Perhaps for other people but I'm a mad scientist, the reason I'm not out there pillaging and murdering is because I'm a decent human being, not because laws prevent me. Similarly, I am prepared to do things to stop anyone who tries to riot in my immediate vicinity, regardless of who is in perceived control, military or government.
The idea of martial law just gives me more to worry about really, like getting shot by the military because they "thought he was a rioter"

forgive my ignorance. When I made that statement, I though martial law meant "every man for himself" - authorizing civilians to use deadly force to protect themselves and eachother without having to worry about being prosecuted for it. maybe my post would make more sense if you re-read it with that understanding. Having just read the definition of martial law, I do not think it is the answer right now.

 

I am really struggling to see how a moderate approach to his problem could be made to work in the long term. Some minorities in our society appear to be completely out of control: in the short term, it may be possible to stop the riots, but that would still leave us with large numbers of young males, feeling even more aggrieved as a result of whatever measures had been used to bring them to heel.

We also are facing a situation of mass long-term unemployment, and many of the people involved are either unemployed young men, or unschooled adolescents with little chance of making a useful contribution to society. This tempts me to think of a final solution to this question, but do we really want to follow in the footsteps of the last people who used that slogan?

 

So if you keep a .45 on your headboard and someone breaks in in the middle of the night with a .22, do you ask him first what he's packing to determine whether it's acceptable to use the .45 or go back to the gun chest for a .22?

I hope that we never descend into a condition where we all sleep with guns above our beds. How many people would end up being blown away because of nightmares, or sleepwalking?

Imagine a frightened child seeking comfort from its parents during a thunderstorm. The child enters their bedroom, then BOOM, an expanding 9mm round removes its brain. Of course, we may train our offspring not to move about the house at night for fear of being shot dead, but it seems wrong to me.

 

As opposed to the house being burned down with the family sleeping. Most people who own guns are responsible, and know what they are aiming at before pulling the trigger. A lot of folks who are against guns like to draw horror stories about them, but the truth is with training having a gun is safer than not.

In the southern USA the training is taken for granted.

 

I am really struggling to see how a moderate approach to his problem could be made to work in the long term.Some minorities in our society appear to be completely out of control: in the short term, it may be possible to stop the riots, but that would still leave us with large numbers of young males, feeling even more aggrieved as a result of whatever measures had been used to bring them to heel.

I think there is no moderate approach (that the government itself could provide) that could be made to work in the long term. The perpetrators need to know that those to their left and those to their right will not stand by and let them commit their acts. it can't be only them vs the police. or them vs. the military. the police can't keep a 3-fold presence on the streets (which doesnt even seem to be working) for ever and the military can't occupy the cities forever. These bandits may be able to evade the authoritarian forces but they are going to have neighbors forever, no matter where they go. If the neighbors help reign in justice, you could squash this. The people need to be allowed the right and the means (read guns) to protect themselves, eachother, and their property.
call it a permanent civilian militia if you would like.

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.

-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775​

 

I hope that we never descend into a condition where we all sleep with guns above our beds. How many people would end up being blown away because of nightmares, or sleepwalking?

Imagine a frightened child seeking comfort from its parents during a thunderstorm. The child enters their bedroom, then BOOM, an expanding 9mm round removes its brain. Of course, we may train our offspring not to move about the house at night for fear of being shot dead, but it seems wrong to me.

I hear about an accidental gun death every once in a while (maybe once or twice per year). I hear about an armed robbery, fatal gang related shooting, other gun-involved criminal mischief almost every day. I also hear about a fatal car accident every day. maybe if we really care about our kids we should stop driving them around in cars. if you are the kind of person who can make a head shot on something 3ft tall from across the room in pitch black then you are not the kind of person who shoots at things without knowing what they are first.

 

I think there is no moderate approach (that the government itself could provide) that could be made to work in the long term. The perpetrators need to know that those to their left and those to their right will not stand by and let them commit their acts. it can't be only them vs the police. or them vs. the military. the police can't keep a 3-fold presence on the streets (which doesnt even seem to be working) for ever and the military can't occupy the cities forever. These bandits may be able to evade the authoritarian forces but they are going to have neighbors forever, no matter where they go. If the neighbors help reign in justice, you could squash this. The people need to be allowed the right and the means (read guns) to protect themselves, eachother, and their property.
call it a permanent civilian militia if you would like.

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.

-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775​

I think that you may have misunderstood me. The non-moderate approach I was referring to, perhaps too subtly, was the systematic extermination of the minorities seen to be troublesome. Despite what is happening, this still seems abhorrent to me, however "logical" it may seem.

Try a Google search on the term "final solution".

 

If the minorities are making war on you and yours then you better pick sides. But the real truth is, it isn't the majority of the minorities that are responsible.

I'm not saying form a militia, or even hunt them down, but don't depend on the government to protect you if they are banging on your door. That is a good recipe for loosing everything if you are lucky, or loosing your family if you're not.

Contrary to myth, in the old west the gangs did not come tearing up the town to do their business. They behaved themselves where they lived. If they didn't the rest of the folk (who outnumbered them 100s to 1) would take them down and they knew it.

As I understand it Britain is allowed shotguns. If this is true then it would be a good time to have one handy. Shotguns are superior home defense weapons anyhow, as they have short reach and devastating effect.

In the end it comes down to three realistic choices.

1. Leave.

2. Stay and defend your home.

3. Hope they don't come and be prepared to watch some really terrible things happen to your family if you're wrong.

Of course you could do 1 or 2 and still have #3 happen, but if you do nothing you are raising the odds for #3 considerably. Gambling with my kids at stake doesn't seem a good bet.

Eventually the government will get this under control. I just hope political correctness doesn't obscure the realities, and put the blame on the victims.

 

I think that you may have misunderstood me. The non-moderate approach I was referring to, perhaps too subtly, was the systematic extermination of the minorities seen to be troublesome. Despite what is happening, this still seems abhorrent to me, however "logical" it may seem.

Try a Google search on the term "final solution".

odd that somone who considers genocide logical would consider keeping a gun above their bed illogical; consider it even a situation that one would have to "sink" to. I'm not debating that in cold logic the "final solution" makes sense and I'm not debating that it's also abhorrent. I just fail to see how the same person could understand one and not the other.

I keep a gun on my headboard and it helps me sleep at night. I live in a "rough" neighborhood and it give me some peace of mind. I don't have the gun because I live in a rough neighborhood though. I would have it there no matter where I live. consider it insurance; you never know what may happen.

 

I suspect you are hearing two Texan's point of view concerning home defense. Minor differences, but there are a lot of similarities. Police are great when they are there, but they aren't always there when you really need them.

Stay safe guys, this will eventually blow over. It will be interesting what the political fallout will be.

 

All what you are saying about having firearms and defending yourselves may be true in cases like we have now in the UK.

But having firearms easily available increases also the probability of any person who otherwise wouldn't have the guts to attack someone using it.

It's much "easier" to pull a trigger than to kill someone with a wooden stick or a knife or whatever. This is why in most countries the use and possession is very restricted.

Things like the shootings in schools couldn't happen, because the shooters wouldn't be able to control so many people with a few guns.

IMO firearms are good to defend yourself AND they are bad because they give immense power to otherwise powerless thugs.

I'm lucky that until know I didn't feel the need to have one where I lived (except from South America maybe )

 

There's a saying I've heard somewhere: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html

 

IMO firearms are good to defend yourself AND they are bad

Firearms are neither, they are inanimate devices, the use of them is either good or bad. And since it's the action taken by the user of the firearm they are responsible.

 

Firearms are neither, they are inanimate devices, the use of them is either good or bad. And since it's the action taken by the user of the firearm they are responsible.

That's what I meant of course. Blame my limited knowledge of the english language...

Such immense power shouldn't be given to a human being.... If they have to exist then firearms should be made intelligent, so they could only be used for self-defense.

This is an endless discussion but humanity with all it's flaws was a bad invention from the very beginning IMO. The only thing we can really do good is invent weapons/ways to kill more effectively, to hurt other people and to destroy other people's goods.

Sorry about that philosophical thing, but when I see things like what happened recently in Norway and what's happening now in London/UK it's difficult to believe in mankind.... I have family in London, and they are/were worried because the riots were happening near where they live.

 

IMO firearms are good to defend yourself AND they are bad because they give immense power to otherwise powerless thugs.

The gun has been described as "the great equalizer" because it does give power to otherwise powerless_______. An otherwise defenseless elederly woman with a gun is just as powerful as an armed would-be thug assailant. Thugs usually aren't the powerless ones. thugs would be thugs with or without the invention of guns; they would use clubs or any other weapon in absence of a gun. Gun control measures in just about any country rarely achieve the goal of keeping guns out of the hands of thugs; only the law-abiding. I can agree with everything else you said, including losing faith in humanity.

 

odd that somone who considers genocide logical would consider keeping a gun above their bed illogical; consider it even a situation that one would have to "sink" to. I'm not debating that in cold logic the "final solution" makes sense and I'm not debating that it's also abhorrent. I just fail to see how the same person could understand one and not the other.

I keep a gun on my headboard and it helps me sleep at night. I live in a "rough" neighborhood and it give me some peace of mind. I don't have the gun because I live in a rough neighborhood though. I would have it there no matter where I live. consider it insurance; you never know what may happen.

I do not consider the gun above the bed illogical. It may have some hazards of its own, as already discussed, but generally it makes the same sort of sense to a potential victim as robbing does to the criminal. The individual gains advantage over the group. What counts against it most in my opinion is that the group may suffer overall. If we all act to maximise our individual advantage without too much concern for our fellows, we divide our time between attacking each other and watching our own backs. Perhaps all that stress from living under siege will do us harm - I seem to remember a thread about this on the forum?.

In this country, we have not hitherto been accustomed to a high murder rate. I really do not want us to be dragged down into the level of crime that we see reported on the news from abroad, whether from say Miami USA or from Cape Town RSA. Giving a gun to everyone in sight seems an unlikely way to mend things. If this map of murder rates is accurate, changing to an American model of doing things may be unwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homicide-world.png

I am having a bad time struggling with the idea that a "one off" cull of some of our worst offenders might be better for us than living for the rest of time as an armed camp. Surely this can't be morally right though: it makes me feel bad that I can even entertain the idea.

 

I do not consider the gun above the bed illogical. It may have some hazards of its own, as already discussed, but generally it makes the same sort of sense to a potential victim as robbing does to the criminal. The individual gains advantage over the group. What counts against it most in my opinion is that the group may suffer overall. If we all act to maximise our individual advantage without too much concern for our fellows, we divide our time between attacking each other and watching our own backs. Perhaps all that stress from living under siege will do us harm - I seem to remember a thread about this on the forum?.
In this country, we have not hitherto been accustomed to a high murder rate. I really do not want us to be dragged down into the level of crime that we see reported on the news from abroad, whether from say Miami USA or from Cape Town RSA. Giving a gun to everyone in sight seems an unlikely way to mend things. If this map of murder rates is accurate, changing to an American model of doing things may be unwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homicide-world.png

I am having a bad time struggling with the idea that a "one off" cull of some of our worst offenders might be better for us than living for the rest of time as an armed camp. Surely this can't be morally right though: it makes me feel bad that I can even entertain the idea.

If nobody is disputing the link between minorities and higher crime rate, then I'd say our system is working fairly well, considering this.

 

considering this.

"Minorities now make up 35 percent of the U.S. population and count for more than 50 percent of residents in Texas, Hawaii, New Mexico, California and Washington, D.C."

>50% is still a minority?

 

"Minorities now make up 35 percent of the U.S. population and count for more than 50 percent of residents in Texas, Hawaii, New Mexico, California and Washington, D.C."

>50% is still a minority?

Yes, according to the PC crowd. "minority" means "not white"

 

Florida is a minority state,they call it white flight.It is hard to find an American
flag.If you remind a government building they may Install one.