Lethal force.
It seems that yet again when the police decide to use lethal force then everyone is hunky dory about it. In this actual case it seems that there was good reason. Read here. Maybe this guy had looked at what his future was going to be like after the last budget or something or even gotten a pensions forecast. Could have been anything really.The frequently asked, yet never answered, question that should come out of this is that if it is justified that a life is taken in our crime ridden land then why should our police have this monopoly? No real reason for why we are unable to defend ourselves when it is recognised that the police do not have to. Even when they do come out they do not do a good job for PC reasons such as health or safety or they are scared of violating the bad guys rights.
There is obviously a reason for the powers that be restricting our ability to defend yourself. I have heard several reasons ranging from they want us all disarmed to *cough* make our society safer through to they want a monopoly on enforcement to keep their grubby little mitts on power.
Personally I think that it is simply that our wonderful leaders actual capability for self deception and thus they believe their own propaganda on crime. As far as they are concerned crime is coming down, despite any documentation otherwise and thus they see no reason for people to require the capability of any force what so ever. Remember that in their minds they know best and that we don't know what is best for us.
Is there a way forward? I just don't see one. The whole lot of our current leaders and the potential replacements all want to keep the status quo. Us plebs cannot be trusted and, in their minds, the repercussions of us being perpetual victims is down to that. Even if a review of the situation as promised a while ago means little when our leaders make up their minds before the report is even typed. I just don't see any change in the near future.
Oh well. Just have to stick with my sharpened spoons and hope plod doesn't come looking for me or I get a pension forecast while I am on a downer.
posted by Bag @ 10:43 am
11 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
stas? Do you mean bias, stance? Can't think of anything else.
I'm fine thank you. I take it your issues are now resolved and you will be back posting to your blog again.
Henry and John are around somewhere. They must be busy atm. I'm sure they will be here soon and commenting if they feel like it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Even when they do come out they do not do a good job for PC reasons such as health or safety or they are scared of violating the bad guys rights.
E.g. Clive Davis's son.
Bring on sharia law. That will sort them out.
Had there been a gun in the house, I'm sure that my ex wife would have shot the neighbour's son wen he came home pissed and rattled our letter box or kicked our rubbish bin------and I have no doubt that she would have shot me in one of her drunken rages.
So the reasoning is that while you may not misuse a weapon, look at your friends, neighbours and relatives and tell me that all of them wouldn't.
Weapons beget weapons
Oh, I've never played baseball but I have a bat.
Somehow, I missed your email
Clyde, I'm not saying everyone should be just given them on request but even if they were your ex wife would soon have been sorted out. I do understand your concern but I live in the UK. Considering how *cough* gun free it is you would be surprised about how many guns there are available. It's only the bad guys that have the contacts to get illegal guns though. I have no idea how to go about getting on.
Funny I don't have a bat but I do have a couple of decorative katanas.
:) Typical. Emails get lost all the time and it is such a long way to Oz. They must have got tired and stopped for a rest.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fuck, dont give Uber a gun.
I'm starting a campaign here--NO GUNS FOR UBER.
Yep, Australia is a similar cough, gun free country---but open gun ownership in the US hasnt lowered their crime rate but has increased their shootings---especially in their schools
Clyde, Well, it depends on where you look. The US doesn't have blanket gun ownership as is implied. The states with open gun ownership have crime falling. The others where they are as restrictive as the UK have it rising. There are blogs linked that have the stats. The anti gun crowd rate cities with a no gun policy highly. The stats show their highest ratings are the cities with high crime. That seems to be being recognised and more are loosening their gun laws. Of course that could change if the Democrats get in.
As far as the schools are concerned. Nutters have animal cunning. They have choices of where they go. Do they go into a police station where everyone is armed or a shopping mall where carry is allowed or do they go to shopping malls or areas where law abiding citizens are not allowed to carry guns such as schools? A bad guy would not last five minutes in a police station but have a long time in a school. Where would you go to get your claim to fame? They win every time, name blown all over the front pages and they vent their frustrations. As Ruthie points out if that fame was removed that would help as well. Things are not black and white.
To be honest until a few years ago I was against gun ownership for the general public. I believed that there should be restrictions in place. All based on gut feel. it made sense that less guns equals less crime. That is clearly not the case. The facts show otherwise. The criminals have the monopoly on power and we are unable to defend ourselves. I have changed my stance to fit the facts rather than my gut feel.
Post a Comment
<< Home