Mob in Peoria shoots fireworks at police, firefighters...

How many people were injured in the restaurant?

I've forgotten, ... how many was it again?

 

Do you think every country should roll over for rioters?

 

The facts are that had this incident with these thugs ocurred in the US it would more than likely had a far more tragic outcome. The thugs would be armed with firearms and had they be challenged multiple deaths and injury would result of innocent people which in the US is an all too common scenario due to the proliferation of firearms in their society. Brits are just a bit smarter.

 

Your point being?

The U.K. can handle things however it wants to. I was responding to the notion that attacking the criminals would be "barbaric." It isn't.

If someone comes at me with a knife or baseball bat, I will shoot them, and I'm fully within the letter of the law to do so.

 

How can you trust yourself not to shoot yourself in the foot?

Your ignorance of affairs outside of the USA is truly a sight to behold.

 

That's neither here nor there, because the U.K. doesn't border an unstable poor country. Gun control doesn't work here precisely because Mexico has a ton of guns.

Even if America banned all guns, criminals would acquire them if they put a decent amount of effort towards it.

It's not a matter of one group being smarter than the other. Gun control simply works better in the U.K. because of geography.

 

To establish what retaliation was necessary.

Attacking someone who hasn't caused any physical harm to anyone isn't barbaric? LOL

Funny old world you live in there sunshine.

Can't get more barbaric than that I'm afraid.

 

If someone attempts to rob you and points a weapon at you, you're not entitled to attack them in self-defense?

Funny world you live in.

In America, self-defense means you can attack someone that threatens you with deadly force. You can kill someone with a knife or baseball bat, so if someone makes it clear that they're going to use the weapon on you if you don't hand over your wallet, you're allowed to do what you must to disarm them or neutralize them as a threat.

Now, obviously, if you've managed to disarm or incapacitate the criminal, you can't continue to attack them, but until then, you're allowed to.

I know the laws probably are very different in the U.K., and that's their business, but here, we define self-defense very clearly with the intent of giving the defender leeway.

 

Then secure your border like you should do anyway.

Incorrect, guns obtained by criminals are almost 100 percent sold legally in the first instance, the facts are that the number of legal guns possessed legally is a direct correlation to the number of guns obtained by criminals. Violent crime and homicides are also lower in countries which have strict gun control.

They have a non gun culture, thats what works.

 

And how well is the police handling this situation? Let's see...buildings and cars being torched, homes being ransacked, businesses being looted. Yeah...the British boobies are handling things really well. A Great Empire reduced to a spineless nation of wimps.

If this had started in the US, it would have been over with 2 nights ago.

 

Give this a go, if you can handle it.

How many people were injured in the restaurant?

Just try to answer the question ... how many?

Give me a number. Are you capable of answering this simple question?

Come on ...

I'll save you the hassle, because you have no idea where this is leading and it will just confuse you.

The answer is zero. None. Nil. No one was injured.

Now, if the diners had resisted with firearms how many people would have been injured? Well, we don't know but it's a safe bet that someone would have been killed or at the very least injured.

So:

• with no firearms - no one injured.
• with firearms - possible deaths; almost certain injuries.

Is it starting to sink in yet?

 

You're right that we should, but that's another issue altogether worthy of a thread unto itself.

Um, you'll have to provide some stats on that.

This is definitely not the case with Mexico. It's loaded with guns, and gun control laws are fairly strict there (although not very well-enforced).

The U.K. has plenty of knife crime, so I don't see what your point is here. Violence is going to happen in most larger countries regardless of the weapon laws. While it is true that the range on a knife is obviously less than a gun, the U.K. isn't exactly a paragon of nonviolence.

Again, the U.K. has the ability to implement gun control because securing an island's borders is much easier than a massive land border with an unstable country next door.

 

If you want to completely rely on law enforcement to protect you, that's your business. Most Americans don't like that prospect.

I know it gives you a sense of superiority that your country has less crime partially due to having less guns. Many U.K. citizens seem to exhibit that as well.

However, it's just as nonsensical as the American hubris that guns fix everything.

I tried to dodge the nationalistic pissing contest involved in this thread, but I see that you enjoy it, so I'll leave you to continue that with someone else.

My only point here is that there's nothing wrong with defending yourself with a gun.

 

However, you're wrong: people get hurt that way.

No one was hurt in the restaurant (because no one had guns).

 

With body bags in the forefront.

Yes, I see the American way weekly, in schools, colleges and universities.

 

And knives and baseball bats don't?

I already mentioned the knife crime that the U.K. has.

I know you guys tend to be gun phobic, but the truth of the matter is that people will hurt each other with whatever is available.

A lack of guns doesn't ensure a situation ends without injury anymore than a presence of guns ensures it does.

 

Every victim in that restaurant was assaulted. They were threatened with violence if they did not hand over their property, and the owners saw their property damaged and customers manhandled.

Apparently, to the servile class, this counts as a valid form of wealth redistribution so long as none of the thugs collecting their allowance gets shot.

 

Anytime you're ready to answer:

• how many people were injured in the restaurant?

We're all waiting for your reply ...

 

How many people were injured?

How many experienced physical violence?

We all await your answer ...

 

Indeed. I can open carry a firearm in California (unloaded but clip nearby) or concealed carry. I can carry a small knife. But I can't carry a stick 18" or longer or an ASP. Now, I don't agree with any of the restrictions, but I know that the prohibition on carrying heavy sticks is because while most people are hesitant to pull a trigger, they are not hesitant to whack someone in the head with a stick. An act which is often lethal.

 

How many people were injured at the restaurant?

How many was it again?

 

If that's the best you can muster, then quit while you're behind.

Again, it doesn't matter that no one was injured this time. They could just as easily ended up that way with or without guns.

 

You are very wise to carry a firearm with you to defend yuorself, BleedingHeadKen.

The liberals in this group like to say the reason for the London and Philadelphia riots and indiscriminate looting is racism.

The problem is not racism. This standard, predictable excuse is an oversimplification of the root problem.

The root problem is unruly teenagers who have nothing to do but take what they want during organized street riots!

Check this out.




Here is an angry face and destructive behavior only a mother can love!

Mayor Michael A. Nutter, telling marauding black youths in Philadelphia, “you have damaged your own race,” imposed a tougher curfew Monday in response to the latest “flash mob” — spontaneous groups of teens who attack people at random on the streets of the city’s tourist and fashionable shopping districts.

“Take those God-darn hoodies down, especially in the summer,” Mr. Nutter, the city’s third black mayor, said in an angry lecture aimed at black teens. “Pull your pants up and buy a belt ‘cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt.”

 

Cessna, please stop spamming.

 

I'm miles ahead sweetheart. Miles.

Actually, it does. It's the whole point. A point that you have no possible chance of grasping.