Armed man rampages in Cumbria, England, 5 dead 25 wounded

The sad truth is that most people would choose comfortable servitude over responsible freedom.

(I didn't make that up, but I'm too lazy to Google it...)

 

Yes - DEVO (yes the group) has a line "freedom from choice is what we want - freedom of choice is what we got."

 

I love that Dan thinks you have to actually kill people to preserve freedom.

To him, the watchful eye of the militia (all able body citizens) is meaningless unless we go Montana Freeman.

What a schmuck.

Stick to taking pictures, Danny Boy.

 

So what if he did?

As long as he ain't hurting you or others why is it your concern? Why should you have the right to tell him he can't have those things?

 

Owning a gun makes the government think twice before taking your freedom.

Which IMHO is what is happening in the UK. You guys refuse to accept it or even acknowledge it but your country is turning into a dictatorship one day at a time.

 

It proves nothing since it's completely untrue, but don't let that stop you.

 

So answer your own question. Who is it that is willing to shoot someone on behalf of women, helping them to keep the vote?

Violence can work, as proven by numerous examples, some listed in this thread. But it is not the only thing which works.

 

How about the standing military that protects the borders of the nation where they were free to petition for change? What about law enforcement? Some of those British cops must have access to firearms. The point is, without the basic order maintained with the backing of force, nobody would be able to excercise the rights recognized by their society. Your nation is sovereign due to the threat of violence, and everything possible within that nation exists by the grace of violence's protection.

The ability to defend yourself is the first thing that must be established. Only then can civilized discourse proceed. Anyone who denies this reality is just failing to see how distant the demonstration of force is in their past.

 

Womens suffrage was an internal issue, won from the government of the day using non-violent means. Threats to sovereignty had nothing to do with it. Who is it who's willing to shoot the place up if the government were to attempt to restrict the franchise again?

Conveniently this allows you to assert that all social arrangements are maintained by threat of force as long as you can link them to some act of violence in the distant past.

 

You're deliberately refusing to acknowledge my point. Nations themselves exist due their ability to defend themselves with violence. Without that, there are no internal issues. No civil petitions. No legal challenges in the name of civil rights.

 

I acknowledge your point, but it is a red herring. The ability of a nation to defend itself with violence ensures that it will have an internal society with internal issues. It does not say anything about the nature of its internal society, such as the existence of right to vote. That right formerly did not exist for women, yet now it does, and was won without the application of violence.

 

I see where UA is coming from. Without the ability or willingness to use force (and maybe some not-so-subtle hints that you are more than ready to do so) you will get steamrolled - whether on an individual or international level.

Malcome X had this to say:

"If a man gives you something, then he has the power to take it back.
You have to take what you need."

While not a big fan, he is right.

 

Worse - it takes forever in such regions to get an armed response unit out, they can be a couple of hundred miles away. Had the first policemen on the scene been armed then Bird's killings would probably have ended at three.

Had the usual meeja bollocks too - he'd been watching On Deadly Ground (Grauniad and Mail) before shooting everyone, so obviously Ban That Filth, and the gun grabbers were out in force.

It's also been reported he was turned away from the local mental health facilities, although failings in mental health doesn't get quite generate the same mouth-foaming antics as violent movies and firearms.

 

WTF? Hundreds of miles away?

And most British police don't carry weapons why?

Not wanting to eat a bullet is about the only deterrent that keeps many uncooperative criminals from being homicidal criminals.

Suspects might struggle to not get handcuffed (can't blame them I guess) and arrested, but knowing a cop doesn't have a gun would virtually ensure that a suspect will (especially if he's got partners) assault or kill the cop.

 

How many times does this point need to be made?

A week ago you probably wouldn't have found a handful of people in the whole of Cumbria who want all police to carry guns. You won't find many more when this (isolated) rampage is a distant memory to those unaffected by it either.

Every local bobby in rural areas such as this having a weapon would probably be fairly useless in a case like this anyway.

 

Actually there was violence involved with the Women's suffrage movement.

 

I'm still curious about what this guy was armed with.

 

I don't support total armament, but we do need more armed police available - the problem is response units are already stretched far beyond their ability to function properly as it is, send them on firearm training en masse and we'd just be left with the likes of neighbourhood policing, which is great if you're having to handle 5 year olds armed with lollipops.

 

AFAIK shotgun and a rifle.

 

Perhaps in a case like that, you would need a SWAT (Special Weapons + Tactics) team. Sometimes there's nothing you can do.

There are several departments with SWAT within a 15 mile radius of my house - and I don't live a densely populated area. My town has one and we only have a population of 15,000.
I can't imagine one being a hundred miles away.

But I really am curious. On a day-to-day basis don't British police get their asses handed to them? They must be walking targets.

 

You're right. Owning a gun does not give you freedom.

It guarantees your freedom.

 

Dan would never be a big enough person to use it if push came to shove. This is why it doesn't click with him.

 

My great-great-great-great grandfather was a Private in the Virginia Militia during the American Revolution and was one of the soldiers who defeated Dan's great-great-great-great grandfather at the Battle of Kings Mountain.

 

I seriously doubt that seeing as Dan is a coward. He doesn't even behave like a chav.