Jörmungandr wrote:Do you mean to tell me that 9 out of 10 American citizens aren't actually forcibly raped every year?

Heh, yeah. He actually has the per-100,000 numbers in brackets, and that line was meant to have been deleted, but the way the numbers are presented is kind of misleading.

Warren Dew wrote:

David M wrote:Here are some real facts:
In the US(2005) vs UK(2005). Numbers and per 100,000 population
Murders: 16,692 [5.6]............................Murder: 859 [1.43]
Forcible Rape: 93,934 [31.6]....................Rape: 11,867 [19.7]
Aggravated Assult: 862,947 [291]..............More serious wounding or other act endangering life: 19,425 [32.3]
Robbery: 417,122 [140.6]........................Robbery: 90,700 [151.6]
Total: 973,573 [328]..............................Total: 122,851 [204.7]

Yes in 2005 the UK had 1.2 million violent crimes, however 508,000 of those were violence against a person that resulted in no injury whatsoever, 49,000 were sexual assaults other than rape and 495,195 were crimes with less serious wounding (including any form of minor injury). To reach the same level of Aggravated Assault as the US 28% of those crimes with less serious wounding would need to be what the US considers Aggravated Assault, but we have a crime that does match aggravated assault in the UK, and the numbers for it are above.

Aggravated assault in the U.S. includes some acts which do not endanger life, and also some that result in no physical injury, so your comparions are mistaken. Keep in mind that just threatening someone, without actually attacking or even touching them, is still assault in the U.S.

But its not normally Aggravated Assault unless they use a deadly weapon, in which case its not a violent crime according to the US crime statistics. Aggravated Assault does not include cases of simple assault, (which are the largest number of assaults reported to police) and so constitutes only a portion (about 20%) of the total number of reported assaults.

And "More serious wounding or other act endangering life" also includes some acts which do not actually endanger life, and also some that result in no physical injury, thats the category thats also used for attempted assaults of a serious nature such as Attempted Grievous Bodily Harm. That is the UK reporting category that matches what the US refers to as aggravated assault.

This is the definition that is used for the US statistics by the FBI:

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of-or threat to use-a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed. When aggravated assault and larceny-theft occur together, the offense falls under the category of robbery.

Here is the definition of common assault in the UK, which is counted as a violent crime.

An offence of common assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery:

An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.

The US only counts aggravated assaults as violent crimes, the UK counts ALL assaults as violent crimes (and its just as true for sexual assault where the US only counted forcible rape as a violent crime and the UK counts all sexual assaults).

Warren Dew wrote:If you do the obvious comparison - total violent crimes - the UK per capita numbers are about six times higher.

Then you'd be comparing apples and oranges and making an obvious mistake. Anyone trying to claim that the per capita crime figures for the UK are 6 times higher that the US for the same crimes is either ignorant or lying, you choose.

As I have shown more than once the UK classes quite a few crimes as violent which the US does not. These crimes make up around 90% of "violent crime" in the UK but don't even make it into the violent crime figures in the US. Harrassment is counted as a violent crime in the UK ffs.

If you want to dispute this provide hard figures for ALL US violence against the person and compare that to the UK, thats all crimes that involve violence or the threat of violence against someone whether they are injured or not. So thats things like pushing someone over in the street during an argument or throwing a punch in a bar.

So there is my challenge: Show us the real numbers for ALL CRIMES IN THE US THAT WOULD BE COUNTED AS A VIOLENT CRIME IN THE UK AND THEN COMPARE THEM. Until then do not repeat this claim.

You'll have to do some digging as those stats don't even seem to be as commonly published, lets see totals for simple assault, harrassment, all sexual offences etc.

Here you go though for 2007.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus07.pdf

Rate of Crimes of Violence against the person for the US = 20.7 per 1,000. (US Department of Justice)
Rate of Crimes of Violence against the person for the UK = 19.6 per 1,000 (UK Home Office).

So there you are. The UK has a lower rate of violent crime than the US when comparing the same crimes.

Time to put this canard to bed I think.

