“Although the riots in the United Kingdom have caused approximately $200 million in property damage so far and engulfed almost every major city in England in violence, there has been one small silver lining: Compared to similar outbreaks of unrest in the United States, like the 1992 riots in Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict, there has been relatively little loss of life. In LA, 53 people died; in the UK, four were dead as of Wednesday afternoon,” the Boston Globe anonymous editorialists opine. “This likely can be attributed to one major difference between the US and the UK, which is the low level of gun ownership in Britain (35 of the LA victims were killed by gunshot wounds).” Are you effing kidding me mate? S’a joke innit? Unfortunately, predictably, regrettably, ridiculously (consider the defenseless of the British people against the rioters), no. Read on . . .
Unlike in the United States, the UK has strict gun licensing laws that rank among the toughest gun control laws in the world. Further, most British policemen do not carry firearms in the course of their duties and need special permission to do so. The result is that while many people have been beaten and demand for baseball bats for personal protection has gone through the roof in England, there’s only been minimal gun violence.
It’s hard to believe that the paper publishes in the same state that recently granted me an unrestricted License to Carry (after the usual time, rectal probe and expense). Thankfully, there’s still some common sense left in The Bay State. Whose motto is, BTW, Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem. She seeks with the sword a quiet peace under liberty.