After three nights of escalating violence, arson and looting which have left parts of London looking like a war zone, Prime Minister David Cameron has one pressing question to answer from citizens looking to him for reassurance and action: “Who controls Britain’s streets?”
Throughout Monday night and the early hours of Tuesday morning the answer to that question appeared to be “the mob.” It certainly was not the police, politicians or local community leaders, all of whom were overwhelmed by the unprecedented scale of the violence and the speed with which it escalated and spread, first, from one London borough to another and then, perhaps inevitably, to other cities including Liverpool, Birmingham and Bristol.
If Cameron cannot offer a different answer to the question, one that reassures people that government ministers and the police have control, then the consequences for his leadership could be far reaching and, ultimately, even lethal.
Look at this through the lens of America. Let’s assume for a second that Obama loses the Presidency next year. Let’s assume Rick Perry wins and Republicans keep the House and win a majority in the Senate. Then President Perry and Congress enact the economic reforms needed to put this country on a sustainable track and create the incentives for economic growth (ie, low taxes and slashing the regulatory monster and dumping Obamacare).
What do you think the Soro’s progressive organizations in concert with the Unions will do? Not to mention all the radical university students who have checks cut off or reduced?
Will America stand up and back the government or will total revolution break out; giving the Progressives what they wanted?
“Oh please Brer Fox, whatever you do, please don’t throw me into the briar patch.”
If that’s what the progressives want, and they get it, then the only issue is whether the command structure of the armed forces will stand for it. The rank and file won’t.
Americans will back the government. What the progressives forget is that the government serves at the whim of the people. And thanks to the second amendment, these people ( mostly in the right, I might add) are well armed.
CE, I sure hope it turns out as you predict. Before I place money on your bet I need to see a few more polls showing Obama fading in the stretch. So far, despite what he has done to try and destroy this country, 40% (pick your poll) still approve of his job performance…….and that is before the entitlement checks get cut off!
I like your position: like we say down here in Hurricane country, pray for the best, prepare for the worst.
Only 17% of Americans say the current administration has “the consent of the governed.” Multiple surveys and polls have demonstrated support for the far left to be in the 15 to 20% range, drastically below their current political power influenced through the Democrat party. Sounds like the same folks to me.
One of the things that limited (and eventually halted) black rioters in Los Angeles was the simple fact that numerous Korean and other Asian shopkeepers were well armed and obviously unafraid to use said arms (AR-15s and such) in defence of their businesses, in part because their homes were often upstairs.
The great risk in America is that the 15 to 20 % “progressives” (=hard left) mistake old-line media fawning bias for a true consensus: “Hey we’re mainstream. Let’s go for it!” If they overplay their hand, which is perhaps a pair of 5s, things could get bloody ugly in a short time.
Meantime, in America as in the UK, lefties whip up hatred against “the rich,” defined to include business owners. In disarmed Britain they can get away with it. Over here … not so likely at all.
I agree with the sentiment Bart; but in the flash mob attacks in Wisconson, Chicago, and Philadelphia, have you heard a story of even one citizen pulling a gun and protecting themselves yet?
I haven’t and I hope we have not been so “chick-i-fied” that we are incapable of defending ourselves or our families anymore.
WRT the attitudes and behavior of the military, I can attest that the chain of command will back the results of the election (whichever way it comes out) and the troops will follow them. What those of you who are not a part of the armed forces or are not familiar with their professionalism and discipline may not realize is that, after ten years of combat and 55,000 battle casualties, the loyalties of leaders and troops are solidly based on shared experiences, complete trust and superb discipline. Even the troops who come from the inner cities have become fully “bought in” to their services and units. It also should be observed that most of their experience in both theaters has been stability operations; things like establishing order and protecting populations and property against terrorists and hooligans…the very missions needed in the event of civil “unrest.” It will be a shame if the military has to be called in to maintain order, but we did it during the MLK riots and will do again if called upon.
[i]I can attest that the chain of command will back the results of the election (whichever way it comes out) [/i]
And I can attest, that will either be a good thing, or maybe not: in the long-term context of America and if the enemies of law and order decide for no laws and no order.
I hope the current military does not forget that the current CIC would not certify that the military would get paid “if we went into default”.
Cap’n … Thankfully, no. Those were not life-threatening situations. Anybody killed? No. Even close? No. Next slide, please.
Those of us who are well armed are also well disciplined. You let a lot of $#!+ go that would get an unarmed person’s dander up. If you kill someone, regardless of circumstances, your life will be changed forever, especially if you’re one of the “good guys.” Even if you “brandish” things can be a bit dicey for awhile.
[blockquote] but in the flash mob attacks in Wisconson, Chicago, and Philadelphia, have you heard a story of even one citizen pulling a gun and protecting themselves yet?[/blockquote]
Wisconsin, Chicago, and Philadelphia.
I expect that’s one reason we haven’t seen “flash mobs” in states with liberal concealed carry rules.
Sigh …
Leave it to Americans to want to introduce more guns into the situation. Um, if the average citizenry was armed, that would mean that the thugs were heavily armed and there would be hundreds of deaths. it could also descend into an armed race war.
]
I’ve been following this at the Telegraph website and the Americans who have posited that the British citizenry needs access to weapons have more often than not with British replies akin to, “No, that’s the last thing we need.” Quite right.
From what I’ve seen and from my frequent trips to Britain, it seems to me that the people who SHOULD be well-armed and empowered to deal with this — the Metropolitcan police — are hampered by PC-ness in policy and expectations. I know that the Met. police have outreach programs and dialogue in the more sensitive communities and, while that’s good to a point, elements of that mindset shouldn’t keep them from aggressively keeping order and enforcing the law when needed. But I’m afraid that it is.
Back to the UK. ‘Civilization’ always was a thin veneer at the best of times. So what else do we expect when a nation has consumed all its moral capital, simply lacks the capacity to reinject more real spiritual capital, and where human degenerative behaviour is just the expression of unregenerate nature.
The same analysis probably applies to a number of western nations, even if the exact catalysts might differ in the event.
Thank you #11. Well stated.
I really believe we need to get beyond debating points and into fervent prayer for the pain and destruction that is coming upon the UK. In the end, what is able to calm this deep and torrential outburst is the power of God. Pray for those perpetrating the violence — they have the image of our God within them, and that image needs to be restored in them.
Re: Guns. In the incident which touched off the riots, either the dead man or someone in the vehicle he was in took a shot at police, according to reports. This all has to be sorted out with investigation. The rioters didn’t wait for investigation.
RE: “Um, if the average citizenry was armed, that would mean that the thugs were heavily armed and there would be hundreds of deaths.”
Sigh.
The *thugs* are already armed.
Gun control merely allows the thugs to *continue* to be armed, while law-abiding citizens do not have guns. Why? Because they are law-abiding. Why are the thugs armed? Because they are not law-abiding.
Creedal and Bart — you’re right. A “flash mob” would no doubt catch a lot of Southerners or Texans by surprise. But I expect it would be a whole lot shorter-lived, too. ; > )
#14- Just a bit of clarification, the commission looking into the shooting stated that while the suspect killed was armed with a hand gun, it was not discharged. The bullet in the police radio came from another police officer’s gun.
Nonetheless, they have found so far no reason to doubt the officer that fired the fatal shot’s assertion that he fired out of “fear for his life.”
Send in the army, read the Riot Act, and then the stakes for the mob are clear. As it is, there are virtually no consequences for the vast majority of the hooligans. And I’m right with you Bart, #11. Threatening behavior that would really worry an unarmed person bothers me much less because I know that ultimately, I carry the means to defend life and limb.
Really, Sarah? Please point me in the direction of the stories that say all (or even most) of the people in these mobs are armed. I haven’t seen that reported anywhere, nor have I seen any reports of shooting fatalities.
Teatime2,
A mob armed with knives and clubs will back down from citizens defending home and person with firearms. The law-abiding should always be enabled to possess superior weapons, that’s why in this country, convicted felons are barred from owning firearms while our constitution prohibits any infringement upon the right of the law-abiding to keep and bear arms.
Hmmmn. “The law-abiding should always be enabled to possess superior weapons.” Is almost as fact-denying as Sarah’s claim that “The *thugs* are already armed.”
There are very few handguns around in the UK, so it is difficult for even criminals to get their hands on such weapons – not impossible, but it requires far more effort and resources than in the U.S. Consequently, the thugs are not already armed [i]with guns[/i] – [i]pace[/i] Sarah. One could only imagine what the last couple of days here would have been like if the thugs were armed [i]with guns[/i].
If guns were more in circulation in society in the UK, then whatever law you had to ensure that law-abiding citizens had superior firepower would be irrelevant. The greater number of handguns in circulation would mean that the criminally minded could and would get themselves armed with the best [i]guns[/i] around for much less effort and cost. As Sarah points out, they’re not distinguished by their respect for laws, so they’re not likely to follow laws designed to make sure that law-abiding citizens have superior firepower.
There are two basic strategies here. A country can decide to keep gun deaths low by making supply as low as possible – no *right* for any citizen to own a handgun, and so few guns around. *Some* criminals will still be armed with guns and will have a decided advantage as a result, but it’ll be very few.
Or a country can make guns available to any citizen who wants them. This will ensure that the criminal section will be just as well armed as the citizenry, but there is the possibility of a level-playing field when there is a confrontation.
The UK has 1/4 of the homicides per capita of the U.S. from what I can see with a quick internet search. You are four times less likely to be murdered in the UK as the US – and that’s despite the fact that the US doesn’t seem to have the kind of society that leads to these kinds of riots for days on end throughout the country. If you are part of that group about to be murdered by a gun, well your chances are lower in the UK than they would be in the US. But overall you’re much less likely to be murdered in the UK, which pursues the first of the strategies.
Pro-gun people are better off just arguing that people have a right to be armed, and focusing the argument on the outcomes for those people who are attacked by criminals. Unless you want to argue that Americans are inherently highly violent and culturally inclined to high rates of homicide, and so the rates of homicide would be even higher without guns, then the high rate is most likely connected to the number of hand guns in circulation.
