Topic: Keep Calm and Riot On (Read 4409 times)

Rico · « **Reply #40 on:** August 11, 2011, 11:23:13 AM »

This whole situation should prove interesting fodder down the line for American gun control debates.

Brentai · « **Reply #41 on:** August 11, 2011, 12:13:01 PM »

The difference here is organization. I was worried for a while that Cameron's being the face on the giant blue monitor would start some cells, but nope, it never really got past teenagers setting things on fire and then getting bored again.

Zaratustra · « **Reply #42 on:** August 11, 2011, 12:25:16 PM »

london current state:
- pretty much normal
- like 1 out of 20 shops is boarded or closed
- police cars are parading all around town all day
- newspapers have lots of creative and retarded ideas on how to fix problems

Thad · « **Reply #43 on:** August 11, 2011, 12:57:22 PM »

Quote from: Rico on August 11, 2011, 11:23:13 AM

This whole situation should prove interesting fodder down the line for American gun control debates.

America has gun control debates?

JDigital · « **Reply #44 on:** August 11, 2011, 01:30:16 PM »

Did you know: Nobody can legally hold handguns in England, aside from police and military. They had to make a special exception in law for the olympic shooting event. Even the UK shooting team can't legally practice shooting in England, and have to go to Switzerland.

Rico · « **Reply #45 on:** August 11, 2011, 02:01:30 PM »

Quote from: Thad on August 11, 2011, 12:57:22 PM

America has gun control debates?

Most every time there's a high-profile shooting.

Rico · « **Reply #46 on:** August 11, 2011, 02:04:25 PM »

Quote from: JDigital on August 11, 2011, 01:30:16 PM

Did you know: Nobody can legally hold handguns in England, aside from police and military. They had to make a special exception in law for the olympic shooting event. Even the UK shooting team can't legally practice shooting in England, and have to go to Switzerland.

Yeah, that's why I brought up American gun rights after that whiny post about "What can I do if some angry gentleman rapes my daughter the police are busy and I'd chip a nail if I hit him in the face." There are certainly downsides to an armed populace but events like these riots show it can be an awfully good idea.

Thad · « **Reply #47 on:** August 11, 2011, 02:12:00 PM »

Quote from: Rico on August 11, 2011, 02:01:30 PM

Most every time there's a high-profile shooting.

You can call that a debate if you want; from where I'm sitting it sure looks like the anti-gun control crowd has won pretty decisively.

Relevant cartoon from January.

Quote from: Rico on August 11, 2011, 02:04:25 PM

Yeah, that's why I brought up American gun rights after that whiny post about "What can I do if some angry gentleman rapes my daughter the police are busy and I'd chip a nail if I hit him in the face." There are certainly downsides to an armed populace but events like these riots show it can be an awfully good idea.

The counterargument being that the rioters would then also have guns.

Ziiro · « **Reply #48 on:** August 11, 2011, 02:19:06 PM »

I suppose it'd be interesting to try to translate the situation and see what the difference might be, but the only thing we've had even like this is.. what? Race riots in Oakland in 2009 maybe? Not even that really has the same scope, I think.

Beat Bandit · « **Reply #49 on:** August 11, 2011, 02:27:57 PM »

Yeah, the sixties never happened or anything.

Brentai · « **Reply #50 on:** August 11, 2011, 02:40:23 PM »

You can make the argument that this would have never happened with an armed populace. When a London teenager sees no police around, he thinks "There is nothing stopping me from robbing this convenience store." When an L.A. teenager sees no police around, he thinks "There is nothing stopping this convenience store clerk from filling me with buckshot."

On the other hand, this riot freaked people out and caused a lot of property damage but you can count the number of actual casualties on one hand, unlike, say, any given day in Los Angeles.

François · « **Reply #51 on:** August 11, 2011, 02:55:23 PM »

This is still not the US, but from where I'm sitting the London riots bear an uncanny resemblance to the Montréal-Nord riots we had back in August 2008. A kid was shot by police, a peaceful protest turned violent, malcontent youth took over the streets, stores were looted and shit got burned down. The scale is different of course, it barely even compares on that level, but then again Montréal's population is maybe one quarter of London's.

(And then, predictably, nothing changed.)

Ziiro · « **Reply #52 on:** August 11, 2011, 03:08:12 PM »

Quote from: Beat Bandit on August 11, 2011, 02:27:57 PM

Yeah, the sixties never happened or anything.

I looked over all the notable riot data from the 1960s and found a few comparable situations.

Hm. Chicago 1968. Although arguable less based on class and more based on race due to the Assassination of MLK. The mayor set out orders for shooting from the get go, it seems. No official death toll. But I guess that this is one of the many that occured around the country at that time (Which I guess you could group together all the riots in 1968 due to MLK's death). Guns used by the rioters didn't seem to be an issue; guns held by the police seemed to define a lot of the feeling. (Maim any looters, shoot to kill anyone holding a molotov)

Detroit in 1967 seems to be the closest comparison in this case on the scale, however. 23/43 Deaths were deaths involving shooting.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #53 on:** August 11, 2011, 06:41:41 PM »

Quote from: Mongrel on August 11, 2011, 11:12:58 AM

Seriously man. Even the deepest cynic cannot possibly place Cameron and Ghaddafi on equal footing. Come on. That belittles both England's troubles and Libya's.

You're right, Cameron is from a western nation and white.

JDigital · « **Reply #54 on:** August 11, 2011, 08:38:09 PM »

Quote from: Rico on August 11, 2011, 02:04:25 PM

There are certainly downsides to an armed populace but events like these riots show it can be an awfully good idea.

If guns were legal, it might still not be legal to shoot someone in defence of property. It would also increase the likelihood that rioters would carry guns. Even if the shop owners had guns, the riots occurred at night when the shops were shut. The owners would have to stake out their property, which is more dangerous than leaving the shop overnight and letting insurance cover the repairs later.

Rico · « **Reply #55 on:** August 11, 2011, 09:25:23 PM »

http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome

Mongrel · « **Reply #56 on:** August 11, 2011, 09:36:36 PM »

The article is interesting, age notwithstanding.

I wonder what the statistics are from the decade since publication.

Rico · « **Reply #57 on:** August 11, 2011, 11:25:57 PM »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

First thing I found. The types of crimes looked aren't quite the same as the 2002 article, but... things are not good.

Brentai · « **Reply #58 on:** August 11, 2011, 11:39:30 PM »

Keep in mind that when you see "UK" that also means Scotland, Wales and Ireland. So yeah.

Thad · « **Reply #59 on:** August 12, 2011, 07:07:14 AM »

Quote from: Brentai on August 11, 2011, 11:39:30 PM

Keep in mind that when you see "UK" that also means Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. So yeah.

Only the northeast corner of Ireland is part of the UK; the rest of the island is independent.

Which is of course not to say that violence from the Republic doesn't spill over into Northern Ireland. Obviously. But presumably crimes committed in ROI jurisdiction aren't counted in those numbers.

News:

Author Topic: Keep Calm and Riot On (Read 4409 times)