Guns n' Riots

This thread is a spinoff from the one covering the riots in England. The UK has a ban on members of the public owning and keeping in their house firearms, except for very exceptional cases. Most police personnel are armed only with batons and pepper spray and only special units sent to dangerous situations carry guns.

So now there's riots spreading across England. Do you believe the UK's policies towards gun control are justified? Would the situation be helped by having armed coppers at the scene? Should people be allowed to use guns to defend their property, and if so what types?

Also on topic: other weapons used in civil disturbance such as water cannon, weapons used in riots in other countries, gun laws in the UK in general. Please don't spread it to gun laws in the US or elsewhere outside a riot context, that's a huuuuuge topic!

You can defend your property without a gun. And frankly, having a bunch of people waving around a gun in a riot would only make things worse, far as I can tell.

If the populace had access to, and liberty to carry, arms, this riot wouldn't have lasted the weekend.

You even brandish (let alone fire) a gun to a mob and they will probably end up bullrushing you. Hard to defend your property when your skull is caved in.

I'm not sure that Korean-Americans from Los Angeles would agree with you.

edited 10th Aug '11 1:01:16 AM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

Wait, why are we assuming that the rioters wouldn't also have the same ready access to firearms, then?

All you'd be doing is arming both sides.

edited 10th Aug '11 1:03:12 AM by Iaculus

This.

Sure, a store owner could defend their store from one goon with a shotgun. But I'd like to see them take on 5 with handguns.

We'd see alot more deaths in the riots if guns were readily available I think.

I'm positive we'd be seeing a higher death toll. What is it now, six in four nights of rioting? I wouldn't mind placing a bet that more Americans have been shot in arguments over laundry in the same time period.

Sure, the riots would be over sooner, but they'd have been far more deadly for both sides.

The catalyst for the riots was that the police shot somone. Adding more guns to the mix really won't solve anything.

I was about to bring this up. Yeah, the Rodney King riots in LA trashed a lot of shops....except those by Korean/Asian owners who had Uzis.

Given that I live in the UK, I would think that my country's view on firearms is both a practical and one which is for the better.

In the case of riots, what would a firearm do? If only the police had firearms, they'd probably have to take it out; and the only reason to have a firearm in your hand is to intimidate someone, or to use it. In a crowd, intimidation is harder; therefore, you will have to use it — and it'll turn into a bloodbath.

^ You'd be surprised how even rioters are deathly afraid of their own mortality. A single action six shooter like a Colt Single Action Army will stop a crowd in their tracks and all it takes is actually firing one round to prove you aren't some police dumbass who will only fire when they stab the guy next to him.

Scale that up to things like submachineguns, semi and fully automatic rifles even military grade machine guns. Do you honestly think rioters would try to loot and torch your shit in a stampede if you visibly have the means to mow down 30+ of them at random before they get close. In a riot you don't need to aim much or practice things like burst fire.

Major Tom, these people have nothing to lose, as they are posting themselves on My Face with their loot, so if you whipped out your weapon in their face, you would have to use it.

One of the basic rules is that you never pull a gun purely to intimidate. If you're not prepared to shoot and kill them, don't pull the gorram gun.

Why have guns for a riot? Simple. Rioters won't use guns. Unless they're supremely stupid.

Why?

Because then they're armed combatants.

People in the US who riot damn well know it, too. Americans never riot with guns, because then the NG units we bring in will simply mow them down. However, people with guns can defend themselves from the rioters if they have them, and, as Tom noted, even the mob mentality won't make up for an Uzi.

I would appeal to psychology here, too. Yeah, a crowd can take a guy with a gun down, but somebody is going to get shot if they try. The thinking goes, if you walk away, no one gets shot; if you try to attack, someone gets shot before you take the person down, and it might be you, so why risk it? Spread that around, and nobody will bother. It's not perfect, but it works...

What makes you think they have nothing to lose? People with nothing to really lose are rare in Western countries, the rioters didn't looks like homeless outcasts, they probably have materially comfortable lives by world standards.

No. I believe in being able to defend myself, with deadly force if necessary; law enforcement may not always be there when you need them.

Yes. By the nature of the situation, the police are vastly outnumbered, and in the event of an attempt on their lives, they would need a way to mitigate that numerical disadvantage. Firearms and training can do that.

I have no idea why they needed to get authorization for water and rubber bullets, that should of been their first course of action.

edited 10th Aug '11 8:23:55 AM by Kino

Pride. The idea that the government should ever have to use force is culturally alien in mainland Britain. Half the shock and horror is over the fact that suddenly it may be necessary.

Completely historically illiterate pride (Britain has done more than its fair share of killing rioters, mostly in previous centuries, but actually pretty much right up the present day), but that's what it is.

edited 10th Aug '11 8:24:15 AM by Jinren

You should never let pride or tradition trump tactics and pragmatism; it's a great way to get people killed.

edited 10th Aug '11 8:25:06 AM by Kino

I find it sad that when there is a violent, fatality-inducing riot in Britain, and the police have to ask to have more than batons to put it down, people freak out that the police are using force, when people are burning buildings and killing innocents.

Where is the sense of priorities?!

You might be arguing that police could have weapons but that's still wrong. Riots demand riot gear.

Imagine what news would be saying if police started shooting protesters. I mean, why bitch about North Korea or China if we gun down people?

If you had lax gun control, why would rioters not have guns? I don't think you can blindly assume that they would not have guns. Then you talk about Korean store owners that had uzis and then we see America with gun crimes involving automatic weapons and then your solution is to have even more guns. UK doesn't have that kind of problem and I don't think they want it just to deal with one-time riots.

Riot gear includes guns with non-lethal rounds. You people associate the police and guns with automatic death for everyone. You act like rubber rounds don't even exist.

I explained this: rioters won't use guns because it makes them combatants. Look at riots in America: we have guns, but it's extremely rare to even see a few guns in a riot, let alone a whole armed crowd. They know damn well that if they bring out guns, we will slaughter them. Guns + Riots = Military owns you. It's that simple, and they know it.

Thats because using rubber bullets does lead to deaths. As can a lot of non-lethal equipment.

At least the giant hose won't kill you.

edited 10th Aug '11 8:59:31 AM by GameChainsaw

That's been... culturally stigmatized... in the US. And, yes it can. Or, at can at least cause grievous bodily injury, i.e. ripping the skin off your body...

Too bad for the rioters. What should you tell the families of those who died for nothing? You're lucky they haven't gotten to the "rape" part of Rape, Pillage, and Burn. I'd rather lose a few idiots who deserved it and disperse the crowd before more innocent people get hurt and killed.

Because every time the United States used guns in pesky riots, it turned out awesome.