If your concern is to reduce the rate of homicides in a country, the evidence suggests the best strategy is to get as many guns out of circulation as you can. If you have principles/a philosophy/an ideology that commits one to gun-owning as good-in-itself then that is not an option. But don’t try and buttress the argument with claims that it’ll keep homicides down.
Actually in the US John Lott has done just that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime
The essential fact is the in the UK the government is essentially the sole bearer of arms. A status shared with most if not all totalitarian governments who do not want their citizens armed. It would appear that most in the UK believe that there is security in helplessness. Well you have achieved that.
You probably don’t know that in WW2 after Dunkirk the UK was begging to be sent privately owned arms from US citizens.
Mark,
Ownership of firearms enables the weak to free themselves from the tyrany of the strong. Rural property crime is quite widespread in the UK, according to my in-laws who lived in a village in Herefordshire. Police are very, very few and far between in rural areas and criminals know they can burglarize at will without fear of meeting an armed homeowner. And even in the highly unlikely event that a homeowner was armed with a shotgun or, less common, a rifle, should he shoot the intruder, he would risk being charged with murder by the authorities. As a result, the law-abiding country dwellers are completely at the mercy of the lawless elements. What is an 80-year old lady to do when thugs enter her home and carry off her family silver, TV, and whatever else they want? Only the presence of a firearm enables her to defend herself and her property. My in-laws had many friends who, like them were retired and lived in villages or on farms, who had lost virtually every piece of silver they owned to theives. Their landlady heard theives breaking into her garage to steal her riding lawnmower one night and she called the police. She was told by the officer answering the phone that there were only two officers on duty and that the other one was out on a call and he couldn’t leave the station – that in effect she was on her own. Predictably, the thieves made off with the mower, unhindered. Had this occurred in the USA, the lady could have confronted the thieves with a firearm and more than likely they would have fled to find easier pickings. In surveys of felons in US prisons, they revealed they were much less likely to hold up mom-and-pop stores than chain convenience stores becase in the case of the former, there was the liklihood that mom and pop were armed, whereas with the chain convenience stores, company policies usually prohibit employees from being armed. A lady or out-of-shape man shouldn’t have to defend themselves with fists or a baseball bat against a fit, younger, bigger, thug. Why should they be at the mercy of the younger, bigger, stronger. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Lies, d—–d lies, and statistics. from The Bureau Of Justice Statistics:
[blockquote] Homicide Offending Rates per 100,000 Population by Race
White Black Other
1976 4.9 46.6 4.6
1977 5.1 44.4 4.8
1978 5.3 44.6 3.7
1979 5.8 47.7 5.0
1980 6.4 51.5 6.9
1981 6.0 45.9 6.3
1982 5.6 41.2 6.4
1983 5.3 36.3 6.2
1984 5.3 33.1 5.3
1985 5.1 34.0 5.8
1986 5.3 37.9 6.0
1987 5.2 36.6 5.0
1988 4.9 41.2 4.5
1989 5.1 42.0 4.7
1990 5.6 46.6 4.2
1991 5.6 51.4 5.4
1992 5.2 47.0 5.7
1993 5.2 49.2 5.6
1994 5.1 45.4 5.1
1995 4.9 39.3 5.4
1996 4.5 35.9 4.8
1997 4.1 32.2 4.5
1998 4.2 27.8 3.9
1999 3.6 25.4 3.9
2000 3.5 25.6 3.3
2001 3.5 25.6 3.0
2002 3.6 25.0 2.9
2003 3.5 25.3 3.4
2004 3.6 24.1 2.7
2005 3.5 26.5 2.8[/blockquote]
Isolate and compare the white homicide rate in the US to that in the UK. Note also that the rate is trending down rather than up.
The UK has ,until recently, had the benefit of a relatively homogeneous population (If you are willing to overlook the emphatic distinctions between Celts, Germans, Norse, and those pesky French anyway).
The US has not. Though being predominantly English and northern European, there has been from the beginning a strong mix of other races.
THE UK is now reaping the whirlwind, having sown the wind of multiculturalism under the mistaken belief that any imports to the British Isles ( as if they were still inhabited primarily by Britons, but I digress) would automatically assimilate into the superior English culture. ( Or vice-versa, to be truly post -modern, but hey..)
Since the imposition of draconian gun control in the UK:
[blockquote] However, depriving citizens of means of self-defense is not without a cost: the low rate in homicides is offset by a massive rate of other violent crime. For example, comparing London and New York, cities of very similar population and demographics, the rate of assaults and robberies is over six times as high,[3] and 7 or 10 times nationwide (depending on statistic used)[/blockquote]
I know it’s from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#1997_Firearms_Act ]wiki[/url], but I’m lazy.
The crimes committed or intended need not be homicidal to be deterred by a law abiding gun owner.
RE: “Please point me in the direction of the stories that say all (or even most) of the people in these mobs are armed.”
Heh — nice qualification there with “most” or “all” — I’m guessing you got a little worried. ; > )
But — to *my* point — here you go — just seconds to find it, and with another minute I’d find more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8687487/Tottenham-riot-a-community-blighted-by-drugs-and-gun-crime.html
Let me repeat my point [and I said nothing about “most” of the rioters being armed]: [blockquote]The *thugs* are already armed.
