbyn

  7. #47
    Sage
    Gibberish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,339

    Re: Gunman kills several in west Cumbria

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    If at least the principal, teachers and security guards were armed they could have prevented most of those deaths. Those Columbine losers probably would have not even considered the idea of shooting up a school if they knew that the school personal were armed.
    I tend to agree but one problem I can see is a possible increase of kids stealing the weapons from teachers and performing "look how cool I am" followed by a opps, bang. One accidental death from a kid being stupid and the community won't allow the guns again.
    "Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."
    - Warren Buffett

  8. #48
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Gunman kills several in west Cumbria

    Quote Originally Posted by Andalublue View Post
    But Rev, that's one of the major points of difference between our societies. The freedom to carry arms is a very historic, fundamental and iconic part of the American political and philosophical psyche. Over here it does not have that resonance any more than the freedom to take hard drugs, the freedom to fight cocks and dogs or... well, you catch my drift. It doesn't play a part in conditioning the relationship between the individual and society, which the constitutional status of firearm ownership does in the US. The private ownership and use of arms, as a responsibility towards the defence of society and the state, as well as a personal freedom, has simply never existed. It's a morally neutral observation, but it's accurate I believe.

    Thinking more about this, I think you'll find that this situation exists because of the historic role of the individual in society. In Britain the idea of citizenship is complicated in a way it isn't in the US because there is a fundamental paradox between being a citizen and being a subject. Technically and legally Brits are still subjects of the Queen. The social contract was originally that a subject had no "rights", they were subject to the rule of kings and could not object, claim or complain about that relationship. The monarch's responsibility was one of protection, nothing more. Magna Carta began to change this and civil wars, social evolution and much strife and bloodshed have changed that social contract, but fundamental echoes of that subject/ruler relationship remain and are not entirely negative in their effect. One of those echoes is the expectation of protection and the displacement of the responsibility for that protection from the individual to the wider society. Hence, even when gun ownership was less controlled, the idea of owning a gun for personal protection was something limited to the nervous rich or the slightly paranoid, or the criminally oriented.

    I think I've been going on a bit, but this is a really interesting and important subject to debate. I'm glad DP gives us (me) the chance to work through the arguments.

    I was about to walk away from the computer, but this one pulled me back in.


    I bolded the sentence I wish to address. Now, I'm not an expert on the Brit version of common law, but I do seem to recall that at one time, the right of British subjects to own arms for their own defense was enshrined in common law; but that the erosion of that right began in the late 19th century. I think someone once mentioned that it was found in Blackstone's writings? Little help here, someone?

    The first thing I could find with a quick search was this:

    Provisions in the Bill of Rights of 1689 (and the similar Claim of Right in Scotland) regarding rights to arms have been overruled by the doctrine of implied repeal and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
    Right to keep and bear arms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    A bit more looking turned this up:

    The Historical English Right to Keep and Bear Arms
    by
    Colin Greenwood
    Retired British policeman, author of Firearms Control (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1972)


    In his response to Pierre Lemieux’s article Thank You Commissar published in the Ottawa Citizen, Mr David McConnell makes facetious comment on the English Bill of Rights of 1688 (lWm & M Sess 2 c2) ...This statement must also be taken in the context of its day. The right to keep arms was a long established part of English Common Law but, because the Common Law is capable of change by various mechanisms, the right was not absolute and Charles II had modified it through his Militia Act of 1662 which continued the practice of requiring subjects to keep arms of a particular type according to their ‘condition and degree’ -- that is their rank in society and their wealth.

    The rights and liberties of Englishmen continued to expand under Common Law. In the 17th century, many of the supposed rights did not, in practice, extend to the bottom of the social ladder but by the 18th century, Common Law rights were well established. and of such a nature that Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) was in no doubt that the right to keep arms was a vital part of the Common Law. Blackstone listed the rights or liberties of Englishmen and showed that to vindicate these rights when attacked, the Common Law provided that the subject was entitled to justice in the courts, the right Of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievance and, “the right of having and using arms for self preservation and defence.”
    http://www.pierrelemieux.org/greenwood-citizen.html

    ... any thoughts?

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  9. #49
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Gunman kills several in west Cumbria

    Quote Originally Posted by Gibberish View Post
    I tend to agree but one problem I can see is a possible increase of kids stealing the weapons from teachers and performing "look how cool I am" followed by a opps, bang. One accidental death from a kid being stupid and the community won't allow the guns again.
    This has been addressed before.

    1. "Concealed". If weapons are kept properly concealed and on one's person, it will be difficult for kids to steal arms from teachers or even know who is and who is not armed.
    2. "Education". The solution for everything is education, right? Or so some say... gun safety programs for kids, like the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program, have been proven to dramatically reduce child/gun accidents.
    3. "Special precautions". Massad Ayoob uses a special safety mechanism on some of his guns: a magnetic ring worn on the hand that released a special safety lock on the gun. Someone without the ring cannot fire the gun. Something similar could be applied to guns carried by teachers, coaches, principals, etc.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  10. #50
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Gunman kills several in west Cumbria

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I was about to walk away from the computer, but this one pulled me back in.


    I bolded the sentence I wish to address. Now, I'm not an expert on the Brit version of common law, but I do seem to recall that at one time, the right of British subjects to own arms for their own defense was enshrined in common law; but that the erosion of that right began in the late 19th century. I think someone once mentioned that it was found in Blackstone's writings? Little help here, someone?

    The first thing I could find with a quick search was this:



    Right to keep and bear arms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    A bit more looking turned this up:



    THE HISTORICAL ENGLISH RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, by Colin Greenwood

    ... any thoughts?
    Other than our founders totally lifted this and added it to our Contitution? Our country saw the benefits not only in a dangerous world where a small upstart country was being formed but when that country was established and internal / external enemies would try to hurt it and it's people. I'm not sure when the turning point was that England's common law was seen as out dated... I do tend to think that culturally the country moved away from the common law practices.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •