British Police: We Can’t Stop Every Attack, So Remain Disarmed

“While British officials have long since accepted that an attack is ‘highly likely,‘” nbcnews.com reports, “they believe that intelligence-gathering and stronger links with the community — rather than gun-toting cops — will do more to keep the city safer.” I believe that’s what’s called a “false dilemma” . . .

“A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an “either/or” situation,”according to wikipedia.org, “when in fact there is at least one additional option.”

In this case, the United Kingdom could arm her police force and restore British subjects’ natural right to armed self-defense.

As we’ve reported time and time again, gun rights restoration is so far removed from political discourse in The Land of Hope and Glory it’s not even mentioned. It should have been a defensive gun use? You must be joking mate!

What we get instead is irony-oblivious comments from “the authorities” along these lines, promoted and parroted by anti-gun rights media orgs like NBC on this side of the pond:

“In a free and democratic society, there is going to be a balance between democracy, freedom and openness, and a police state — and none of us want to live in a police state,” said Brian Dillon, former head of the Met’s firearms command who now runs the counterterrorism consultancy Rubicon Resilience.

“Therefore at some point some attacks are regrettably going to hit home, that’s inevitable,” he added. “Not everything can be stopped.”

For one thing, the UK is a police state. Not only is it the most surveilled nation on planet earth, Her Majesty’s Government has removed her subjects’ absolute right to remain silent during police interrogation.

For another, just as the UK government has a vested interest in keeping its population disarmed to maintain the status quo, Mr. Dillon has a vested interest in making sure there’s a healthy (until it isn’t) market for his “counterterrorism consultancy.”

And I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that his “sh*t happens in a disarmed society” comment reveals a callous disregard for human life. Here’s another example of that POV from the article:

In August last year, when a teenager suffering an episode of paranoid schizophrenia killed an American tourist in a busy London street, armed police rushed to the scene but not a single bullet was fired.

They were able to subdue the attacker, Zakaria Bulhan, using a stun-gun. And no one else, bar 64-year-old American Darlene Horton, who had already been stabbed to death, was hurt.

If we lose one American tourist because of civilian disarmament, it’s worth it! You know; to maintain our “gun free” paradise.

Note to the Brits: it stops being worth it when it starts being you. Know what I mean?

comments

  1. avatar jim says:

    The limey bastards have lost their minds. They don’t realize that when they placate Muslims they don’t think Ahhhh they are tolorant no they think, Allah is making our enemy’s weak. Dumb ass English tarts.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      English tarts

      (snicker)

    2. avatar Bob Jones says:

      UK oil imports are at a 32 year high so the Oil Sheiks are, behind the scenes, telling the Brits how to behave.
      Add in the fact the Muslims are outbreeding the natives by 4 to 1 and Sharia Law is in the not too distant UK future, Continental Europe is in the same boat. Time to bail, we cannot help them.

      1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

        well, if they ever issue a plea for arms to get the homeguard armed, I ain’t sending them shit. well, maybe that mosin with the sticky bolt… or a sharp pointy stick…

        1. avatar Jeff K says:

          A plea was issued in WW II & Americans sent quite a few rifles to British Citizens; how in just a few short years they have slid down the slippery slope to ruin.

  2. avatar JDC says:

    When such statements are made, how can you argue with it? It is not logical, so you can’t..

  3. avatar Eric Lawrence says:

    They are slaves. Even their law enforcement are largely slaves. They just don’t know it yet.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      But Eric, they are happy slaves! Isn’t that what counts? Peace and happiness? Niceness? Look, this enslaving bit has worked pretty well for the Royals and the the upper aristocracy for 1,000 years off and on, with a few set-backs…. Just because they put the peasants out for day labor with the foreign-owned corporations doesn’t mean the system is broken. It’s just evolving. PR firms, TV, government schools, and the dole are a much kinder system really than the old whip and the gibbet. /sarc

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    What good is the intelligence gathering if they either don’t act until after the fact or they follow Chicago lock-up standards and only hold their offenders for a few months?

    Europe is always really quick to raid and arrest suspected terrorists after one of their buddies kills a bunch of people.
    If they know who they are and where they are why do they tolerate the jihadis presence right up until they start killing? Hell, they even invite more jihadis in!

    The Mongols are at the gate! What should we do? Invite them in and give them welfare!

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      The Mongols are at the gate! What should we do? Invite them in and give them welfare guarantee the relevance, jobs, and power-grabbing rationale of the ruling class!

      There, fixed that for you!

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        England is certainly a class-based society, unfortunately. Always have been.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “The Mongols are at the gate! What should we do? Invite them in and give them welfare!”

      That attitude is *slowly* starting to change.

      Why, just yesterday, the ‘Zero Hedge’ had this *fascinating* article that surprised me:

      “Swedes Begin Construction Of Police Fortress In “Little Mogadishu””

      Read the article, it is eye-opening…

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-24/swedes-begin-construction-police-fortress-little-mogadishu

      Frankly, I fully expect in the not-distant-future Europe will start shipping back those that have no interest in peaceful assimilation…

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        EDIT – From the article:

        “The police station will feature bullet proof windows, walls reinforced with sheet metal, and fencing around it, possibly with electrified barbed wire. So it will look more like a military installation than anything. Also it will be designated as “specially protected,” which means a year in prison for anyone even throwing a stone at it.”

        Now that warms the depths of the sub-cockle region of my cold, black heart… 🙂

        *snicker*

  5. avatar Noishkel says:

    Well honestly at this point we might as well let Europe eat itself with government enforced ‘cultural enrichment’ in the form of Islamist rape gangs. It’s time for the US to walk away from the rest of the world and let the rest of the world eat itself.

    At this point it’s pretty obvious that the left can’t stand western civilization. So we might as well let Europe fall and let America be the only ember of civilization remaining.

  6. avatar Swilson says:

    It’s always easy for the ruling elite to spout such nonsense, because it doesn’t really affect them. I didn’t notice an MP’s or the like in the casualty figures.

  7. avatar Calvin says:

    So, honest question. Legally speaking, at what point are you justified in shooting at a vehicle that is barreling through a crowd of people? How do you know – in the half second you’ll get to figure it all out – it’s not some overly seasoned citizen who got the pedals mixed up? Am I justified in shooting anyone that swerves my direction? How close is Jeopardy+Imminence close?

    1. avatar Defens says:

      Good question. I was once looking at the bikes in the front showroom of my local motorcycle shop, and had just started walking back to the parts department. At that time, the plate glass windows shattered as a car came flying into the showroom, landing on top of multiple bikes (the street level was a few feet higher than the showroom). It barely missed me and a couple other customers.

      I rushed to do first aid and the guy was blacked out. Off his meds and driving on a suspended license for medical reasons (like, uh, blackouts.) In this case, the guy was driving illegally, but had no intent to injure anyone. Shooting at the errant car on its trajectory into the window would have been inappropriate.

      1. avatar DaveW says:

        ….and what would be your reaction if you ran to render aid and saw the growing black hole of the barrel aiming at you in the hands of the driver? You didn’t know any of the information relayed in your post until after the fact. At the time of the incident, all you knew was a car came crashing through the window.

        In Texas, a pickup driven by a nutjob crashed through the window of a restaurant and the driver dismounted and began picking off customers and staff. One of the customers was a woman having lunch with her parents. She was CCW certified but was not carrying that day. She could only watched as the gunman shot her parents and other diners. She was, as I recall, next when his firearm clicked on an empty chamber.

        In the diners’ case, there was no doubt that the driver should have been terminated/neutralized. In your example, it could have gone either way. These are conditions police officers and combat troops face on a regular basis and very often have only split seconds to decide.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          That’s basically right, but a few details of the 1991 Luby’s shooting are off. The woman you refer to is Suzanna Hupp. She did lose both of her parents to tge shooter who’d crashed into the restaurant. However, the killer didn’t put a gun to her head and pull the trigger on an empty chamber.

          Her father was mortally wounded, so she grabbed her mom and headed for the exit. She turned around and saw her mom had gone back to defend her husband, who was then killed when the shooter put the gun to the mom’s head.

          Suzanna had left her gun in her truck because Texas had no concealed carry licensing back then, and she didn’t want to commit a felony by carrying illegally. It was the Luby’s shooting that helped W. Bush defeat the democrat in the 1994 governor’s race, because he promised to sign concealed carry, whereas his opponent had vetoed it repeatedly.

    2. avatar DaveW says:

      Devil’s advocate here….

      And, even if the vehicle is coming directly at YOU, do you become responsible for whatever happens AFTER you shoot the driver and the car goes out of control until it meets an immoveable object? Instead of hitting you, it changed direction and ran over the school children on a field trip? To any situations resolution there may be unforeseen consequences.

      Just something to think about. Personally, I’d shoot get out of the way first, and then take whatever measure I felt would neutralize the situation. Of course, that may be when the vehicle has come to rest and the driver is departing (trying to out run my .45 JHP?).

    3. avatar PDW says:

      …so unless the risk to bystanders can be reduced to zero one should do nothing ?

      1. avatar Defens says:

        Each situation is different, obviously. I would be inclined to shoot at the driver of a car who is obviously and intentionally hauling ass down the crowded street fair, assuming that I could get a clear shot that wouldn’t cause further endangerment. However, it’s reasonable to make a quick assessment to see what your actions might do – “doing something” is sort of the liberal approach to any perceived issue. Sometimes “doing nothing” is a better approach.

      2. avatar Red in CO says:

        No, that’s not even close to what he said. Just pointing out that there is quite a bit of ambiguity to such a situation, and the ways you could potentially end up embroiled in a legal clusterfuck

        1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

          Sure. Sounds like a likely scenario to me. Not. I’ll just keep exercising and eating right and stay somewhat proficient with firearms. And skip the fantasy role playing/debating.

    4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      One of the main legal questions for most self defense/tort situations is “what would a reasonable person have done in those circumstances.”

      A car driving through a crowd is such a rare circumstance most people will have trouble answering that question. I wouldn’t want to second guess your decision in such a situation, but I imagine a lot of potential jurors would be perfectly willing to.

    5. avatar Baldwin says:

      Calvin, an honest answer to your honest question…I believe the point of the whole thing is actually having a choice of action because your are carrying. Brit’s don’t have a choice. Citizens can carry, subjects can’t.

    6. avatar Hannibal says:

      Sometimes the person in question hits people, reverses, and starts hitting more people. That’s a good clue. Other times it really doesn’t matter- when a semi-truck is just barreling through dozens of people you might as well shoot the driver since things can’t get much worse.

      Of course in many US cities the police are forbidden (by regulation, not law) to fire on a car even in such a case (technically they are forbidden from firing on anyone who is “only” using a vehicle as a weapon) so the case is moot there!

  8. avatar TStew says:

    Not to carbon date myself, but I feel like Beavis and Butthead must have felt when they’d see a video that sucked so much they couldn’t say anything at all…
    I just don’t understand the notion that the loss of a few people is not only expected, but acceptable. “Oh, well! Clean up the mess, love. Carry on. Persevere!”

    1. avatar Defens says:

      I sort of agree, but also figure that we have those sorts of dichotomies on our side as well. We know that it’s going to be impossible to prevent all gun accidents, hard as we try, but still believe that the benefits to freedom outweigh those. As famously noted, “Your dead kid doesn’t trump my gun rights.” Callous, but true.

      1. avatar TStew says:

        I don’t think it’s a direct parallel or dichotomy as it’s a far cry to compare an intentional act to an unintentional occurrence.

    2. avatar 16V says:

      TStew, Not only be accepted, but expected in “any large city” so says the recently elected mayor of London. You know, the Muslim that the soon-to-be conquered elected.

    3. avatar ropingdown says:

      To my mind the horror is not so much the randomness of murderous crime…itself an awful human reality. The deepest disgust comes when the murder is committed in the name of advancing an alternate regime of law, one that would (and has, many times) justified and sealed the enslavement of non-muslims. Yet the authorities claim there is nothing special in these killings? We should just bear with it? They aren’t so sanguine when murders are committed by avowed communists who would disenfranchise and impoversh the CEOs and Dukes, eh? “Not so funny now, eh Mr. Bond?”

  9. avatar PeterW says:

    Quick! Someone call someone in the proper channel to authorize someone who is authorized to touch a firearm and authorize them to come and help! Wait! Stop bleeding! Help is on the way! it’s just a flesh wound you bloody yank!
    If it saves just one tourist… ah whatever

  10. avatar CTstooge says:

    Hashtags and British flags will fix everything. Cheers!

  11. avatar Sir Tri says:

    Wasn’t disarming the population suppose to put them in a safe environment? Now we have the BEST explanation ever in the realm of terrorist violence (religious or otherwise). “We can’t stop them all”. Ladies & Gents, I give you CYA at its purest. I don’t care whether or not you stop them ALL. Just the one that I am in. And if you can’t, and you made sure that I am left defenseless and a victim, then you a an accessory to that fact. A Copper WITH a gun stopped this from getting worse. To apply your British Witdom, let’s arm the coppers, put them everywhere, and ban knives and SUVs and keep people off bridges and away from parliament and will will be so ever closer to utopia.

  12. avatar Mar says:

    If, despite the best the intelligence services can do, there will be attacks, then shouldn’t the police be armed to deal with them when they do? Do they really think that we live in a police state because all of our cops are armed? The logical disconnect is so extreme as to preclude rational discussion.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      The bobbies are and always have been from the “lower orders.” Can’t allow a plebeian armed force to arise. The Chinese kept/keep their police unarmed for the same reason, though a limited number now carry (somebody correct this) a six shot 9 mm revolver.

  13. avatar former water walker says:

    Well it’s a tossup who sucks more-Britain or France. At least the frogs have codified their po-leece statedness…so how do you dodge a truck going 60mph on a narrow bridge?!?

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    Well, yeah, nobody can stop them all. But the way Blighty is going, they aren’t stopping any.

  15. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    I suppose it’s ok since the royals are safe…

    Happy my life, liberty, and happiness is currently not mandated by others.

  16. avatar 2Asux says:

    “In this case, the United Kingdom could arm her police force and restore British subjects’ natural right to armed self-defense.”

    Is there any legitimate data that proves arming citizens would deter or stop an attack such as this? Unless everyone is required, required to be armed and capable of repelling an attack, how much better are the few at preventing an attack? Even if every citizen over 16 years of age were to be advertised as being armed and properly trained, how many murderous attacks would be prevented? Do not project a number from some nebulous assumption, give hard data.

    The truth is that no one can assure us that having a few bystanders armed will produce any deterrent or counter attack effect. Assumptions, postulations, mantras, boasting, none of it can be identified as sufficient to prevent much of anything. A few, random DGU events in America do not prove anything on the broader scale in the matter of crime prevention or protection of the whole body of the nation.

    The actually success in the incident spawning this article is that even though no one could have prevented the attack, the suspect is alive to be interrogated and punished according to law, the same as if the man had been an IRA gunman, or ordinary brute bent on mayhem.

    The “one additional option” presented is actually a variation on the first (armed response by both police and citizens). The better approach is to remove the barriers to assimilation by malcontents into society, better identification and tracking of potential criminals, outreach to pockets of displaced immigrants and the otherwise hopelessly poor. People do not commit crimes because they are irredeemably evil, but because something is missing in their adjustment to normal society. Addressing the causes of maladjustment is a better solution than shooting and killing.

    1. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

      “People do not commit crimes because they are irredeemably evil”.

      That quote is laughable but reveals the thought process of leftists. No one can truly be evil. If we just hug them more and sprinkle them with fairy dust and unicorn piss, they’ll reform!

      No. Just no.

      Pure evil exists, even if you don’t believe that it does.

      The solution to pure evil is to destroy it by whatever means necessary. Hope that didn’t make you soil yourself.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        “Pure evil exists, even if you don’t believe that it does.”

        Where is the science? If pure evil exists, when does it come upon a person? Can such a person have any redeeming value? If humans can be categorized by behavior, and behavior can be modified (else, all those advertising dollars are futile and a waste), then a person displaying evil behavior can be reached.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          ““Pure evil exists, even if you don’t believe that it does.”

          Where is the science? ”

          Google “sociopath”, and start digging.

          Mr. Wood is correct, there are people out there that can and *will* brutalize you *just because they can*.

          And then stand over you and laugh.

          They get a *huge* endorphin rush when doing it.

          Quite frankly, I’m having a bit of a hard time believing you really are that naive…

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          A person of pure “Evil” cannot do, think, or act in any manner that is not malevolent, under any circumstance. All the sociology points to behavior, and behavior is susceptible to manipulation, as in modification, as in change. A person lacking control over one or another impulse is not “Evil” to the point of being irretrievable. However, accepting that there exist certain people who are indisputably “Evil” to the core, irredeemable, irretrievable, these number do not constitute a significant portion of human kind. We must leave behind the notion that because an extreme case can exist, no one who commits “evil acts” can be preempted through outreach, understanding and redirection of goals, values and impulses. That being said, it is better to attempt to reach into the cultures that live excluded lives, are made to feel perpetual outsiders. Better to gather knowledge about those who are prone to attack society in response to grievances, and interdict, than to wait until violence manifests. Threatening to kill everyone who does not accept “norms” has not proven useful in preventing these “terrorist” attacks.

    2. avatar YAR0892 says:

      Actually, yes. Who shows up to reports of “Shots fired!”? Cops. Right? Guess what those are- GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS. The only difference in them and most of us- they get paid to shoot bad guys. Every single time a Cop shows up, it’s a good guy with a gun.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Haven’t broached the mantra, now have I? Not discussing whether one person armed can kill another person armed. My question is where is the evidence that having every able bodied person armed with a gun prevents violence, violent attacks, terrorism, or mundane crime? If there is no rigorously analysed data about the relation between a totally armed populace, and deterrence of crime, the whole thing is chimera. Lacking an entirely armed populace, how much more effectively can a mere few armed gun lovers deliver even greater deterrence? In the incident concerning this current posting, the attacker was not deterred by some sense of propriety, nor deterred by the thought the policeman might be surreptitiously armed. The attack was swift and brutal. No imaginable number of armed civilians could have made a difference there. Merely killing the attacker would cut off a potentially important trove of intelligence useful to the prosecution services. Happily, the attacker was subdued by non-lethal means (which jolly few citizens would have available, or know how to use).

        Not every violent attack is remedied by “It should have been a defensive gun use”. The possession of a firearm does not assure anything.

    3. avatar 16V says:

      Nice to see you back, we’ve had an actual troll visiting the last few days, and gads was the hyperbole insane. Musta been a Bloomberg employee.

      “People do not commit crimes because they are irredeemably evil, but because something is missing in their adjustment to normal society.”

      C’mon man. This one is beneath your usual level. Everyone knows that there are mentally ill and thoroughly evil people in the world. Many of the latter had family lives that were by any reasonable standard acceptable, yet, they are serial killers. There is some magic combination of nature and nurture that can keep someone from becoming H.H.Holmes, and there are some that will turn Mr. Rogers into a chainsaw wielding maniac.There is an established genetic component to human behavior, and it matters little how someone is raised, or what (within limits) they experience. They will be antisocial of some stripe.

      1. avatar 2Asux says:

        Hello again.

        “People do not commit crimes because they are irredeemably evil, but because something is missing in their adjustment to normal society.”
        C’mon man. ”

        Mentally unstable is not “evil”. “Evil” has no gradation, no remission, no redemption.

        “There is an established genetic component to human behavior, and it matters little how someone is raised, or what (within limits) they experience. They will be antisocial of some stripe.”

        If this were the case, should we not be able to identify the genetic code and analyze everyone? Especially at birth? And should we identify someone (or groups of ‘someones’), would it not be incumbent on society to eliminate those persons? Or perhaps, put them in camps where they can never escape? If there truly is a genetic component that is not alterable, is it not we who are “evil” for allowing society to continue without permanently removing “evil” from our midst?

        In my readings at school, it seems there was an institution in the middle of the country called “Boy’s Town”. It was a place where incorrigible youths were sent, in hopes of rescue. There was a sign announcing the institution that said something along the lines, “There’s no such thing as a bad boy.” The headmaster at the facility was a certain Father Flanagan, a Catholic priest. I think I shan’t consider myself atall qualified to argue against Father Flannigan’s theory and experience by declaring that indeed there is a “bad boy”, and he is irredeemably evil.

        1. avatar 16V says:

          “Mentally unstable is not “evil”. “Evil” has no gradation, no remission, no redemption.

          “Evil” is something that is done, the causality for which is essentially immaterial. I hate to go Godwin, but it’s easy so, what the guards at say, Treblinka did was evil, regardless of how nice they were to their wife and kids.

          If this were the case, should we not be able to identify the genetic code and analyze everyone? Especially at birth? And should we identify someone (or groups of ‘someones’), would it not be incumbent on society to eliminate those persons? Or perhaps, put them in camps where they can never escape? If there truly is a genetic component that is not alterable, is it not we who are “evil” for allowing society to continue without permanently removing “evil” from our midst?

          We could do that right now, with a certain degree of accuracy, but that’s not what we do. You still have the chance to live beyond your genetic programming. As I noted, there is the possibility that although genetically programmed to be a murderer, somehow you end up as a nice guy.That does not eliminate in anyway the genetic programming to murder.

          “In my readings at school, it seems there was an institution in the middle of the country called “Boy’s Town”. It was a place where incorrigible youths were sent, in hopes of rescue. There was a sign announcing the institution that said something along the lines, “There’s no such thing as a bad boy.” The headmaster at the facility was a certain Father Flanagan, a Catholic priest. I think I shan’t consider myself atall qualified to argue against Father Flannigan’s theory and experience by declaring that indeed there is a “bad boy”, and he is irredeemably evil.

          Except there’s many that Boys’ Town gives the boot. I guess they have admitted that there are…

          http://www.deseretnews.com/article/407350/BOYS-TOWN-ALSO-HAS-ITS-SHARE-OF-FAILURES.html

          Reply

        2. avatar 2Asux says:

          I think we have two notions at play. “Evil”, as a force in nature, is not salvageable. An “evil person” is beyond recall. A person, on the other hand, may do “evil”, but not be incorrigibly “Evil”. In the original comment, I noted that people do not do “evil things” because they are “Evil” at the core, and therefore cannot overcome their actions. Thus, a murderer may or may not be “Evil”, but be someone doing an “evil” act. It is convenient to declare Islamic people “Evil” to the core when they commit crimes, but that is not correct, nor even truthful. Every person committing “evil” must be approached as someone needing something desperately in their lives. Even the Christian scriptures do not assign sinners as incorrigible “Evil”, but redeemable through the faith. This is not to say that “evil acts” should go unpunished, but that by removing the obstacles that pre-dispose people to “evil acts”, such acts can be better deterred than depending on some random bloke with a concealed gun to provide terminal correction.

          Better to engage the potential “evil”, and render it ineffective, than wait for the moment when a person doing “evil acts” can be annihilated.

        3. avatar 16V says:

          “I think we have two notions at play. “Evil”, as a force in nature, is not salvageable. An “evil person” is beyond recall. A person, on the other hand, may do “evil”, but not be incorrigibly “Evil”. In the original comment, I noted that people do not do “evil things” because they are “Evil” at the core, and therefore cannot overcome their actions. Thus, a murderer may or may not be “Evil”, but be someone doing an “evil” act. It is convenient to declare Islamic people “Evil” to the core when they commit crimes, but that is not correct, nor even truthful. Every person committing “evil” must be approached as someone needing something desperately in their lives. Even the Christian scriptures do not assign sinners as incorrigible “Evil”, but redeemable through the faith. This is not to say that “evil acts” should go unpunished, but that by removing the obstacles that pre-dispose people to “evil acts”, such acts can be better deterred than depending on some random bloke with a concealed gun to provide terminal correction.”

          I would offer that the result is the same, only the causality is in play. As the “gun violence” rate is incredibly low for poor whites, who grow up in horrible environments as compared to inner-city blacks, I would say there’s a bit more to it. Regardless, once again, did we morally excuse the guards at concentration camp, especially those who killed hundreds/thousands?

          ‘Better to engage the potential “evil”, and render it ineffective, than wait for the moment when a person doing “evil acts” can be annihilated.”

          Perhaps in an ideal world, but reality still has a number of twists that we don’t fully know how to calculate. Regardless of a 99% positive rate, I’d still prefer a society that allows for the 1% to survive and waits until the 99% acts to sanction them. Which is why we need people prepared to react.

          Oh yeah. Islam is inherently evil. Calls for killing nonbelievers, homos, apostates, and all who don’t believe a rapist-child-rapist-warlord is not the “perfect man”.

        4. avatar 2Asux says:

          It is disconcerting that you bring Nazi concentration camp guards into the discussion. The guards were operating legally within the laws of their nation. Horrendous conditions, depraved acts, but the individual guards were not a uniformly “Evil” cohort. That is, the guards were not exclusively a collection of people born without any redeeming value (“Evil”). As to the trials after World War 2, they were nothing more than jumped up revenge by the victors. Previously, leaders of the vanquished were summarily exterminated. At Munich, the victors dressed up as the civilized world merely executing universal human law in a system of objective justice. Prior to Munich, there was no concept of “war crimes”.

          Turning to the discussion of prevention vs. retribution, if I apprehend you correctly, society benefits best, not by intervention and prevention, but by encouraging a host of non-commissioned (or stated otherwise, citizens without warrant or portfolio) agents who deal with the result of poor behavior modification via a random firing squad. Retribution, but no deterrence (as noted originally, to act as deterrent, every citizen must need be armed, and ready to use deadly force, and the target group [bad actors] must know the situation is so). A statistically few armed citizens forms no barrier to crime or terrorism. This all would seem to be abandonment of any notion that conditions (causality) render unwelcome results, or at best, a discounting of intervention as a useful pursuit.

  17. avatar GP says:

    The British mind-set is not to trust the people to protect themselves. You can’t even own a gun in your home for self-defense. And God forbid if a burglar breaks into your house and you attack and hurt him, oh my, you just became a criminal defending yourself and loved ones from peril. Police state? I said once you can no longer defend yourself from peril but have to rely on the State for your life, yeah, I’d say so.

    1. avatar Nick says:

      I just want to make the point that in the vast majority of the developed world, carrying or possessing a gun for self defence is illegal. Here in Canada, we have duty to retreat laws, and it will have to be a very extenuating circumstance for one to be legally entitled to shoot an attacker and get away without any charges. And we have tons of guns here, but we lack the Americanized gun culture that frankly seems outdated to the rest of the world.

      I know this is going to ruffle some feathers, but the American Constitution has a significant amount of problems, the 2A being the cause of a good portion of them. Not saying that other developed countries constitutions are not broken, but the constitutional literalism of the US is something foreign university polysci courses use as an example of how nationalism and traditionalist can cause problems.

      I’m not telling you to change your laws, or trying to endorse or insult your country, but the rest of the world doesn’t have the gun problem the United States has, and see the 2A as a cause of many of those problems. And for the most part, we are fine with it, and don’t feel like we’re in a police state or oppressed.

      The argument for arming British police is another story considering all the lone wolf attacks though. Anyways, what do you guys think? Just my $0.02

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        You lost me at “here in Canada.”

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Respectfully, I think that you have been misinformed.

        The only thing in firmly established in 2A law is that you have a right to have a handgun in the home for self defense. And that is a recent development. It was decided in 2008. The American legal view of self defense may be far more expansive than other countries’ views, but it doesn’t have much to do with the 2A. Before 2008, it didn’t have anything to do with the 2A.

        Additionally, the violence in America isn’t that different from the rest of the developed world. About half have more and half have less. Further, the firearms laws have, at most, no correlation to gun deaths. It is actually more likely that the relationship of firearm prohibitions and violence is one of positive correlation (more gun control, more violence).

        I agree that the constitution has a number of problems, but I am probably diametrically opposed to you as to what they are. I disagree that having a set of laws the government cannot change on its own is a bad thing. The constitution can be changed. It is not set in stone. If the courts were less willing to change it by themselves, the people would probably change it more often. Canada has some serious problems with the lack of freedom of religion and speech. Being a practicing Christian who states that practicing homosexuality is a sin and is wrong can get persecuted (and I mean persecuted, not prosecuted) under your hate speech laws.

        Also, who cares about gun violence or a “gun problem?” The focus should be on violence, not gun violence. Or, accidents, not gun accidents.

      3. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        Those across the pond who view the Second Amendment as a “problem” are those who haven’t looked closely enough at American violence, and don’t realize that the most heavily armed areas of the country are also the safest and most peaceful.

        I’m pretty happy here with the oldest Constitution in the world, which is a testament to its success, not its problems. I figure it will outlast most of the others.

  18. This is just a rare once in a blue moon attack.

    Again, Again and Again…This does not compare to the 10s of 100s of mass shootings and gun murders that happen everyday here.

    There was a recent mass shooting a few days back But TTAG and it’s cowardly neo-nazi propaganda shrill robert farago likes to ignore it cause it doesn’t support their fascist debunked agenda.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-detective-three-others-victims-identified-wisconsin-shooting-225043070.html

    Yeah, But I’m sure the crazies on here will try to rationalized, Again, This doesn’t happen everyday in the UK then What happens in Wisconsin and the rest of USA everyday.

    My heart goes out to those who suffer such an unfortunate event.

    It’s easier to survive or run away from being attacked by a nutbar with a knife or a baseball bat then a nutbar with a gun.

    1. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

      Tell that to the policeman who was running away and stabbed to death in the back of the head and neck. I am certain that he wished for something stronger in his hands than a radio and pedantic teachings about understanding and community. The only people rationalizing anything is yourself and the other myopic 2A types ignoring the reality staring them in the face. Some people can’t be appeased. Sad how the British have to relearn that hard message again and again.

      1. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

        ANTI 2A types…

      2. The only people that deny reality are people like you who think more guns are solutions like this when it would’ve made the situation far more worse.

        This was a rare once in a blue moon incident that no one was prepared for but was quickly resolved before it gotten out of hand.

        The incident was tragic itself yes and my sympathy goes to those who lost their loved ones due to the actions of this crazed scumbag.

        But about the other police officer who was shot dead by a nut-bat who should’ve never had a gun. Doesn’t that police detective and the victims need sympathy too?

        Would’ve the situation in the UK be even better if the police officer was armed. No, As many UK officers can tell you, They. Do. Not. Want. To. Be. Armed.

        The police officer who died, died a hero selflessly risking his own life to save many Londoners from being attacked by said creep with the knife. A real hero…Not a wannabe-terminator/rambo who thinks he can simply pulling tricks with his gun and kill the bad guy. Sorry, But reality does not agree with fruitcakes like you.

        Most brits to this day like the police do not want to be armed.

        An armed society is an oppressive one. A society isn’t not really “free” if every man, woman or child is armed to the teeth and said “free” country has a murder rate higher than war-torn 3rd world nations.

        1. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          Oh yes it was a rare blue moon incident. Only happened in England, France, Germany, the USA. Give it a rest, you’re a preachy self important leftist who won’t be happy until Marxism has ruined the entire world. You are what Lenin called a “useful idiot” one who knows better for individuals how to live their lives then themselves. Your statistics are completely made up, you can’t argue with facts and your ideas of “real freedom” are completely subjective. You might like to run away from evil like a coward, some of us don’t. Go get a real job you snowflake, working for the UN? That is fake news

      3. avatar 16V says:

        Actually, most would like to be armed, but are so afraid of cretinous statists who believe as you do, they would rather be a victim of a criminal, than a victim of the state.

    2. avatar Robert Farago says:

      I normally delete flames rather than respond to them, but . . . I don’t think I’m a “cowardly neo-nazi propaganda shrill.”

      Cowardly? I publish my views on the web under my own name. My phone number’s on the home page as well. (Call me!) As to whether or not I’m a coward in areas other than commentary, well, I’ve done a lot of wild ass things in and with my life. Brave or stupid? Yes.

      Neo-Nazi? I’m a Jewish son of Jewish parents. My father was a Holocaust survivor. My grandparents on his side were murdered by actual Nazis. I don’t identify with or do anything to promote the racist, fascist ideology of national socialists. I believe in tolerance. Live and let live.

      Propaganda shrill? I don’t think the second word means what you think it means. (Try “shill.”) Although, fair enough. My writing can be a bit shrill. But this is The Truth About Guns, not The Propaganda About Guns (see: The Trace and other anti-gun rights sites that don’t allow commentary, or delete any comments that fail to further their anti-firearms agenda).

      Our writing is based on facts. When we get them wrong, as we sometimes do, we correct them. For example, if we wrote that there were “10s of 100s of mass shootings and gun murders in the U.S. everyday” we’d be forced to retract that statement — because it’s demonstrably inaccurate (using the FBI’s definition of a “mass shooting”). It’s fake news, if you will.

      If we wanted to proclaim “It’s easier to survive or run away from being attacked by a nutbar with a knife or a baseball bat then a nutbar with a gun” we’d have to provide context. Talk to people who train for and have experience with these sorts of threats. We’d wonder, well, if that’s true, why do people say “charge a gun and run from a knife”?

      We’d use evidence-based rational thought to make the case. And welcome dissenting comment. Just as we welcome yours, despite your singular inability to meet our standards for publication. And your refusal to respect our no-flaming policy.

      1. Violate what terms?

        What about the numerous crude comments that preached hate against minorities, LGBT and those of religious faith on this very website that you allowed free pass while banning those who call said commenters out on their behavior.

        You mean fighting back against your lies and thoroughly debunked research disguised as “News”?

        Your website is nothing but fake news and propaganda and debunked research disguised as “truth”.

        I’ve posted many research links and other materials including research and such for the UN and WHO that time and again prove your fascist beliefs dead wrong.

        But people like you delete them or alter my posts to fit your sick world video.

        And your deflecting from the fact that as tragic as the incident in the UK was, This does not compare to the incident I posted about that people like you deny is happening. It happens more frequently everyday here in the US than whatever happens in the UK.

        The people of the UK will recover and be forever united by this tragedy whatever tries to harm them and it will make them strong in the end. You can not shake people who strive for real peace and freedom. Not a psychotic, oppressive, nihilistic view people like you have.

        Real freedom is not living in a country with a death rate higher than a 3rd world war-torn country.

        Real freedom is the right to say no to the violence that is befalling this country by people like you who encourage it.

        Real freedom is to disagree and protest against the unfair system people like you put in place.

        The Brits along with the UK cops against their wishes when they have the lowest rates of violent crime in the world; They’ve made it clear they do not want to be armed. Arming citizens is a violation of human rights and decency.

        It’s easier to to survive or run away from being attacked with a knife or a baseball bat or a length of chain then being shot at.

        Mass shootings and violent gun murders don’t happen everyday in the UK, Europe, Norway, South Korea, Canada, Singapore, Japan and Australia (By your own admission you admitted Australia was safe along with the city of Melbourne.).

        I’m sorry, But the civilized world does not agree with your worldviews.

        You still have never taken my challenge of proving me the death rates of this country by firearms and firearm incidents here in the US versus the extremely low very rare once in a blue moon incidents that happen in the rest of the world.

        1. avatar ropingdown says:

          You won’t persuade many people, Resistance, when you paste the same blather into comments all over the Net. Even the Soviet propaganda pamphlets of the 60’s were more cogent, subtle, and fact-based than your posts.

        2. avatar Jeff K says:

          The yUcK has the highest rate of violent crime in Europe.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        True story. After I started perusing TTAG I had reason to call the phone number for the site. Guess who answered? Robert’s daughter. She must have been all of 10-12 yo.

        I don’t always agree with RF. But calling him a coward just…… well, it sucks.

        But then the resistance is EXPLETIVE DELETED.

        Edit any part of this comment you feel the need to, RF.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Dammit. If I’d known you would take me up on it I wouldn’t have made the offer.

  19. avatar Anon says:

    Let’s see. . . Terrorists use bombs sometimes. . . . Sometimes they set off one, wait til all responders are at site and set off another one.

    All the pictures of French, Belgian, German and Brits show the responders usually with no ballistic glasses or with a visor on helmet, but not in use.

    What am I missing?

  20. avatar jwm says:

    It’s unsafe for decent Americans to travel to 3rd world hell holes. Mexico. england, france…….

  21. avatar MarciaCrowley says:

    More flowers and candles. That’ll teach them!

    1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      Remember this load of garbage?

  22. avatar Mark D says:

    Two different endings to the same kind of attack. OSU vs London.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/28/developing-active-shooter-alert-at-ohio-state.html

  23. avatar Robert Farago says:

    Let me be absolutely clear: TTAG does not modify comments. We [sometimes] delete comments that flame the website, its authors or fellow commentators. At no time have I changed yours or anyone else’s comments. (Exception: will will occasionally remove foul language and put EXPLETIVE DELETED.)

    Your claim that we’ve altered your comments typifies the content of your posts. It states a falsehood as a fact.

    What about the numerous crude comments that preached hate against minorities, LGBT and those of religious faith on this very website that you allowed free pass while banning those who call said commenters out on their behavior.

    Again, anyone can call anyone out on any comment — arguing against their opinion — without editorial interference. Posters may NOT flame the commentator who made the statement.

    [Please note that we get thousands of comments per week. We don’t read them all. If you or anyone else finds a comment that flames the site, its authors or fellow commentators send an email to thetruthaboutguns.com.]

    We debunk claims. But if a statement in a post is demonstrably false — if you can debunk it using a trustworthy source or sources (which we will consider with an open mind) — we will examine the evidence and change the statement or delete it.

    Please provide specific examples where we’ve been wrong. Right here, right now. I prefer not to argue about arguing.

    Again, you claim we publish propaganda. Perhaps that’s because you disagree with our information and analysis. I can assure you we do not mislead our audience by intentionally mischaracterizing the information contained in our posts.

    If you can show that we’ve got it wrong, we will correct the post without delay. Please cite a specific example or examples so that we may do so post haste. Meanwhile . . .

    I don’t deny that shootings and mass shootings occur in the United States. How could I? It’s a fact. Nor do we attempt to hide the fact, or diminish the devastation caused. While we can’t and don’t report on all shootings or mass shootings, we cover important incidents thoroughly, without fear or favor (as witnessed by our regular Irresponsible Gun Owner of the day posts).

    I’m troubled by your repeated claim that I’ma fascist. According to wikipedia.org, “Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.” That is not now, nor has it ever been, my belief. Especially as my relatives were murdered by people who DID hold that belief.

    FWIW I believe in a constitutional democracy, rather than the tyranny of a pure democracy. That does not make me fascist. In makes me someone who believes in the supremacy of human rights. Including rights for the LGBTQ community and people of any race, color or creed. Can you explain how this belief system makes me “psychotic, oppressive and nihilistic”?

    Real freedom is not living in a country with a death rate higher than a 3rd world war-torn country.

    Real freedom is the right to say no to the violence that is befalling this country by people like you who encourage it.

    Real freedom is to disagree and protest against the unfair system people like you put in place.

    I agree that real freedom enables disagreement and protest against ANY system. I’m not quite clear how I’ve put in place this constitutional democracy — complete with the right to keep and bear arms — that you decry. Perpetuate perhaps, but initiate? No. “Blame” America’s Founding Fathers.

    As for the idea that “real freedom” is dependent on a country’s death rate (presumably due to “gun violence”), I respectfully disagree.

    A government that wishes to reduce the general population’s violent crime death rate to zero or thereabouts must, by necessity, curtail freedom.

    Police states like China are safe as houses (as the Brits say). But Chinese citizens (if that’s the right word) have none of the freedoms — speech, assembly, worship and others — that we consider basic and intrinsic. Human rights if you will.

    While not all countries with a low incidence of violent crime are police states, and correlation doesn’t equal causation, there is plenty of contemporary examples and historical precedent to establish a link.

    As Thomas Jefferson said, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” A quote, BTW, that traces back to ancient Rome (malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem).

    As for real freedom being “the right to say no to the violence that is befalling this country” I couldn’t agree more.

    That said, your assertion that I cause this violence is deluded. Yeah, I know: promoting gun ownership causes crime. Then why have firearms-related fatalities continued to decrease as gun ownership rates have sky-rocketed?

    Seriously. Answer the question. ‘Cause I’m taking the time to answer yours . . .

    You still have never taken my challenge of proving me the death rates of this country by firearms and firearm incidents here in the US versus the extremely low very rare once in a blue moon incidents that happen in the rest of the world.

    Your ethnocentrism is showing. If we include all countries in “the rest of the world” — as opposed to restricting the sample to cherry-picked “first world” nations, America is hardly the top of the pops (another British reference).

    Wikipedia’s List of countries by firearm-related death rate — which includes suicides, which account for half of America’s firearms-related fatalities — puts the U.S. at 10.54 per 100k population. Above us (amongst others): Columbia (25.94), Jamaica (39.72) and Venezuela (59.3). The last one, in case you didn’t know, bans civilian firearms ownership.

    I wonder what the stats are in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mexico (another “gun free paradise” with extra-judicial killing and no gun rights) and war-torn parts of Africa. But don’t tell me these nations don’t count. That would be racist, or something similar.

    Americans’ individual right to keep and bear arms is a natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right. It does not depend on arguments (like yours) of social utility nor is it (in law) subject to the democratic process. Arguing against it on those grounds makes no ground with those who truly value their freedom.

    1. avatar 16V says:

      RF, That’s the longest reply I’ve seen from you since our banter at TTAC about the GM BK. Your response was well constructed, reasoned, and I hope you understand that it will fall on deaf ears. “TheResistance” is a troll of the most base type, and believes as he/she has been brainwashed – nothing more. He/she has a propaganda narrative to push, facts that get in the way are ignored because, likely, he is a paid apparatchik with a cut and paste script.

      He/she is soooo far out there with the “hundreds of mass killings in the US every day” nonsense, I’m curious as to why you cranked this one out- you aren’t going to silence or engage this poster with rational discussion.

      1. avatar Robert Farago says:

        TTAC. Those were the days . . .

        As they say, you can’t use logic to argue someone out of the position they assumed without using logic. But ours is not to try. Our is to die or die.

        And die? As long as my daughter lives in a free country, I’m good with that. You know, as and when.

        Wow. I need a drink.

        1. avatar 16V says:

          I guess look at him as one of those guys who never even knew what a 10K or 10Q, let alone a full P&L was, yet would argue us to death that “GM ain’t never goin’ bankrupt!”. (TTAC is wreck, I visited for the first time in years a while ago, and was roundly attacked for suggesting Tesla was a cash-furnace and would never be profitable. Even Bertel has done those numbers right….)

          Have a drink, we all do what we can to perpetuate a sane and civil society.

        2. avatar Joseph Quixote says:

          The “resistance” is simply a freedom hating troll. Thank you for taking the trash out. Not worth our time but it is fun to see snowflakes melt when they land in that place called “reality” a place they have rarely experienced.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Do you still delete comments that question “editorial decisions” (without flaming)? That has always been my biggest bugaboo here since it can encompass anything and you can’t legitimately claim to allow commenting without ‘editorial interference’ if you delete comments questioning editorial decisions IMO.

  24. avatar Hannibal says:

    The kingdom is the ultimate goal of the disarmers like Bloomburg- where they don’t have to see nasty guns anywhere, even with police. They’ll make ALLOWences as necessary (they might ALLOW you to keep a gun at the range under lock and key for ‘sportsman purposes’) but will push it as far as they possibly can.

  25. avatar 2Asux says:

    “Well, look what the cat dragged in. Figures he would bite on this one.”

    That’s it? That’s all of it?

    1. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

      “That’s it? That’s all of it?”

      That’s what she said. Thanks for teeing that up for me old bean. 😉

      1. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

        She = your significant other. Just wanted to be sure you got it. I know you limeys can be dense.

  26. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    I thank god for the great white dead men who wrote the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. It is a great inconvenience for the self-hating white American. Most of western Europe and the UK are finished. Micheal Savage is correct. Liberalism is a mental disorder. It is the only explanation for the warped thinking of English leaders.

  27. avatar ropingdown says:

    “A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an “either/or” situation,” -we usually call that “a false dichotomy.” No?

  28. avatar DrewR55 says:

    Let Europe burn. It can be a lesson to the population of the United State that this is what happens when you give up your natural rights.

    If the populations of Europe continue to support politicians who prefer to appear to do the right thing without actually doing the right thing then this will continue to happen and I won’t have much sympathy for them.

    My only hope is that people in the US might learn from other’s mistakes.

  29. avatar Jeff K says:

    Seems only the Swiss & the Czechs, and maybe Austrians have a modicum of common sense when it comes to fighting for their firearm freedoms.

  30. avatar David Keithid says:

    The British are feeble minded and quirky in many areas and unarmed police is a perfect example. Can you imagine what it would be like here if we had unarmed cops?
    Why have cops at all?

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email