Gun control merely allows the thugs to *continue* to be armed, while law-abiding citizens do not have guns. Why? Because they are law-abiding. Why are the thugs armed? Because they are not law-abiding.[/blockquote]
RE: “Consequently, the thugs are not already armed with guns – pace Sarah. One could only imagine what the last couple of days here would have been like if the thugs were armed with guns.”
Oh dear — MB simply must write the Telegraph and inform them that their article is quite wrong!
Thanks Creedal Episcopalian. To paraphrase just a touch:
“Anti-gun people are better off just arguing that people don’t have a right to be armed, no matter if they are attacked by criminals with guns. If your concern is to reduce the rate of guns, because they are intrinsically evil, the evidence suggests the best strategy is to get as many guns out of circulation as you can, no matter the effect on the citizenry who are assaulted and robbed by criminals with guns. If you have principles/a philosophy/an ideology that commits one to the belief that guns are intrinsically evil and that therefore no human being, however otherwise law-abiding, should have them, better to simply stick to the intrinsic immorality of guns. But don’t try and buttress the argument with claims that the elimination of guns will somehow keep violent crime down. It doesn’t.”
I’m not at all sure that this has a whole lot to do with “multiculturalism” or with guns, notwithstanding that they may be related to the problem.
The last time I was in London I was absolutely shocked at the huge number of what we in the U.S., when our political-correctness was down, would call “white trash.” People walking the streets aimlessly, covered in tatoos and body piercings (OK, unfortunately we have that here now) smoking cigarettes, drinking, and apparently with pretty much nothing to do. We were in a McDonalds and a gang of (white) kids came in and started terrorizing the cashier and stayed for like 20 minutes and only after they left were the police called. I’ve never seen anything like this in the U.S. Personally *I* was intimated as hell and this was apparently nothing special.
It would not seem startling to me that this large number of what Marx referred to as the “lumpenproletariat” might decide that burning down buildings and stealing everything they could get their hands on would be an amusing thing to do. This problem has been building for decades and while I fault the British for not stopping the riots dead in their tracks on the first day, it’s not at all clear what can be done to solve the underlying problem, which is to figure out how to eliminate this large degenerate class.
Catholic Mom,
I’ve encountered the same sorts over there. Similar to what used to be described in the US media as “roveing bands of negro youths.” I believe the British term for such degenerates as you described is “yobs,” but that might be outdated. Haven’t been over there for three years and these things change. Hunt sabateurs and football hooligans are subspecies.
Yobs. Chavs. Juvenile delinquents. In the US we have gang bangers. Same species everywhere, and not by any means confined to Great Britain.
But if possible, correct my misapprehension. It is my understanding that the riots in Britain, at least initially, were started by youths of color, especially “Asians”, as the immigrants are sometimes known there. That is a far different problem then generic gangs of undisciplined youth marauding for entertainment.
For whatever reason, the disenfranchised are becoming restless everywhere. And that can be laid at the doorstep of socialism, social democracy, the welfare state, whatever you want to call it, but it is the practice of trying to level social wealth outcomes by extorting from the wealthy. When the money runs out, as it seems to have done, and the governments no longer have the means to support those who have become dependent on it, these victims of largesse are left without any recourse but thievery and violence. This is a problem we created with our eyes open that will take generations to resolve.
Is it coincidental that these developments have occurred in parallel with the decline of worship in the public space?
re 26: It’s a sad commentary on affairs that your observations had to be preceded with a score-plus of irrelevancies, but you’ve hit the nail on the head, at least if you look what has been said by people who are actual observers of the British scene. The picture presented in the linked Time article matches that I’ve read in Theodore Dalrymple’s articles over the years, and you can find, if you look, plenty of other people now who are saying the same thing. The Brits have a huge underclass problem which, for whatever reason, they have failed to deal with.
I believe “yob” is still correct. [i]Yob culture[/i] in the UK is a product of the social breakdown fostered by ostensibly progressive social policies. The pseudonymous Theodore Dalrymple has been [url=http://www.city-journal.org/2011/eon0810td.html]chronicling this for a while now[/url].
29, failed to deal with despite spending lots and lots of money. I would suggest its the fruits of worshiping at the false god of materialism. It it the fruit of the secular progressive state.
Re: 24, Sarah,
Well, let’s look at the telegraph article you link. Tottenham, one of the worst areas in the UK, and the centre of drug gangs, had a whopping, wait for it, 88 gun crime offences the last year, and a huge eight murders.
That’s hardly support for your case on the great need to arm the citizenry of the UK or a defeater for my argument that such a move would likely see a significant rise in the number of homicides in the country.
If your argument is simply that there are thugs who are armed (which would normally be ‘some’ thugs) when there are gun laws, big deal. There are still murders when there are laws against murder, theft when there are laws against theft and the like. As you said, criminals tend not to obey the law. Thus, Law does not eliminate the behaviors it targets, it restrains it.
Gun control laws won’t stop all gun related crimes. But by significantly reducing the number of handguns around it reduces the number of handguns in the hands of criminals as well. It is hard to see how you can argue that the UK’s homicide rate would drop further still compared to the U.S. if there was widespread gun ownership.
Re: 25, Sarah,
“Anti-gun people are better off just arguing that people don’t have a right to be armed, no matter if they are attacked by criminals with guns. If your concern is to reduce the rate of guns, because they are intrinsically evil, the evidence suggests the best strategy is to get as many guns out of circulation as you can, no matter the effect on the citizenry who are assaulted and robbed by criminals with guns. If you have principles/a philosophy/an ideology that commits one to the belief that guns are intrinsically evil and that therefore no human being, however otherwise law-abiding, should have them, better to simply stick to the intrinsic immorality of guns. But don’t try and buttress the argument with claims that the elimination of guns will somehow keep violent crime down. It doesn’t.â€
Agreed, which is why I didn’t argue this, Sarah. I never said guns were inherently evil, nor did I say that it keeps violent crime down. I don’t things guns are inherently evil (I mean, hello! basic doctrine of creation anyone?) and my argument focused purely on rates of homicides. A swing and a miss.
#21, Br. Michael:
It is a status also shared with most if not all liberal democracies. You can argue that ideally there is something about a democracy that means that the citizens should be armed, but if you’re simply pointing to the empirical data that totalitarian governments are the sole bearers of arms, then at that empirical level, the same is true of most modern democracies. In the world we live in most democracies have not concluded that an armed citizenry is an essential part of democracy.
22 & 23, evan millar and creedal episcopalian,
Not entirely. It enables some weak people to become stronger in one aspect, and so join the ranks of the strong. Those who cannot use firearms (too physically weak, blind, no hands, psychologically incapable of initiating violence) are not helped. It does nothing about the tyranny itself, it ‘merely’ (and I’ll concede that it’s a big deal for those so helped) enables some to change camps. A weak person with a gun is strong.
More fundamentally I can’t accept that argument as anything more than a supporting argument for the case. From passages such as Romans 13 the state is the basic resource God gives us to deal with the tyranny of the strong over the weak – the ruling authorities have the sword to punish wrong doers and (implication of verse 3) an effect of this is that potential wrong doers are restrained by fear of the rulers’ sword. That doesn’t mean I’m fundamentally opposed to widespread gun ownership on Romans 13 grounds, for a case might be made on other grounds. It does mean that I think your argument cuts against the grain of how Scripture addresses the problem of human evil in society. The sword in the hands of the ruling authorities, not the sword in the hands of the weak, is what the evil doer should fear.
And I’m uncomfortable with suggestions that technology allows us to beat or minimize human evil. Up until guns were invented, weapons tended to depend upon muscle power, and used leverage to enhance it. So they tended to increase the gap between strong and weak, not level it. So, throughout most of history, arming citizens couldn’t be a solution to protecting the weak (it might solve other problems, but it couldn’t solve that). If we say that guns have significantly changed that dynamic, it skirts too close to progressive ideas that the human condition is something we can change by innovation rather than something fixed we must work with for my comfort. There is no [i]technological[/i] solution to the problem of the tyranny of the strong over the weak.
As regards the argument that less guns could be linked to higher rates of other forms of violent crime, I’m willing to concede that. I’d want to endorse what others have said about the UK’s cultural decay as being in the mix with that, but I think it seems fairly obvious that fewer police, a lawless underclass, and no guns would lead to higher levels of theft and the like.
I think my response to that is that I think most people in Western democracies that are not the U.S. seem to be prepared to accept the trade-off of a higher chance of a non-fatal violent crime being done to them for the lower chance of being the victim of a homicide. Whether that’s a good choice could be contested, but I think an argument could be mounted that life takes precedence.
As far as racial demographics go – creedal episcopalian’s point – I’m not entirely sure what the point was for the argument. I’ll take a stab that it is an argument that the U.S. is culturally more prone to violence because of its high number of black people removing the homogenity of the society, and that explains the discrepancy. I’m sure that’s a factor.
But it seems strange to argue that introducing guns would prevent riots like this (as was done earlier in the thread) – and so ignore the possible cultural and demographic causes behind the riots – but then appeal to such factors to explain the higher rates of homicide in the U.S.
Either have the issue in play in both instances and so just drop the issue of gun ownership as a red herring when it comes to the riots – like Catholic Mum argued – or take it out of both issues and do a straight comparison of the damned lies and statistics. I don’t really mind which way we go on that.
Many thanks #13: you are correct to plead for prayer – which is the other side of my own analysis in #11. But that prayer shld also be for the Churches to rise up into their genuine inheritance of Faith in order to reap this tragic harvest of unregenerate human lives. Which means a HUGE prayer …
BTW: subsequent debate about “guns” sure reveals this to be an American blog!!!
RE: “That’s hardly support for your case . . . ”
Um right — which was why I didn’t use the article to support that, but merely to respond to Teatime’s request in #18, after which providing her request, I then repeated my point.
The fact that it also refuted your blanket assertion “the thugs are not already armed with guns” was just a nice bit of icing.
RE: “Agreed, which is why I didn’t argue this, Sarah.”
You sure didn’t. You weren’t honest but merely kept throwing out the red herring about homicide and pretending like that’s the reason not to allow citizens to have guns.
RE: ” . . . and my argument focused purely on rates of homicides.”
Yup — it sure did. Which was why I paraphrased nicely your point that people should just skip the pragmatism and move straight to the ideology — as you asserted that gun-supporters should do. Truth is, you don’t care that there are more violent crimes per capita in London than in New York — you *still* don’t want law-abiding citizens in London to have guns to defend themselves against such crime.
That’s fine — just go ahead and say that. You’re opposed to citizens being armed with guns because you don’t like guns. Why lard it up with canards about the rate of homicide?
Sarah implies that a person she disagrees with is a liar to justify her strawmaning of their argument into a form she’d rather take to task. Must be a day of the week ending in ‘ay’. In my experience, people who regularly and easily see a tactical dishonesty lying behind the words of people they are disagreeing with are often people who are prone to such tactics themselves.
It’s not a red herring. My impression, as an Aussie living in the UK for the last couple of years, is that the issue of homicide is the main reason why most Australians and UK citizens don’t want widespread gun ownership in their countries. I share that perception about the link. That impression could be wrong, and the link could wrong, but it isn’t a red herring.
I also raised the prospect of a counter-argument – that there are other factors to explain the difference. I did that by giving one concrete form that could take, but I willingly accepted (with some qualification) evan millar’s and creedal episcopalian’s argument that it reduces violent crime overall. So, again, you are misrepresenting my words to suit your desire for an easy target, a fairly common tactic on your part.
I’ve already said that, and given my reason for it in #35, with my discussion of Romans 13 and this paragraph:
So again, trying to imply that I’m being disingenuous here is pot and kettle.
But London versus New York is an unfortunate comparison. My impression is that New York’s crime rate has dropped in the last fifteen years for reasons to do primarily with approaches to policing (although I note that Wiki adds the end of the crack epidemic and demographic changes), not due to the introduction of gun ownership into an area that didn’t have it before. New York has had high and low crime rates while having gun ownership throughout. The comparison really is a damned lie and statistic.
Violent crime rates of the U.S. versus U.K.? No problems, I’ve conceded that, but New York? That surely can’t be used.
Because the “canard” is on of the main reasons for my opposition to the practice being introduced into most Western democracies. Like many males I find guns kind of cool – I hardly dislike them. If I had far, far more free time than I have I could see myself taking up target shooting as a hobby. I think guns are like everything else, a good gift from God (as I have already flagged with you in the thread), and are to be used in a way that promotes the common good. Like most non-American Westerners, I don’t think widespread gun ownership does that. But there are contexts where I would want to see civilians widely armed. There are more options around than “All citizens should be able to have guns” and “guns are bad”.
I find it peculiarly illuminating (but I’m not sure of what) that, following a post about the impact of London disorders on the Prime Minister’s standing, the first nearly dozen comments swirled around fantastical visions of massive riots in the streets of America (apparently impelled by an Obama electoral loss and George Soros calling out his demons)where the army is called out to questions of its loyalty to the civilian command structure and (as the comments extend) armed decent citizens rely on their personal firearms for protection. What a world view.
Mark Baddeley’s (and a few others from cousins across the pond) patient comments are welcome in this discussion. However, the point that we have to make to them is that, whatever the modern impacts, the right to bear arms is a constitutionally-protected personal right in this country. That won’t change, so the challenge for us is how to manage that right in a way that does not result in mayhem. I own firearms, but don’t expect that I would ever need to use them to stand down a mob in the street. We have police for that sort of thing. I have great concern about what is an apparent increase (don’t have the statistics, so this is purely a subjective impression) of numbers of concealed carry permits and the ease with which people obtain them.
My modest proposal is that we insist that firearms, when carried by civilians, be carried in full view. At least then I can make an informed choice about whether I want to be in a situation (like the neighborhood grocery store) where there are a number of people who feel they must dress themselves with deadly force to go about their normal business. I would like to give those types a very wide berth, but can’t really see who they are. There’s a guy in my neighborhood who open carries even while doing his yard work. I think he’s got a screw loose, but appreciate the fact that gives me the chance to stay clear of him.
I find that my modest proposal tends to set off great alarms in certain circles. The usual response I get is that “then the bad guys will know who’s armed and go after them first.” My suspicion, however, is that the real reason for opposition is that people know that it’s bizarre and threatening to others to be parading around with a gun strapped on and want to be able to do it in a concealed way that does not expose them to opprobrium or ridicule (for whatever reason). But I think such a requirement would be a reasonable regulation of they type our Supreme Court has acknowledged and hope we get to it posthaste (although I am not holding my breath).
This is part of the problem of the medium of comment threads, I have no interest in trying to convince Americans that they should become like other democracies at this or any other point.
My interest in the thread was to contest what seemed to be another round of ‘these social problems in another country would be helped by the introduction of gun ownership’ being advocated for non-American democracies. Widespread gun ownership might well be the right strategy for America – my understanding of Calvin’s notion of the principle of equity in national laws (and a not uncritical appreciation of some of Hegel’s insights about rationality developing slightly differently in different cultural contexts, and so a solution to a problem in one country can’t be just grafted onto another) leads me to be open to that possibility, even though I’ve stated my theological difficulty with one concrete argument that evan millar put forward in support. If things changed in other democracies, then widespread gun ownership there might promote the common good as well. The law of God is eternal and true in all times and places, but it leaves open some room for different cultural expressions and applications of that one law. Feudalism was good for one context, and not later, democracy is good now, but would have been unworkable during the ‘Dark Ages’. Gun ownership, in my view, is similar.
The fact that many of us non-Americans disagree with statements suggesting that the common good in our contexts would be improved with an American-style approach to gun ownership does not necessarily mean that we are advocating that you should become like us.
[i]I own firearms, but don’t expect that I would ever need to use them to stand down a mob in the street[/i]
I pray it never comes to that. But just as we deal with Hurricane threats here with “hope for the best, prepare for the worst”, I look at mobs whipped up by austere economic dislocations as a distinct possibility within my lifetime and we are “hoping for the best, preparing for the worst”.
[i]My modest proposal is that we insist that firearms, when carried by civilians, be carried in full view[/i]
A proposal supported by many, but let’s leave the option of concealed carry for granny and others who wish to be discreet! One can check out Opencarry.org to see a whole group devoted to that issue. Why is crime so out of control in Chicago and Washington DC? Because it is criminal nirvana……only the criminals have guns and the criminals are savy enough to know general citizenery are totally disarmed!
For those who say “call on the police”, you have to remember that in America (and this has gone all the way to SCOTUS), the police carry no burden (ie, legal obligation) to protect individual people. Their duty is to maintain law and order. So if you dial 911 and scream for help but there is a riot going on in your city at the same time, likely you will not be helped in time. Thus, we learn to be our own “first responder”.
I would just remind those who believe in civilian disarmament, that the most successful killers of people are governments killing their unarmed civilians. The Swiss are peaceful, yet they keep military assault rifles with ammunition at home.
Nevertheless you all seem to have been indoctrinated that to be helpless and at the mercy of armed governments and rioting mobs is good. There is safety in the rabbet warren too. Fine. Enjoy London.
What is “discreet” about carrying concealed deadly force? If Granny wants to pack heat, keep it out where I can see it. If I go into a public place and see an old person with a gun and I have doubts about her physical or mental abilities, I want the option to change my itinerary.
I can’t say I am very thrilled about the idea of individual citizens carrying arms to be their own “first responder.”
MB: your comments are very thoughtful and thought-provoking. I did not mean to imply that you were advocating a new approach for us. I simply wanted to underscore the reality that, in the very different context of the 18th century, at a time when we did not have much of a standing army, the Founders enshrined the right to bear arms in our foundational document. It’s not going away, and, recently, our Supreme Court has said that this right, while subject to reasonable regulation, is not confined to the context of militia service (which is mentioned in passing in the Second Amendment). Whether it is a good thing in the 21st century is open to reasonable debate, but it is our reality. I take your point that it is not a model that we in the US should uncritically expect would translate well to European democracies.
[i]I can’t say I am very thrilled about the idea of individual citizens carrying arms to be their own “first responder.†[/i]
Okay, fair enough. I was simply pointing out a defined legal doctrine that I often discover most people are totally unaware of regarding law enforcement. Now you know and what you do with it is certainly up to you.
“Supreme Court has said that this right, while subject to reasonable regulation, is not confined to the context of militia service (which is mentioned in passing in the Second Amendment)”
Actually the Supreme Court did not say the Second Amendment was “subject to reasonable regulation”. They declined to set the standard of review
“Reasonable regulation” is a term of art and it is normally used to apply to the constitutional review of statutes that limit or regulate non-Constitutionally protected activity. This is often referred to as the “rational basis” test and is the lowest standard of judicial review. As a practical matter the Courts will almost always find that any statute meets this test.
If the Courts are consistent then, as a fundamental right (which the Supreme Court has said it is) Second Amendment rights along with freedom of press, the right to vote etc., the standard of review, has to the the highest standard, Government restrictions of fundamental rights have to have a compelling state interest and have to be the least restrictive possible. This is called the “strict scrutiny” test and as a practical matter any statue that is subjected to this test is almost always found unconstitutional.
Mark Baddeley,
I appreciate the way you have approached this discussion. While I do still believe that widespread gun ownership by citizens is the best guarantee of their life, property, and liberty, whether in the US, UK, France, or down under, I realize that the citizens of those countries, lacking the guarantee of our 2nd Amendment, have agreed to being disarmed. A mistake, I believe, but their choice. I have no real argument with most of the points you make, just differences of opinion at a level that doesn’t preclude cordiality.
Well, personally I do have shot guns and a rifle (and I think bird shot directed at the legs and buttocks, would work pretty well on discouraging the sort of mob violence we are seeing in London (though I have not used weaponry on anything other than targets thus far).
However weapons are only effective at something of a distance, and if you are willing to use it. Thus we carry stun guns, which double as flashlights, (and have never had to use that either). Here in my red state neck of the woods we don’t much worry about either riots or (much) about intruders. I think most intruders know that they would not be facing a defenceless homeowner.
http://www.beststungun.com/zaplight-flashlight-stun-gun.html
http://www.beststungun.com/zaplight-flashlight-stun-gun.html
RE: “In my experience, people who regularly and easily see a tactical dishonesty lying behind the words of people they are disagreeing with are often people who are prone to such tactics themselves.”
Then, Mark Baddeley, you probably shouldn’t have implied such “tactical dishonesty” in the close of your comment #20: “But don’t try and buttress the argument with claims that it’ll keep homicides down.”
It’s a-ok for the anti-gun person to imply “tactical dishonesty” but not for the pro-gun person.
Especially so when the words you used in comment #20 implying solely-ideology didn’t sound so pretty and smug when turned around on the anti-gun person after it was pointed out that the rate of assaults and robberies was significantly higher in London, despite the elimination of guns — and that that [i]simply doesn’t matter[/i] to an anti-gun person like you.
But I get it now. You’d like to have the freedom to imply that pro-gun people have no practical reason to want the ability to own guns and that their interest is solely ideology — and you’d like to imply that those who point out *practical reasons to own guns* are just “buttressing” their argument with false claims to cover their ideology.
But you’re offended and irked when a pro-gun person points out the same things about the anti-gun person.
Nice. Next time, if you’re capable of restraining yourself from seeing such tactical dishonesty in the pro-gun people, and attempting to brush off their practical considerations for guns, maybe we can save several comments.
RE: “I find it peculiarly illuminating (but I’m not sure of what) that, following a post about the impact of London disorders on the Prime Minister’s standing, the first nearly dozen comments swirled around fantastical visions of massive riots in the streets of America (apparently impelled by an Obama electoral loss and George Soros calling out his demons)where the army is called out to questions of its loyalty to the civilian command structure and (as the comments extend) armed decent citizens rely on their personal firearms for protection.”
Really?
NoVA Scout has not observed the riots taking place in so many places throughout Europe and the Middle East, with the police and in some cases the armed forces being called in to quell the riots, and wonders why people in America might be concerned about the same thing?
Look at it this way. Maybe those commenters are the ones who do *not* believe that America is better off than other countries. Maybe they’re humble and believe that if it happens in other countries, it could happen here. See how non-arrogant they are? ; > )
RE: “My modest proposal is that we insist that firearms, when carried by civilians, be carried in full view.”
I’d be perfectly happy with that. I don’t give a fig as to whether the firearm is in full view or concealed. Either way, I’m happy when the non-criminals are armed.
RE: “Thus, we learn to be our own “first responderâ€.”
Truth is — and I know you already know this, Capt. Deacon — whether we’re armed or not, we’re all “our own first responders.” Some of us recognize that, and others do not. Some are armed, some are not. But the individual is always the first responder. Hopefully second and third responders will be right behind him or her!
evan millar and NOVA Scout – thank you both for the discussion, it’s been stimulating for me as well, and I have also appreciated your tone of discussion as well.
Sarah, from your latest comment it seems as though much of your approach came from my final sentence in comment 20.
It was a final sentence after I summarized my take on the argument from rates of homicide. I suppose it could be taken as a (very very implicit) accusation of dishonesty by those offering such an argument. But I would have thought it would more naturally be read as my take on the weakness of the argument that increased guns would reduce homicide rates, and not be saying anything at all about the motives of people offering such an argument.
As you have form in this area, I can’t say I’m surprised that you took the most ungracious interpretation of my words there. Nonetheless, let me make it clear that there was no thought in my mind at all about the honesty or integrity of my noble opponents in comment 20. It was attempting to be merely a statement about the strength of one argument and that was all. If that was somehow unclear to anyone other than Sarah, I hope that has cleared it up.
‘ideology’ was the third term I included, coming after the more positive ‘principle’ and ‘philosophy’, it seems a bit churlish to ignore the first two terms I used and focus only on the third. I included it because one person’s principle is another person’s ideology – it’s one of those Yes Minister ‘irregular verbs’. I almost always use both terms together in these contexts to try and sidestep the fairly boring argument as to whether someone has a ‘principle’ or an ‘ideology’.
And again, I didn’t imply solely principle/philosophy/ideology. I gave three options: people just have a right to be armed, focus on the actual victim of a violent crime rather than rates of homicide, or argue the difference in rates comes from another factor. You are misrepresenting my words and my argument. And that’s before we add in the fact that afterwards I accepted a fourth response by creedal episcopalian and evan millar – that it reduces rates of violent crime. There I agreed that it was a good argument but said that I think most people outside the U.S. seem to be willing to live with that as a trade-off for lower rates of homicide (which I think most of us genuinely believe is the trade-off). You’ve classified that as “simply doesn’t matter” to me. About the nicest thing I can say about that description of my response to the argument is that it is characteristically ungracious and unfair of you.
Oh I doubt that, Sarah. I’m sure sooner or later or you’ll do your play-the-man rather than the ball schtick again when I say something you really don’t like. And once again there’ll be some sentence I didn’t explicitly qualify against every possible misunderstanding by a hostile reader that’ll be the justification for it.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz