Irresponsible Gun Owner(s) of the Day: The British Royal Family’s Security Detail

 The British Royal Family. Some might say “off with their heads” but I couldn’t possibly comment. I will say this about that: what gives the Royals the right to enjoy the protection of round-the-clock Glocks wielded by tax-payer-funded bodyguards while their subjects are forbidden to own (never mind carry) a handgun for self-defense? Perhaps one thinks the rabble are not responsible enough for armed defense. Yeah? Well Divine Right of Kings this [via clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk] . . .

A Scotland Yard investigation has been launched after a policeman believed to be guarding the home of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge accidentally discharged a gun while sitting in an unmarked car.

D’oh! But not unprecedented.

In June 2000 a royal protection officer accidentally fired two shots on the royal train while the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh were on board.

As an ironic reward for their exemplary gun safety TTAG hereby bestows  our IGOTD honors on the Royals’ security detail. Good job lads!

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

21 Responses to Irresponsible Gun Owner(s) of the Day: The British Royal Family’s Security Detail

  1. avatarAharon says:

    In days of old we called them royalty and the priesthood. Today we mostly refer to them as politicians, elected officials, and celebrities. The new bosses are the same as the old bosses. The peasants are now the subjects or sheeple. Few are citizens.

  2. avatarJDRoest says:

    >>what gives the Royals the right to enjoy the protection of round-the-clock Glocks wielded by tax-payer-funded bodyguards while their subjects are forbidden to own (never mind carry) a handgun for self-defense?

    What a dumb question – because they are a security risk, and every so often someone does take a shot at them, eg Lord Mountbatten in the 70s. Considering the loons running around in the name of Islam these days, an unprotected Royal Family would long since have been murdered.

    • avatarRobert Farago says:

      “They are a security risk.” That’s funny right there.

      While I have no doubt that the Royals have security issues and a right to defend themselves, so do British subjects. Well, they should. Have gun rights I mean. Being able to defend yourself shouldn’t depend on whether or not you’re a member of the lucky sperm club.

      • avatarJDRoest says:

        You can defend yourself in the UK, but like the US the prosecutors are of a certain political persuasion that don’t like the idea of a convicted felon having the crap beaten out of them by a home owner.

        However, as you well know the law in the UK is changing in December and the whole “with reasonable force” crap is being removed. Whilst it’ll still not be a Castle Law like here, it’s certainly going to give the homeowner more of a defense when the burglar exits a building by way of the 2nd or 3rd floor face first.

        As for guns, yup, wish handguns were legal in the UK, but heck, you can still buy a shotgun (same laws in the UK as here), and as shown, you can shoot a burglar and walk away. The downside in such a weapon is much the same as here – sheetrock/drywall peppered with blood.

        The Royal Family – they don’t make the rules, and haven’t done for a very long time. Why should a person – by being the lucky sperm – be an unprotected target for any nutjob out there?

        I’m not against guns, bought one myself a couple of months ago and it gets exercised regularly, but I am against ridiculous click bait comments from a commentator who has no idea how the UK works. HTH.

        • avatarjwm says:

          They shouldn’t have more protection or rights because they’re royals than the common man has. If the royals have access to other than just shotguns for protection the common man should have the same rights.

          Not that having to apply for a license to own a shotgun is much, if any, right.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          @JWM

          Especially since they’re only “royalty” because their ancestors murdered anyone who stood up to them and then claimed everyone in the land as their property who must do as the “royals” say.

        • You know what is rather idiotic in your American viewed comments about the Royals and their security detail. And I am American born and bred. Our own leaders are protected by the USSS and has a huge amount of Agents assigned to POTUS and VPOTUS. So your arguments do not hold water, I am afraid. Sorry guys.

        • avatarRobert Farago says:

          Celebs and pols are entitled to their protection. But so are we. That’s the point here,

    • avatarST says:

      It must be nice to live in the UK, where unprotected police officers and civil subjects are never shot dead in violent criminal attacks. (/ sarc)

      Considering Islamic groups have yet to attack the Royal Family, i’d argue based on this incident that the presence of weapons around the Royal Family constitutes a greater security risk than Hamas.

      Remember, since firearms are heavily restricted deadly crime is impossible. Also note that according to our friends at the Brady Campaign just being around a gun increases the risk of negligent injury & death.They should disarm forthwith and reap the shared benefits of a disarmed union-unless their disarmament laws are just a façade and real security can only be assured via force of arms.

    • avatarThomasR says:

      Ah, JDR, the proper reply of a proper sycophant/suckup to your “betters”, so go little subject and lick the boots of your masters.
      A prime example to all of us who prefer freedom of the degradation embraced by all who worship at the foot of the nanny state.

    • avatarAharon says:

      What a dumb reply. Common people are a security risk too. Commoners daily get mugged, beaten, robbed, kidnapped, raped, and murdered.

    • avatarbarnslayer says:

      “Security risk”? As in… their lives are more valuable than ours? My world won’t change if one of them gets robbed or killed. It’s all about subordinate fools worldwide buying into this crap that royalty, politicians and other celebrities should be kept safe at the expense of our own safety. Screw them all. Let them take the same chances and face the same dangers as us peons for a while. then just maybe some of them will realize the need for an armed society.

    • avatarDouglas says:

      I ran into something similar in Iraq, but the insurgents weren’t worried about if you were royalty or not. Also I don’t know if you know what happened in America on 9-11-2001 but it just wasn’t royalty that were targeted it was we the common peasants. You are an elitist pig. Do the world a favor and go play hop skotch on the freeway.

  3. avatarJosh says:

    A negligent discharge in a vehicle? I suppose he said something like, “It just went off!” But I know what he was doing. He was PLAYING with it! It’s so COOL to be one of the few that has a gun. NDs, except in the case of mechanical failure, are a result of pulling the trigger. If he kept his booker hook off of it, it wouldn’t have gone off.

  4. avatarDiorama says:

    Accidentally fired? TWO shots? That has got to be some kind of oxymoron.

  5. avatarErik says:

    Ha! You know what Robert, you should personally mail a ACTUAL physical IGOTD trophy to the police force involved, you may even get mentioned in the british media, think of how many webpage hits you can get for minimal investment.

  6. avatarstyrgwillidar says:

    Particularly ironic is the fact that the 2nd Amendment was written to ensure the existing right that englishmen (other than catholics) had as citizens to keep and bear arms would not be infringed on by the new government. Specifically, the right’s purpose was to ensure citizens had the arms to oppose the king should his rule devolve into tyranny.

    Some great reads in the court filings in both Heller and McDonald. But bottom line, SCOTUS and the lower courts ruling on the 2nd Amendment was based on defining the right english citizens had at the time of the revolution, since that was the right which was not to be infringed upon.

  7. I hope those redcoats pictured are not indicative of Her majesty’s personal guard. They are all so uniformly … round. (as am I)

  8. avatarLarry says:

    How exactly is “D’oh” pronounced? I have always seen “Duh” spelled D U H.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.