Mark Sinclair (courtesy dailyrecord.co.uk)

“29-year-old Renault service adviser Mark Sinclair had been out for a beer with a friend on Wednesday,” dailyrecord.co.uk reports. “After stopping for a spicy chicken pizza, he was 100 yards from his home in Stenhousemuir when he was attacked at 11.10pm. ‘He said, ‘Gimme a bit of your pizza’, then started laying into me . . .

He has been left with nerve damage in the back of an eye and can’t remove a contact lens. As well as several severe bruises, ligaments in his knee were also torn.”

Sinclair posted the above image to his Facebook account in hopes of inspiring someone to turn in his attacker or — like this is ever going to happen — get the attacker to turn himself in.

Of self-defense, this article makes no mention. Of armed self-defense? The UK media hasn’t suggested or reported that possibility since the Victorians covered up chair legs (for modesty’s sake). And then probably only for aristos. Seriously, this was one of the reasons we broke away from England’s tyrannical grasp. Never forget it.

46 Responses to It Should Have Been a Defensive Gun Use: Scottish Pizza Edition

  1. If they don’t want change in their gun laws, then this is on them. I am reminded of an old saying, ” fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

    • There is a growing movement over there to roll back their draconian gun laws…the problem is once a right is given up, it’s nearly impossible to win back.

      • Hard, yes. Impossible, no.
        I draw a comparison between jolly, old England and kommiefornia, to those fighting the good fight, I salute you but no God given right should’ve ever been allowed to be stripped from you in the first place. Now that is has, you must fight like hell to gain back what is rightfully yours. In kommiefornia, they are fighting, and making small but important steps toward that goal. In the UK ( from what I know) not so much.
        Of coarse, this is only my opinion and I have been wrong before

        • You need the courts with you to completely rollback laws such as in England. Otherwise it would be nearly impossible.
          Of course that would never happen but that’s the idea.

        • A big difference is the colonists never actually lost the right (or the guns). They started shooting at the guys who wanted to take away their rights (and their guns).

  2. They should prosecute this guy with max charges. Who does he think he is, attempting to break someone’s hands and feet with hid face. We need face control laws. Someone is going to get hurt.

  3. You may need a wee bit more than a cricket bat, a broom or a pot of haggis when the Muslim hoards show up to your Scottish highlands. Yep you are responsible for your own problems…

    • The brits have some odd notions on pizza. It’s not unheard of to find sweetcorn in your pie, amaizing as that might sound, and i’ve heard of some establishments serving deep fried pizza

      • It’s not just the Brits with odd notions about pizza. I’ve heard tell of a land called California, with its own exotic pizza types in a magical place called California Pizza Kitchen.

        I’m thinking the guy may have just recognized him from trying to get a Renault fixed. My experiences with them would make me want to punch someone. . .

  4. “Of self-defense, this article makes no mention. Of armed self-defense? The UK media has suggested or reported that possibility since the Victorians covered up chair legs (for modesty’s sake). And then probably only for aristos. Seriously, this was one of the reasons we broke away from England’s tyrannical grasp. Never forget it.”

    If you want to know who the aristocrats are in any given society, just see who gets away with fights such as this.

    Unfortunately, it’s clear that England’s historical persons of quality contributed far more to society as a whole than the ones who now commit crimes such as this with impunity on her streets. All this current group of nobility seem to produce is reliable votes for the Progressives. But in a democracy, that will suffice.

  5. I don’t understand? He went drinking with his friends and should have had his gun(if allowed)? I’m not saying what happened was OK or that the laws in that country are fair. What happened to guns and alcohol don’t mix?

      • I respectfully disagree.

        Carrying a firearm is such an awesome responsibility that you should have no impairment whatsoever.

        I have no problem with the whole “guns in bars” thing. What that really means is “Guns at Applebees with your family.” But once that alcohol touches your lips, you are impaired and have no business carrying a weapon.

        • Why?
          I’ve been inebriated maybe 5 times in my 50 years, and the last time was more than a decade ago.
          If I’m out at dinner, and I have a glass of wine or a beer with my meal, I’m no more impaired than if I had water. Many people don’t drink to the point of being impaired.
          I shouldn’t have to be disarmed simply because on those relatively rare occasions I’ve had a glass of wine or a beer with my meal.

        • And, if I am totally sh1tfaced, about the third time someone kicks me in the face, I am cogent enough to realize he needs killing. All this “impaired” crap is just that. When barroom shootouts actually happen, let’s deal with some changes. Until then, let’s realize it is just one more smokescreen, give me back my rights. Sorta like, no OC because every time you go out the door, somebody will take away your gun and beat you to death with it, then shoot 7 cops dead with it. How about we respond to FACTS, instead of some idiot’s whiskey dreams? Never happened? Give me back my rights.

    • Casey, anyone who believes that is as bad as a gun grabber, in my opinion. But yes, that has been said here before by bloggers and commenters alike. Bary, don’t be such a Melvin about guns. Or, at least, don’t impose your views on other people who know their limits.

  6. Gone are the days when a chap could carry a bag of gold from one coast to the other without fear. Except maybe in Iceland…

    Pity their Constitution is thoroughly protected from the Royalty but not from Parlament; had they things the other way ’round, they’d be far better off.

    The Royals lament the British situation, but are powerless to alter it; Parliament, on the other hand, holds great power but little sense.

    • Whoa! Real reactionary sentiment!

      Any sensible Brit should be regretting the Glorious Revolution and praying for a return of the Stuart kings about now. They might be able to walk the streets peaceably once more.

      I don’t consider it impossible that one of the Hanoverian kings would seize real power again. More’s the pity that it wasn’t Elizabeth II. Prince Charles surely won’t do it, though there’s some hope for his kids. Democracy rules all of our brains now, but it will not be ever thus.

    • What? When the Brits jumped on the gun-control bandwagon in 1920 the aristocracy were firmly in control not only of the House of Lords (obviously) but also of the House of Commons, as so many seats were safely controlled by the local Lord of the Manor, on whom the surrounding villages knew they depended, and whom they would not offend.

      No group feared rebellion post-WWI more than the aristocracy and the royals which were at the head of that enterprise of privilege. At that time (and still today, nearly) there were at least two Dukes each of which owned a swath of land which covered more than 50% of the west-to-east width of England.

      Indeed, Bix, you seem to forget how it is the lop layer of the aristocracy obtained their land. They killed people for it. British people. Oh, and the aristocracy kept its weapons even as they were grabbed from the hands of commoners.

  7. ᴜᴘ ᴛᴏ I sᴀᴡ ᴛʜᴇ ᴅʀᴀғᴛ sᴀʏɪɴɢ $5385 , I ᴅɪᴅ ɴᴏᴛ ʙᴇʟɪᴇᴠᴇ ᴛʜᴀᴛ…ᴍʏ… ᴍᴏᴍ ɪɴ-ʟᴀᴡ ᴀᴄᴛᴜᴀʟɪᴇ ᴇᴀʀɴɪɴɢ ᴍᴏɴᴇʏ ᴘᴀʀᴛ ᴛɪᴍᴇ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇɪʀ ᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ʟᴀʙᴛᴏᴘ. . ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ ʙʀᴏᴛʜᴇʀs ғʀɪᴇɴᴅ ʜᴀs ʙᴇᴇɴ ᴅᴏɪɴɢ ᴛʜɪs ғᴏʀ ᴏɴʟʏ ᴛᴡᴇɴᴛʏ ᴏɴᴇ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜs ᴀɴᴅ ᴊᴜsᴛ ᴘᴀɪᴅ ғᴏʀ ᴛʜᴇ ᴍᴏʀᴛɢᴀɢᴇ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇɪʀ ᴀᴘᴀʀᴛᴍᴇɴᴛ ᴀɴᴅ ᴘᴜʀᴄʜᴀsᴇᴅ ᴀ ʙʀᴀɴᴅ ɴᴇᴡ Sᴀᴀʙ 99 Tᴜʀʙᴏ . sᴇᴇ ᴛʜɪs………………………http://2.gp/Fgq5

  8. “I’m not kidding, that boy’s head is like Sputnik; spherical but quite pointy at parts! Aye, now that was offsides, now wasn’t it? He’ll be crying himself to sleep tonight, on his huge pillow.”

  9. “Sinclair posted the above image to his Facebook account in hopes of inspiring …the attacker to turn himself in.”

    Now that’s a naive view of the criminal mind. That’s what happens to a disarmed populace.

    • Does he think the attacker will turn himself in due to his hope for punishment? WHY would he think the attacker would turn himself in? So he could say “Yeah! That was me! I kicked that SOB’s ass, near killed him!”?

    • Posted it to Facebook in hopes that his attacker would turn himself in? That may be the saddest thing I’ve heard in a long time.

  10. Blame the guns for your problems and go soft on the bad guys and this is the result. Hope folks over here take notice. Spoke to a lady that moved here from Great Britain about our gun laws. She said she has never seen so many thug gangs on the street corners in England before. But she does not see them here at all. Of course we don’t live in a high crime area but I have to think that attacking someone that might be armed probably makes a thug think twice and may very well prevent quite a few muggings.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *