Life w/o self-defense, castle doctrine, guns, pointy things.

[anygunanywhere]

You are correct, it was a hijack.

I seem to recall I had a thread discussing reasonable restrictions.

Anygunanywhere

[jimlongley]

And the answer is that no moral or ethical system would allow for such things, as they represent nothing more than the law of the jungle.

Years ago, on a Compuserve forum, I was actively debating a Chicago media person by the name of Bob Ray, and asked him just that question, essentially did he really hold that the weak did not have the right to defend themselves from the depredations of the stronger than them. He waffled around the question for days, finally denying that it had been asked or that it had been asked in that manner. What he was counting on was Compuserve's dumping of old messages so that there couldn't be an accurate quote, or at least that was my view.

I posted a verbatim copy of my question and then he, in the style best typified by slick willie while he debated the meaning of the word "is", denied that my question meant that it did, and so on . . .

He never did answer the question - but that was not unusual for him. When I lived in NY State, he once told me that he could outshoot me on his worst day, knowing that I would not be in a position to travel to Chicago to take him up on his challenge, and when I got transferred to Chicago and tried to get him to put his money where his (computer) was . . . well, you know the answer to that too.

The thing is that there are people who do not feel any compunction to argue against a right to own guns despite the complete and utter lack of moral and ethical support for their position. The best examples being Bloomberg, Kennedy, Bellesiles (who even denies, to this day, that there was anything wrong with his book) and the rest of the bunch. The key is that it is an emotional issue and logic does not enter into the equation.

OTOH, I argue that the laws that are in place today are not what is preventing anyone from boarding a plane with an MP5 and having a shootout - maybe the procedures are, maybe - but all the laws against hijacking and killing people had absolutely no effect on the terrorists who attacked us. There will always be people who will willingly give up their lives if they feel that they accomplish their greater goal in the process, and that applies to the soldier who jumps on a grenade as well as the terrorist who yells about Ollie being a whackbar as he takes others down in flames with him, no laws will prevent that, none.

[frankie_the_yankee]

OTOH, I argue that the laws that are in place today are not what is preventing anyone from boarding a plane with an MP5 and having a shootout - maybe the procedures are, maybe - but all the laws against hijacking and killing people had absolutely no effect on the terrorists who attacked us.

The procedures must be grounded in the law, else they would not be legal themselves.

If it were fully legal as a matter of right to tote an MP-5 on an airliner, and given that airliners are public accommodations under the law, there would be nothing the airline or the government could legally do to stop, prevent, or interdict people who were coming aboard with MP-5's.

And if they could, some would. As you yourself point out below.

There will always be people who will willingly give up their lives if they feel that they accomplish their greater goal in the process, and that applies to the soldier who jumps on a grenade as well as the terrorist who yells about Ollie being a whackbar as he takes others down in flames with him, no laws will prevent that, none.

But the law allows for procedures that can and do prevent people from toting MP-5's aboard airliners. With current procedures, it doesn't matter if they are willing to give up their lives or not. It doesn't matter what they do. They are not going to get aboard toting MP-5's.

[jimlongley]

OTOH, I argue that the laws that are in place today are not what is preventing anyone from boarding a plane with an MP5 and having a shootout - maybe the procedures are, maybe - but all the laws against hijacking and killing people had absolutely no effect on the terrorists who attacked us.

The procedures must be grounded in the law, else they would not be legal themselves.

If it were fully legal as a matter of right to tote an MP-5 on an airliner, and given that airliners are public accommodations under the law, there would be nothing the airline or the government could legally do to stop, prevent, or interdict people who were coming aboard with MP-5's.

And if they could, some would. As you yourself point out below.

There will always be people who will willingly give up their lives if they feel that they accomplish their greater goal in the process, and that applies to the soldier who jumps on a grenade as well as the terrorist who yells about Ollie being a whackbar as he takes others down in flames with him, no laws will prevent that, none.

But the law allows for procedures that can and do prevent people from toting MP-5's aboard airliners. With current procedures, it doesn't matter if they are willing to give up their lives or not. It doesn't matter what they do. They are not going to get aboard toting MP-5's.

Even given that, the laws are not what are preventing people from boarding airliners with MP5s, it's the procedures, and the law could still allow procedures that accomplish the same without infringing on the rights of people who want to own them.

There are those who will go ahead and try, and there may come a day when one succeeds, it will surely result in a new spate of feel good laws that accomplish nothing. The procedures didn't stop Richard Reid, his sweaty feet did, and he sure didn't pay any attention to the law. I have taken handguns through checkpoints, a surprising number of times, and the procedures hardly slowed me down - one time I even forgot to remove my belt and the metal detector alarmed, resulting in a hand wanding of my body, while my carry on bag with an "artfully concealed" handgun sat uninspected a few feet away.

[aardwolf]

Even given that, the laws are not what are preventing people from boarding airliners with MP5s, it's the procedures, and the law could still allow procedures that accomplish the same without infringing on the rights of people who want to own them.

You mean Starbucks can sell me a cup of coffee bigger than 3.49999 ounces even though TSA won't allow it through airport security?

[frankie_the_yankee]

How about we try to get this thread back on topic and discuss what the Brits have done to themselves by virtually outlawing self defense and the effective means of self defense vs. what we have here in America - both the good parts and the bad?

Basically, we have more security in our homes and, in most states, on the street as well. The weak are on a more or less equal footing with the strong. But in return for much lower rates of muggings, burglaries, robberies and related crimes, we experience a much higher homicide rate.

[aardwolf]

How about we try to get this thread back on topic and discuss what the Brits have done to themselves by virtually outlawing self defense and the effective means of self defense vs. what we have here in America - both the good parts and the bad?

You claimed Vermont and Texas were so different that unlicensed RKBA wouldn't work in Texas.

Britain is a completely different country. If TX and VT are as different as you claim, Britain is even more different and any comparison would be completely meaningless.

[jimlongley]

I am not sure I believe the statistic in the first place.

[frankie_the_yankee]

How about we try to get this thread back on topic and discuss what the Brits have done to themselves by virtually outlawing self defense and the effective means of self defense vs. what we have here in America - both the good parts and the bad?

You claimed Vermont and Texas were so different that unlicensed RKBA wouldn't work in Texas.

I didn't just "claim" it. As usual, I spelled out the reasons why.

But none of those pesky facts matter. What really matters is that some people think we should just go with the VT model everywhere regardless of the numerous differences between the populations of VT and TX because they are in love with the idea and that's that. Criminals and illegals carrying openly or concealed and not being able to be prosecuted because they wouldn't be committing any crime that the cops would have probable cause to investigate or the data available to make a determination - no problem!

It's OK. I get it. Great argument. Sounds like a winner to me.

Britain is a completely different country. If TX and VT are as different as you claim, Britain is even more different and any comparison would be completely meaningless.

1) TX and VT are different, in many ways. It's not just "my claim". Having spent a lot of time in both places, I am not guessing here. And you can see many of the differences by looking in an almanac and scanning FBI UCR data.

2) Any comparison of what?

3) Why can't we analyze the ways that the law has evolved in the UK over the last 90 years or so and try to identify what effects it has had on UK society? I've read such analysis by others. I don't see where it's impossible.

Instead of just making an assertion, why not back it up with some facts and logic?

You've already read what I have to say on the subject in my earlier post in this thread.

[asleepatthereel]

To put it simply, there are more occupational hazzards to being a criminal in America due to the 2A and Americans taking a stronger attitude toward criminal behavior than they do in other countries.

[ELB]

Gee whiz. Put up some examples of a self-defenseless society, wander off for a day, and comeback to find the thread has... shall we say, wandered off a bit.

Anyway. The UK's government seems bent on detailing, monitoring, and specifying exactly who everyone's life should be lived, thus removing responsibility from the individuals, and since they don't have the responsibility for their own lives, they bloody well don't need the rights or powers to defend and manage them,do they? It really is a sad scene.

I follow some blogs put up by various police officers in the UK, the most famous being they pseudonomynous PC Copperfield's The Policeman's Blog (who ended up moving to Canada to get away from the nonsense). They detail a police system gone so far astray enforcing nanny-state laws that actual crimes get ignored. (Theordore Dalrymple (another pseudonym) wrote about how the police scolded his wife for reporting some men who were fighting and set a trash dumpster on fire. The police just flat refused to respond).

Policing is rated on a statistical system of a) identifying/reporting crimes, and b) "detecting" or solving them somehow, and then documenting the daylights out of everything. Sounds fair enough on the surface, except that there is so much emphasis on getting good detection rates, that pretty quickly everyone realizes that the way keep his job and keep the boss of his back is to find and solve trivial, petty crimes ignore even the existance of big messy ones. This results in ignoring little old ladies who call to complain about neighborhood youngs ruffians raising cain in her driveway, because it is too hard to figure out which are the right kids, the kids will lie about what they wre doing, arresting them will result in too much paperwork and there's a low probability of conviction, and the little louts will be released anyway and go back to what they were doing. However, when the little old lady is finally driven to distraction, steps outside and screams some intemperate language at the little trouble makers, the police WILL respond to little darlings' complaints about their feelings being hurt, and give the little old lady a "caution" (essentially a ticket that can't be fought or appealed -- it just says "we think you are guilty but it's too much trouble to give you a day in court so you are now stuck with a police record") because rough language has been outlawed. The little old lady is easy to find, will probably admit to yelling at the varmints, and can't fight the caution. So the cops identify a crime, and solve it in no time! Does wonders for the statistics. (True story, btw).

I really think the UK has a bleak future; neither major political party seems to have a clue. There are certain radical elements populations that are better organized, have better cohesion than society at large, and are certainly much more willing to defend their culture than the original British population. I think there will be some very ugly events in the future, and Britain will cease to exist. And I think you can track the decline of Britain by following their ever more draconian gun laws and treatment of self-defense.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I really think the UK has a bleak future; neither major political party seems to have a clue. There are certain radical elements populations that are better organized, have better cohesion than society at large, and are certainly much more willing to defend their culture than the original British population. I think there will be some very ugly events in the future, and Britain will cease to exist. And I think you can track the decline of Britain by following their ever more draconian gun laws and treatment of self-defense.

All excellent points and I agree completely. (Gee, I guess it's not impossible, as some seem to think, to analyze what's going on in the UK after all.) I too think that the UK as we know it will disappear in a generation or two. Either that or there will be some truly ugly civil conflict. (This last would be if the native Brit population wakes up to what is happening to them and decides to fight. And it could happen. Historically, Anglos have tended to be fighters. After all, look at us.)

[frankie_the_yankee]

To put it simply, there are more occupational hazzards to being a criminal in America due to the 2A and Americans taking a stronger attitude toward criminal behavior than they do in other countries.

That's one way to put it.

[bdickens]

One wonders how these people managed to build an empire that once spanned the globe.

[The Annoyed Man]

I wonder how they are going to implement leg control to stop the kicking and stomping?

I think all legs need to be registered with the government. Then we can take pictures of everyones leg and have it in a database. Ya know, just in case.

Of course, it would be better if all legs had to be stored in a locker down at the police station, and only signed out for soccer matches - once you have demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the rules of soccer, have obtained the necessary permits, and have joined a sanctioning sports organization. After the match, you would have to return your legs to the storage locker at the police station for safe keeping until the next soccer match.