Warren Dew wrote:However, there's a worse mistake: your numbers for the U.S. are total

And the numbers for the UK are also total. So the figures for the UK are not worse than the average for the US, let alone the most dangerous cities in the US, which was the bullshit claim that Seth made.

Grevious bodily harm (one level below attempted murder) can be caused in the UK without actually touching the victim. Extreme stalking can be considered to cause serious mental harm and a person can be charged with this (GBH) carrying a life sentence

Warren Dew wrote:

Jörmungandr wrote:Do you mean to tell me that 9 out of 10 American citizens aren't actually forcibly raped every year?

Heh, yeah. He actually has the per-100,000 numbers in brackets, and that line was meant to have been deleted, but the way the numbers are presented is kind of misleading.

In what way. You have the total number of crimes and the number per 100,000 for the US and the UK (which helps deal with the population differences.

David M wrote:Then you'd be comparing apples and oranges and making an obvious mistake. Anyone trying to claim that the per capita crime figures for the UK are 6 times higher that the US for the same crimes is either ignorant or lying, you choose.

But here's the problem: your comparison is just as bad. You admit that there are a tremendous number of crimes that result in "minor" injury, but refuse to include them in the statistics. Many of those would fall under aggravated assault in the U.S. I may be comparing apples with oranges, but you're comparing oranges with bananas. "Ignorant or lying" would apply at least as much to your comparison as to mine.

As I have shown more than once the UK classes quite a few crimes as violent which the US does not. These crimes make up around 90% of "violent crime" in the UK but don't even make it into the violent crime figures in the US. Harrassment is counted as a violent crime in the UK ffs.

You haven't shown anything of the sort. "Crimes of violence", according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, includes simple assault, including threats which the perpetrator does not even attempt to carry out.

Here you go though for 2007.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus07.pdf

Rate of Crimes of Violence against the person for the US = 20.7 per 1,000. (US Department of Justice)
Rate of Crimes of Violence against the person for the UK = 19.6 per 1,000 (UK Home Office).

Except that the US number is not per 1000 population, it's "per person or household", so you are distorting things again.

That's easily remedied, though. Simply divide the 5.18 million "crimes of violence" in the U.S. by the 2007 U.S. population of 299 million. We get a rate of 17.3 per thousand population, 12% lower than the UK rate.

However, that understates the differences because of methodology. The U.S. statistics are based on surveys, and thus capture many events that were never even reported to the police. In addition, less than 1/3 of the U.S. events are "completed violence", which merely means that there was physical contact, whereas your earlier statements indicate that about half the UK events resulted in actual injury, even if only minor. So that substantially understates the amount by which the UK has more violent crime than the U.S.

Still, as you might say, "there you are". The UK has a higher rate of violent crime than the US even when the US figures include a broader set of events than the UK figures. If there's any relation to gun ownership, it would indicate that gun ownership tends to suppress crimes of violence.

Jörmungandr wrote:


Talking about Washington lobbing a missile into Washington, and someone else is detached from reality.

You mean like how new york started firing artillery into new york?

NineOneFour wrote:

Seth wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Strawman, yet again. That isn't what I said. In any given population, gun owners, Boy Scouts, atheists, whatever. About 10% of any given population is basically nuts.

So 10% of the gun owners who march on April 19 will be nuts. It would only take one asshole firing a gun off, even if 999,000 are sane, normal people.

This is the fallacy of biased sample. First, your assertion that 10 percent of any given population "is basically nuts" is unsupported. Second, even if you observed that 10 percent of some population were "basically nuts," it does not follow that ten percent of EVERY gathering of human beings is "basically nuts."

Again, it'll only take ONE.

Now, could government FOMENT a riot by attacking peaceful protesters? Yes, certainly it could, but that would be a bad idea if the protesters are all armed.

Well, one, if you believe our government would do such a thing, I think you would be better off moving to someplace that gives you less paranoia.

