I remember the LA Riots as a kid but I have studied it extensively. The Korean store owners made a big impact in my opinion on why disarming the civilian populace is simply another method of government control and does not a single thing to reduce crime.

The rioters in both LA and the UK are of a mob mentality. When a mob runs across unarmed victims they "Zerg Rush" (Starcraft game reference) and attack with full forth knowing that they will not be harmed. When you throw in firearms and the possibility of injury or death to those in the mob. The mindset changes; it no longer becomes a massive mob but a large collection of individuals. Every single one of those animals in the mob know that they might be the one shot and killed. That suddenly changes the game.

They're not going to rush because even though a guy armed with a five shot revolver can't shoot thirty people. Those thirty people know that five of them are going to get shot but they don't know who the five are going to be.

Criminals are cowards and prey upon the weak. If there is a chance they their victim will strike back they will target someone else. That is why places like the UK, Washington DC, Chicago, NYC, and other liberal bastions are rife with violent crime. London is no longer a nice quite place that was shown in Mary Poppins.... it's a violent place filled with thuggish brutes, scumbags, and animals.

This did not happen to the Koreans...



The reason why?

LA Riots - Armed store owners deter rioters - YouTube

LA Riots - Armed store owners deter rioters - YouTube

Koreans Showing Off Their Guns In LA Riots - Just Another Reason To Be Armed - YouTube

Koreans Showing Off Their Guns In LA Riots - Just Another Reason To Be Armed - YouTube

Crazy L.A. Gun Fight Erupts During Riot - YouTube

Crazy L.A. Gun Fight Erupts During Riot - YouTube

And thanks to compulsory military service, they knew how to use them.

Originally Posted by A Can of Man

And thanks to compulsory military service, they knew how to use them.

I've always respected Korean Immigrants. They are hard working, family loving, good honest people.

Yeah wouldn't it have been great if this guy was armed, the looters would have run a mile...

A young para in court for trying to sell looted £1,900 guitar
Also facing justice, three university students, two teens... and a boy with a hammer strapped to his leg
By MICHAEL SEAMARK and JAMES TOZER
Last updated at 9:29 AM on 13th August 2011


Add to My Stories
Share

Soldier: Liam Bretherton has been accused of looting a guitar during the riots in Manchester
A Paratrooper who fought in Afghanistan faced court yesterday accused of stealing a £1,900 guitar during the riots.
The serving soldier was among the mobs which trashed shops in Manchester on Tuesday – his 20th birthday.
Liam Bretherton is accused of stealing the electric guitar and then trying to sell it on to a music shop near his home in Leigh.
A cross-country champion, he serves with 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery based in Colchester, Essex.
Manchester magistrates were told he had been prepared to admit handling stolen goods but, when this was altered to the more serious charge of burglary, he pleaded not guilty.
He claimed he had bought the Gibson guitar from a looter for £20 but tried to sell it after realising it was a left-handed model.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1V8VemVwM

Oh wait he was on the looting side well either way I am sure he would have been responsible with a firearm.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Yeah wouldn't it have been great if this guy was armed, the looters would have run a mile...

A young para in court for trying to sell looted £1,900 guitar
Also facing justice, three university students, two teens... and a boy with a hammer strapped to his leg
By MICHAEL SEAMARK and JAMES TOZER
Last updated at 9:29 AM on 13th August 2011


Add to My Stories
Share

Soldier: Liam Bretherton has been accused of looting a guitar during the riots in Manchester
A Paratrooper who fought in Afghanistan faced court yesterday accused of stealing a £1,900 guitar during the riots.
The serving soldier was among the mobs which trashed shops in Manchester on Tuesday – his 20th birthday.
Liam Bretherton is accused of stealing the electric guitar and then trying to sell it on to a music shop near his home in Leigh.
A cross-country champion, he serves with 7th Parachute Regiment Royal Horse Artillery based in Colchester, Essex.
Manchester magistrates were told he had been prepared to admit handling stolen goods but, when this was altered to the more serious charge of burglary, he pleaded not guilty.
He claimed he had bought the Gibson guitar from a looter for £20 but tried to sell it after realising it was a left-handed model.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1V8VemVwM

Oh wait he was on the looting side well either way I am sure he would have been responsible with a firearm.

So under your logic the law abiding should be disarmed because the criminal might now how to use it? Oh wait..... criminals break the law and it's against the law to own many types of firearms within the UK. But that doesn't stop the criminals from getting them anyways.

Last I checked.... this rioting started because some punk gang banger was being followed by the police because of gun smuggling. Sooooo..... if guns are outlawed how is it that the criminal that got shot by the cops was getting guns? Aren't they illegal and if they're illegal should it be that not a single gun is on the streets of the UK?


Have fun waiting for the police to stop a rioting mob from breaking down your door or stopping them from killing you or raping your loved ones. But then again you own firearms; you're just against other folks from owning them because they're not in your social class. Permits cost money.... poor folks can't afford permits. It's a form of social restrictions because they can't spend the cash to get a piece of paper that says they are "allowed" to own a piece of steel

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

So under your logic the law abiding should be disarmed because the criminal might now how to use it? Oh wait..... criminals break the law and it's against the law to own many types of firearms within the UK. But that doesn't stop the criminals from getting them anyways.

I realise in that strange world you believe is reality firearms are only used by law abiding citizens and criminals run at the sight of them but in reality for a law abiding citizen to use a weapon in most countries it has to be in a reactionary manner ie in response to a clear and present threat they just can't go out and attack someone who may become a threat therefore the initiative is always with the criminal.

Have fun waiting for the police to stop a rioting mob from breaking down your door or stopping them from killing you or raping your loved ones. But then again you own firearms; you're just against other folks from owning them because they're not in your social class. Permits cost money.... poor folks can't afford permits. It's a form of social restrictions because they can't spend the cash to get a piece of paper that says they are "allowed" to own a piece of steel

I don't have to wait for the police to stop a rioting mob because we still have some level of social order and don't generally have rioting mobs, however if we were to have rioting mobs I would much sooner have a few shop windows broken and see my car rolled/burnt out than have everyone shooting at each other for shits and giggles.

As for the rest I realise you are trying to create a strawman argument to hide behind and some sort of "class generalisation" gives you a sense of moral self righteousness but to be blunt you have no idea what you are talking about so I suggest you go back to stroking your gun and peering out through the barbed wire for all those nasty liberals coming to get your guns.

See I can generalise as well.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I don't have to wait for the police to stop a rioting mob because we still have some level of social order and don't generally have rioting mobs, however if we were to have rioting mobs I would much sooner have a few shop windows broken and see my car rolled/burnt out than have everyone shooting at each other for shits and giggles.

Sounds a lot like a sit on your thumbs while your property that you worked so hard to earn is being burned before your eyes strategy.

Originally Posted by lolwhassup

Sounds a lot like a sit on your thumbs while your property that you worked so hard to earn is being burned before your eyes strategy.

Why, it isn't my fault we don't have riots.

As far as sitting on my thumbs goes I think that is relative to the threat posed, I am all for the use of weapons in home defence but I don't see a justification to shoot people over a set of Adidas sweats. What it boils down to is that businesses can be replaced people cant and if shop owners are armed then I am pretty damn sure rioters will be as well.

In the end though people have to determine what sort of society they want to live in, I prefer the one where I can walk the streets without needing to be armed to 5.56's one where you have to be afraid of everyone you encounter because you have no idea whether they are armed or not.

I have no doubt he will waffle on about the "old" days when men were men and sheep were afraid, everyone walked around armed to the teeth and how it was a polite society but the reality is that his vision of the "old" days are just that visions because they never existed.

Its a ridiculous argument really. Its like countries having nukes, nobody really wants them or wants things to get to the state where they are used, however with no social control its a reality we face. Britain for years has endeavoured to get weapons off the streets and as a result last weeks antics weren't a complete ****ing bloodbath like they would have been had it been in America. Force as a deterrant historically just raises the stakes.