Re: UK Riots
 

Yes because guns=security. Adding guns to the mix of a riot just produces more victims, and if the "commonman" could carry a weapon, that would mean that the rioters would have just as much access to firearms as this "commonman."

Re: UK Riots
 

Just to be clear here, you're not just arguing for firearms to be made legal (because it should be fairly obvious at this point in the discussion that this doesn't prevent riots), but rather, for vandalism of any sort to constitute a legal justification for shooting someone dead?

Re: UK Riots
 

Had there been more deaths, instead of violence against property, more might have come out of this debacle. Be it good or bad. Change, or crippling oppression.

Some would say this is a direct result of welfare excesses, and multiculturalism. In fact some here might have already said that. From all that I've seen. It fits.

Question is, why did it happen? It's not like this is something new, or that the outcome was to be different than all time before it. You don't import a shit load of uneducated immigrants, and subsidize them continuously without paying for it, eventually.

Either the heads of state are incompetent, or they're up to something. It's no mistake that this happened. It was engineered, to a degree. I think the only thing about it that was unexpected was the timing. Either way you can bet your ass, there's a chef somewhere who cooked up this recipe.

Re: UK Riots
 

I'm a staunch opponent of the insanely strict gun legislation that exists in Britain, but I have to disagree with this. There are riots, for various reasons, in several countries with much looser gun control, America included. It's not the same thing as personal assault or burglary. Riots tend to exhibit some degree of emergent behaviour; the added presence of guns, or police prepared to use guns on rioters, rarely seems to be a deterrent.

Rioters with access to guns, on the other hand, would probably use them. A friend of mine said he heard gunshots in Wolverhampton during their riots (followed remarkably swiftly by the appearance of armed police).

As Nem said, it's more to do with strict judges and juries demanding reasons for the use of violence, than strict legislation against violence in itself. The laws are remarkably vague on the actual subject of using violence for self-defence. An Englishman's home is most certainly not his castle in this day and age, though. There's an old urban myth about a burglar suing a home-owner for keeping stale food in his fridge which gave him food poisoning, for example.

Supposedly it's been relaxed somewhat recently though (or at least, will be soon), if our illustrious PM is to be believed.

Re: UK Riots
 

Americans don't usually understand the position about firearms in the UK. To clarify for those ignorant who are doubtlessly about to comment short (and automatic) weapons are utterly forbidden, with no exceptions.

Criminals in the UK tend to have only converted blank firing pistols or (very rarely) SMG's, and VERY few of these exist on the streets. As ammunition is impossible to procure or steal they have to manufacture it. Remember, this is not America. Reloading ammunition is not something that's commonly done and people purchasing equipment to do it can be individually checked out, precluding criminals from this route of ammo supply.

That means criminals have to fire blank rounds, and then manufacture the percussion cap, propellent (usually from old film) primer and bullet in a shed somewhere, and assemble a new live round from the fired blank. To state the obvious, this ammunition is rarely reliable, while it IS always highly inaccurate.

Any report of a firearm will result in an armed response unit (SWAT team) being deployed in strength in response. I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of such a team at all, let alone unarmoured with a dodgy weapon equipped with dodgier ammunition that is likely ballistically inaccurate and inconsistent enough for you to miss something in your sights beyond a few feet away.

That's why you see cops in the UK guarding things in armour with SMG's in public. You can figure out how much of a chance criminals stand as well as they can. =p

The UK public is happy with this status quo, and has no appetite for large scale firearms ownership. Rifle clubs do well enough, if one is interested in shooting.

All the law says is that force you use has to be "reasonable", as defined by a jury.

As defined by a jury in the recent past, juries have said that using a sword to kill one and maim another was reasonable when at the chaps house they produced a knife and threatened the mans wife.

On the flip side a separate jury resulted in a man being jailed who formed a group of vigilantes following a robbery and tracked down the robber and hit the robber over the head so many times with a cricket bat (and so hard) that the cricket bat broke, leaving him alive but crippled and seriously brain damaged.

Past reviews have ended up trying to explain how it works, but leaving the law exactly as it stands, as it's completely left in the hands of the people at the moment through the jury system.

Re: UK Riots
 

Strictly speaking it's legal to own a muzzle-loading pistol (with the right licences) as well, but that's the only exception I'm aware of.

Re: UK Riots
 

I would like to point out it was a Brit, not an American, who wanted to shoot rioters. You've got your bit of silliness on that side of the pond, too.

Re: UK Riots
 

Serious. You be trollin mon ?

Causing all that damage and disruption what would you expect ?

There's enough problems in the world and escalating peaceful protests into criminal activities deserve nothing less.

Re: UK Riots
 

To be fair, a poll at the height of the rioting revealed 30% support for putting the army on the streets with orders to shoot to kill, and far more for just letting them kick the crap out of the rioters. I was one of the people who would have supported that.

Half the reason for the riots was that the scum rioting knew full well that they wouldn't get anything done to them and the risk vs reward factor said that it was WELL worth it. When the police started getting pissed and videos like this appeared:-

Manchester Riot Police Serve Up Some Cold, Hard Justice [HD] - YouTube

The riot was over the next day. Not a coincidence. Had they have done that on day one, the riot wouldn't have lasted a full day because nobody would have wanted to get involved.

Re: UK Riots
 

So, your answer is to open fire in a built-up area? And besides, the army aren't trained for dealing with riots like this, they absolutely should not be deployed in these circumstances. There's a reason we've had a dedicated Police force for the last 150 years.