Actually, I don't. One of the reasons that I would not think this of our government in response to a million people peacefully marching while armed is because it would be rank idiocy for the government to do so, because there aren't enough troops or police in Washington to stop such a riot, and it would likely end up in the Sack of the Government Quarter of Washington. A million pissed-off, armed citizens being attacked by their own government deliberately to foment a confrontation would certainly prevail, and the people who authorized it, right up to the White House itself, would likely be hanging from light posts on the National Mall come morning.

Second, it isn't a bad idea if the government was theoretically tyrannical at all. What are 1,000,000 guys with guns going to do when a bomb is dropped on them?

They're going to die, Seth. And they're not even going to get one shot off at their attackers. This idea that somehow a gun will protect you if the government decides to nuke you was valid in 1776 when the best the government had was single shot muskets and grenades. It hasn't worked in reality since the invention of the machine gun - see Wounded Knee 1891, the Bonus Marchers, etc etc.

If you think that the government is going to drop a nuke on Washington, well, I won't even discuss what that assertion means.

As for the ability of a million citizens being able to defend themselves, I'm not worried about it. Even if the government succeeds in slaughtering so much as a significant number of them, it means the end of the government and its replacement by force, because there are 299 million other citizens out there who will never tolerate such an abuse by the sitting government.

It would be suicidal for the government to attempt it, and the government knows it, and that, my friend, is precisely why the 2nd Amendment exists.

I'm sorry, this is quite, quite detached from reality. Not all bombs are nuclear bombs. The government could just as easily lob a missile into such a mob, which can be dispersed with conventional explosives. They won't be given a chance to tolerate jack or shit.

And then when the USMC is sent in to mop up the sad remnants of traitorous bastards, they won't put up much of a fight because most of these idiots are over 65, and the last thing they shot off was their mouth.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. A million peaceful marchers have a bomb dropped on them by their own government and they are the traitors!?

I think it's cute you equated peaceful marchers with armed mob.

NineOneFour wrote:

Seth wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

Strawman, yet again. That isn't what I said. In any given population, gun owners, Boy Scouts, atheists, whatever. About 10% of any given population is basically nuts.

So 10% of the gun owners who march on April 19 will be nuts. It would only take one asshole firing a gun off, even if 999,000 are sane, normal people.

This is the fallacy of biased sample. First, your assertion that 10 percent of any given population "is basically nuts" is unsupported. Second, even if you observed that 10 percent of some population were "basically nuts," it does not follow that ten percent of EVERY gathering of human beings is "basically nuts."

Again, it'll only take ONE.

This is again nonsense because it presumes that a crowd of armed citizens peacefully assembling are actually a powder-keg of insane radicals ready to open up with everything they have on the government at the slightest provocation. You have absolutely no rational justification for making this claim.

I can tell you what I, and I suspect most other peaceable, law-abiding citizens would do if some nutcase starts shooting in a crowd of a million people: we would jump him from every side, restrain him, disarm him and turn him over to the police.

I'm sorry, this is quite, quite detached from reality. Not all bombs are nuclear bombs. The government could just as easily lob a missile into such a mob, which can be dispersed with conventional explosives. They won't be given a chance to tolerate jack or shit.

Again, this would be political suicide, and the victims would be martyrs to the cause of liberty, and such an act would guarantee a change in government.

And then when the USMC is sent in to mop up the sad remnants of traitorous bastards, they won't put up much of a fight because most of these idiots are over 65, and the last thing they shot off was their mouth.

Interesting that you characterize a peaceful protest and petitioning of government for redress of grievances as "traitorous" while characterizing the indiscriminate slaughter of US citizens by a tyrannical government in the same mode as Tiananmen Square, as the act of a just and legitimate government.

Such arguments are, I admit, frequently heard in the halls of totalitarian Socialist regimes, but never in the halls of the Congress of the United States.

Ciarin wrote:

Jörmungandr wrote:


Talking about Washington lobbing a missile into Washington, and someone else is detached from reality.

You mean like how new york started firing artillery into new york?

Been watching "The Gangs of New York" again, have we?

But you make a valid point, and the military was called into NYC in July of 1863, in response to some 50,000 (predominantly but not exclusively) Irish rioters who did more than $1.5 million in damage in response to the Enrollment Act (conscription). However, the artillery barrage in the movie was largely fictional. Some artillery was used to restore order, as were Gatling guns, particularly by troops called in to quell the riots fresh from Gettysburg and disinclined to be merciful. But, estimates range from 150 to 2000 dead, and 2000 to 8000 dead. Many of the dead were blacks, who were targeted and attacked by the mobs as scapegoats, both because they were seen as economic competition for scarce jobs and as the reason for the draft.

There is no question that the government would use force to quell a riot on the National Mall, but it's unlikely that such a riot would ensue, unless deliberately provoked BY the government, because the entire reason for such a march is to demonstrate that the peaceable possession of arms is NOT a threat to social stability.

Warren Dew wrote:

David M wrote:Then you'd be comparing apples and oranges and making an obvious mistake. Anyone trying to claim that the per capita crime figures for the UK are 6 times higher that the US for the same crimes is either ignorant or lying, you choose.

But here's the problem: your comparison is just as bad. You admit that there are a tremendous number of crimes that result in "minor" injury, but refuse to include them in the statistics. Many of those would fall under aggravated assault in the U.S. I may be comparing apples with oranges, but you're comparing oranges with bananas. "Ignorant or lying" would apply at least as much to your comparison as to mine.

My comparison was correct, I included the crime that is comparable to aggravated assault and stated the percentage of crimes involving less serious injury that would be needed just to match the level of aggravated assault in the US. In the first post I did state that there are a huge number of assaults that result in no injury, thats because common assault which doesn't include a weapon and encompasses any injury down to a simple mark is counted as a violent crime but is comparable to simple assault in the US which is not considered a "Violent Crime".

Simple Assault in the US makes up 80% of all reported assaults. The truth is that the US categorises far fewer crimes as being "Violent Crime".

Warren Dew wrote:

As I have shown more than once the UK classes quite a few crimes as violent which the US does not. These crimes make up around 90% of "violent crime" in the UK but don't even make it into the violent crime figures in the US. Harrassment is counted as a violent crime in the UK ffs.

You haven't shown anything of the sort. "Crimes of violence", according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, includes simple assault, including threats which the perpetrator does not even attempt to carry out.

I did not say "Crimes of Violence" I said "Violent Crimes", in the US they are not the same thing. In the UK they are however. Once again apples to apples.

And when comparing "Crimes of Violence" rather than "Violent Crime" you do not get a 6 to 1 ratio for the UK to the US, you do when comparing "Violent Crime" which is only a subset of "Crimes of Violence". Thats why the FBI quoted around 1.4 million estimated "Violent Crimes" in 2007 when there are an estimated 5.1 million "Crimes of Violence".

Here is the figure for "violent Crimes" in the US for 2007.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

Take that figure and compare it to the UK's and you get near to a 6 to 1 ratio for "Violent Crime", but as I have shown this is not an accurate comparison.

Warren Dew wrote:

Here you go though for 2007.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus07.pdf

Rate of Crimes of Violence against the person for the US = 20.7 per 1,000. (US Department of Justice)
Rate of Crimes of Violence against the person for the UK = 19.6 per 1,000 (UK Home Office).

Except that the US number is not per 1000 population, it's "per person or household", so you are distorting things again.

Wrong, the column heading is "Rate per 1,000 persons or households". Thats why the rate given for of Personal Crimes is the total number divided by the population they list times 1000 and why the Rate of Property Crimes is the total number divided by the number of households they list.

You are the one distorting things here, The Rates for Personal Crimes are per 1,000 persons and they give the population they used to calculate it, the Rates for Property Crimes are per household and they give the number of households they used to calculate it.

Unless you want to argue that the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics people can't perform long division you should admit that you did not understand the column heading.

Warren Dew wrote:That's easily remedied, though. Simply divide the 5.18 million "crimes of violence" in the U.S. by the 2007 U.S. population of 299 million. We get a rate of 17.3 per thousand population, 12% lower than the UK rate.

Wrong again, the US crime numbers are for victims over the age of 12, meaning you have to divide by 250,344,870 as stated in the report and in their methodology. The UK figures are for all victims as they are for all reported crime, meaning you have to divide by 60,975,000.

But its nice to see that even by your maths the "six times higher than that US" number is debunked as its now 12% higher.

Warren Dew wrote:However, that understates the differences because of methodology. The U.S. statistics are based on surveys, and thus capture many events that were never even reported to the police. In addition, less than 1/3 of the U.S. events are "completed violence", which merely means that there was physical contact, whereas your earlier statements indicate that about half the UK events resulted in actual injury, even if only minor. So that substantially understates the amount by which the UK has more violent crime than the U.S.

Ok, the methodology looks to be different, to bottom this out we would need to identify the proportion of crimes that are reported to the police for each category. However you would need to presume massive undereporting to the UK police of violent crime to arrive at "six times higher than that of the US".

Please give a page reference where they give a definition of completed violence as meaning there was physical contact, as that phrase does not appear in the report.

What the report says is "Completed violence - The sum of all completed rapes, sexual assaults, robberies, and assaults. See individual crime types for definition of completed crimes." And yet the definitions for aggravated and simple assault have no definition for "completed". Adding up all "completed" crimes in that table and all "with injury" for assaults (as these don't list completed) and the number of rapes gives a number higher than that given for "Completed Violence".

I am unconvinced that there as substantial understatement of UK crime, here we are going to run into a problem of definitions as "with injury" for simple assault in the US means "An attack without a weapon resulting in such injuries as bruises, black eyes, cuts or in undetermined injury requiring less than 2 days of hospitalization." (from that report) while in the UK common assault with injury extends down to Reddening of the skin so even there we have assaults that would be classed as "with injury" in the UK but not in the US.

Warren Dew wrote:Still, as you might say, "there you are". The UK has a higher rate of violent crime than the US even when the US figures include a broader set of events than the UK figures. If there's any relation to gun ownership, it would indicate that gun ownership tends to suppress crimes of violence.

[/quote]

Or I wouldn't say that.

Seth wrote:

Ciarin wrote:

Jörmungandr wrote:


Talking about Washington lobbing a missile into Washington, and someone else is detached from reality.

You mean like how new york started firing artillery into new york?

Been watching "The Gangs of New York" again, have we?

Nope.

Here's a link to a rebuttal to the assertion that UK homeowners have any right to defend themselves in their homes that destroys any notion that liberty, property or safety are protected there.

If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night you can presume he is not there to read the gas meter. But current British law insists that he have the freedom of the premises. When, last Christmas, thousands of Radio 4's Today listeners called for legislation authorising them to protect their homes by any means necessary, the proposal was immediately denounced as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable, blood-stained piece of legislation". Until recently that "unworkable, blood-stained" legislation was the law of the land. There was no need to retreat from your home, or from any room within it. An Englishman's home was his refuge, and, indeed, his castle.

But no more. Rather than permitting people to protect themselves, the authorities' response to the recent series of brutal attacks on home-owners has been to advise people to get more locks and, in case of a break-in, retreat to a secure room - presumably the bathroom - to call the police. They are not to keep any weapon for protection or approach the intruder. Someone might get hurt. If that someone is the intruder the resident will be sued by the burglar and vigorously prosecuted by the state. I heartily applaud The Sunday Telegraph's campaign to end this lamentable state of affairs.

...continued at the link

Have you considered referring to facts instead of opinions in your arguments Seth?

Seth wrote:Here's a link to a rebuttal to the assertion that UK homeowners have any right to defend themselves in their homes that destroys any notion that liberty, property or safety are protected there.

If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night you can presume he is not there to read the gas meter. But current British law insists that he have the freedom of the premises. When, last Christmas, thousands of Radio 4's Today listeners called for legislation authorising them to protect their homes by any means necessary, the proposal was immediately denounced as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable, blood-stained piece of legislation". Until recently that "unworkable, blood-stained" legislation was the law of the land. There was no need to retreat from your home, or from any room within it. An Englishman's home was his refuge, and, indeed, his castle.

But no more. Rather than permitting people to protect themselves, the authorities' response to the recent series of brutal attacks on home-owners has been to advise people to get more locks and, in case of a break-in, retreat to a secure room - presumably the bathroom - to call the police. They are not to keep any weapon for protection or approach the intruder. Someone might get hurt. If that someone is the intruder the resident will be sued by the burglar and vigorously prosecuted by the state. I heartily applaud The Sunday Telegraph's campaign to end this lamentable state of affairs.

...continued at the link

or how about this?
http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/self-defence-law.html

There has been confusion about what is permitted under the law when an individual is acting in self-defence. Some have even suggested that the law gives more protection to criminals than to honest citizens acting to protect themselves, their family and their homes. There is a belief that citizens in the USA are in a much stronger position as far as the law on self-defence is concerned.

However, although not enshrined in statute, the law in this country is very clear:

* an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others;
* they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so;
* the level of violence may include killing the assailant; and,
* an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence.

trubble76 wrote:

Seth wrote:Here's a link to a rebuttal to the assertion that UK homeowners have any right to defend themselves in their homes that destroys any notion that liberty, property or safety are protected there.

If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night you can presume he is not there to read the gas meter. But current British law insists that he have the freedom of the premises. When, last Christmas, thousands of Radio 4's Today listeners called for legislation authorising them to protect their homes by any means necessary, the proposal was immediately denounced as a "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable, blood-stained piece of legislation". Until recently that "unworkable, blood-stained" legislation was the law of the land. There was no need to retreat from your home, or from any room within it. An Englishman's home was his refuge, and, indeed, his castle.

But no more. Rather than permitting people to protect themselves, the authorities' response to the recent series of brutal attacks on home-owners has been to advise people to get more locks and, in case of a break-in, retreat to a secure room - presumably the bathroom - to call the police. They are not to keep any weapon for protection or approach the intruder. Someone might get hurt. If that someone is the intruder the resident will be sued by the burglar and vigorously prosecuted by the state. I heartily applaud The Sunday Telegraph's campaign to end this lamentable state of affairs.

...continued at the link

or how about this?
http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/self-defence-law.html

There has been confusion about what is permitted under the law when an individual is acting in self-defence. Some have even suggested that the law gives more protection to criminals than to honest citizens acting to protect themselves, their family and their homes. There is a belief that citizens in the USA are in a much stronger position as far as the law on self-defence is concerned.

However, although not enshrined in statute, the law in this country is very clear:

* an individual is entitled to protect themselves or others;
* they may inflict violence and/or use weapons to do so;
* the level of violence may include killing the assailant; and,
* an individual may even act pre-emptively and still be found to have acted in self-defence.

Or this: http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.go ... htm#safety

The law on self-defence
Under the law you are entitled to use reasonable force in self-defence or to protect another person or your property.

The force that it is reasonable to use in any situation will depend on the threat that you are facing. For example, the level of force that you can use to defend your life is greater than the force you can use to defend your property.

What 'reasonable force' is will depend on the circumstances of each case and is something that only the courts can decide. This does not mean that if you injure a criminal while defending yourself or your property you will necessarily face criminal charges. But if the criminal complains that you have used unreasonable force, the police must investigate.

In the heat of the moment and in a panic it may be hard for you to assess the level of danger that you face. However, if charges are brought against you, the courts take account of what was reasonable for you in those circumstances – they will make some allowances for 'heat of the moment' panic.

The courts believe that if you did only what you honestly and instinctively thought necessary to prevent a crime, that would be strong evidence that you used only reasonable force. Generally, the courts use common sense and take account of what it is like to be faced with a violent or possibly violent criminal.

The law does not allow you to retaliate. Punishing criminals is a matter for the courts and you must not take the law into your own hands by trying to punish an offender for a crime committed against you, your friends, or your family.

But let's not go with official government guidelines prepared by legal experts and just go with what some journalist on a right-wing newspaper has to say. It "fits the facts" (or makes "facts to fit") after all.

Seth wrote:The problem is systemic. Citizens in the UK have been raised, for generation upon generation, to be obedient and compliant with government, since, well, pretty much forever. The English have always been vassals and servants of the King in one way or another, so they know nothing different and as a matter of education and culture are unable to actually comprehend freedom as we in the US do.

The British comprehension of freedom used to be the same as America's.

We sure comprehended liberty when we fought two civil wars against royal tyranny, beheaded Charles I, and threw James II off the throne in 1689, a revolution that ended with the passage of the Bill of Rights, which annihilated royal power forever, and from which the Second Amendment has its origins (and the eighth is lifted almost verbatim). It's the powerless king who's the servant and vassal. Deference is a chimera. Not for nothing did the Pilgrim Fathers come from England and Scotland. The US comprehension of freedom was just Britain's floated across the Atlantic.

What's changed is the growth of the state in the past century. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that World War One, which saw over a million British men slaughtered in Flanders mud, shook us to the core, and made us so terrified of violence we abandoned reason in its application. Witness the rise in pacifism in the 1930s, which operated on identical logic to current gun prohibitionists, and advocated unilateral disarmament in the face of European fascism. There's a canny, furious scene at the end of the 1938 movie The Lady Vanishes that makes the link explicit, and shows where surrendering to your attackers leads.

Read the Sherlock Holmes stories from before all this, where Holmes and Watson think nothing of pocketing revolvers, no license or permission needed, before setting off on private missions. Alongside a thoroughgoing contempt for the police. British individualism used to be in rude health. It's dormant, not gone.

Count Otto Black wrote:

Byron wrote:Neither is riding in a car, or being hit by a car when crossing the road.

This is getting absurd...

It is, but the absurdity lies in the inconsistency of approach, not the person who raises it. Don't shoot the messenger.

Who in the hell is the bright light who thought it was appropriate to derail this thread by turning it into a fucking discussion about burkas and minarets and women's rights!?!

America's favorite militia:

The former president of Blackwater has been indicted on weapons charges.

Federal prosecutors today charged Gary Jackson with conspiracy to violate firearms laws, false statements and possession of an unregistered firearm, reports the Associated Press.

Four others were also charged, including former general counsel Andrew Howell and former executive vice president Bill Mathews.

The AP reported last month that the Feds were considering charges stemming from a 2008 raid, in which federal agents found and seized 22 weapons, including 17 AK-47s. The Feds were probing whether Blackwater obtained the letterhead of a local sheriff in order to create a false justification for buying the guns.

Blackwater changed its name to Xe Services last year, after a 2007 shooting by Blackwater guards in Baghdad killed 17 Iraqis.


Late Update: The AP names the other two people charged: "Ana Bundy, who at one point had oversight of the firm's armory, and Ronald Slezak, who was hired to oversee documents related to the company's status as a firearms dealer."

MORE: http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... hp?ref=fpa

Whack-jobs prepare to show off what they ordered off the internet and the computer machine. Rally is tomorrow.

Daniel Almond, a three-tour veteran of Iraq, is ready to "muster outside D.C." on Monday with several dozen other self-proclaimed patriots, all of them armed. They intend to make history as the first people to take their guns to a demonstration in a national park, and the Virginia rally is deliberately being held in sight of the Capitol, just a few miles from the White House.

Almond plans to have his pistol loaded and openly carried, his rifle unloaded and slung to the rear, a bandoleer of magazines containing ammunition draped over his polo-shirted shoulder. The Atlanta-area real-estate agent organized the rally because he is upset about healthcare, climate control, bank bailouts, drug laws and what he sees as President Obama's insistence on and the Democratic Congress's capitulation to a "totalitarian socialism" that tramples individual rights.

A member of several heretofore little-known groups, including Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Freedom, and Oathkeepers, former and active military and law enforcement officials who have vowed to resist laws they deem unconstitutional, Almond, 31, considers packing heat on the doorstep of the federal government within the mainstream of political speech.

Others consider it an alarming escalation of paranoia and anger in the age of Obama.

MORE AT: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews