Only the English are this crazy

MeekAndMild

New member
British meter maids getting knocked around doing thier jobs, and not fighting back, resisting, NOTHING, bred to helpessness and servility
The weird thing is, when put to the vote, the British police vote everytime not for everyone of them to be armed.

Whoa! There may be an interesting reason for this related more to developmental psychology than to legalities. I've done extensive reading about psychology of the new age nonviolent, nonspanking method of child rearing. One interesting thing (among many) which occurs is that when the child grows up in a home where there is no corporal punishment they appear to be less likely to be able to physically protect themselves from violent people and less likely to harbor a desire to protect others from violence. There appears to be more likelihood of a 'catastrophic' reaction, with the person's willpower 'shutting down' if they've not been taught how to deal with pain and physical confrontation in childhood.

Think of it as being similar to what happens to a child when they aren't allowed to get chicken pox (or its immunization) when they're young. Then they get exposed to it when they're 30. Instead of an itchy rash and little bit of fever they get overwhelming pneumonia and a lot of them die.

This is important for the US because we also are dealing with a trend of a wide segment of the population considering normal spanking to be child abuse, normal schoolyard fighting as being something to settle in court instead of "both of you get to the gym and put on gloves", and wanting children to be wrapped in figurative cotton batting. Our society is being changed from one of tough, fairly equal citizens to something else...

My 2 cents worth.

Edited to add that of course there is a great deal of dissent about such opinions, going all the way back to Margaret Mead's studies about childrearing practices. Unfortunately anthropologists who retraced Mead's work (and talked to her original subjects in their later lives) have found a good bit of it to have been fabricated...
 

wayneinFL

New member
One interesting thing (among many) which occurs is that when the child grows up in a home where there is no corporal punishment they appear to be less likely to be able to physically protect themselves from violent people and less likely to harbor a desire to protect others from violence. There appears to be more likelihood of a 'catastrophic' reaction, with the person's willpower 'shutting down' if they've not been taught how to deal with pain and physical confrontation in childhood.

Interesting. Do you have a link tpo any research studies that show this?
 

44capnball

New member
I agree with FirstFreedom. I'm glad they're taking the guns from the police too. At least they are pretending like they actually believe their gun control is taking guns from criminals.

The anti's envision some kind of brave new world where everybody's docile and their brains are mush. They want a nation of Eloi, well they forgot about the Morlocks. There's always going to be Morlocks.

It's like inviting a bobcat into your henhouse. That'll work out real good for ya.

Can't say I feel sorry for the British who let themselves be disarmed though.

Gun control is the work of liars and tyrants, to be lived by cowards and subjects.
 

The Tourist

Moderator
44capnball said:
brave new world where everybody's docile and their brains are mush...Gun control is the work of liars and tyrants

It depends on whose ox is being gored.

During this past week we had an insipid thread about community policing where LEOs should act as shock troops spreading PTSD.

And in that same week we criticized the British for allowing LEOs to treat them like subjects.

So I ask the question, are we supposed to act like trembling subjects and tolerate aggressive policing, or are we to oppose being stripped of rights, as has happened to the British?

I mean, pick a horse and ride him to the finish line. And don't give me that smarmy answer (and I mean the general forum, not 44) that "negotiation and tolerance" are key factors here. Every time that citizens allow rights and privileges to be usurped, we never get them back.
 

44capnball

New member
So I ask the question, are we supposed to act like trembling subjects and tolerate aggressive policing, or are we to oppose being stripped of rights, as has happened to the British?

We shouldn't tolerate either aggressive policing or being stripped of rights. Because both ways, you are losing the right to self defense and life & liberty.

I wouldn't feel unsafe in a town where the police carried no guns. But I would feel unsafe in a town where the citizens were not permitted to own guns.

What I'm saying is, California's approach is maybe even worse than England's. California wants their cake and eat it too. You with no guns, and the police with army tanks and humvee mounted mini's.

I mean, pick a horse and ride him to the finish line. And don't give me that smarmy answer (and I mean the general forum, not 44) that "negotiation and tolerance" are key factors here. Every time that citizens allow rights and privileges to be usurped, we never get them back.

I can't speak for the others but the horse I ride says this:

Dear Lawmakers, Please keep your hands off my rights. Crime is your responsibility to manage within the framework of the Constitution. Tough job, eh. If you don't like it step down and give someone else a try.
 

Mainah

New member
The BBC recently hosted a forum about gun laws in the U.S.A. (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3964&edition=2&ttl=20071229192532), and like every forum they host it was filled with anti-U.S. posts, they came from people in other countries who were falling all over themselves to call us barbarians because of our love for firearms. It was both sad and funny to read what people in the UK, Asia, and Europe thought about our society.

In the end it made me angry to read so many people describing so many misconceptions about the United States who were so willing to cast judgement (like pretty much every forum on BBC, I don't know why I keep going back for more). I ended up wondering why people in other countries got so worked up about how we feel about guns here, it's simply none of their business.

And as I read through this thread I wonder if it's any of our business how Great Britain handles their guns. I understand the importance of tracking what extreme gun control does to increase crime, all of us here certainly agree that it's a bad idea. But it's a bad idea that has a great deal of support in England. Who are we to tell them what to do?
 

MeekAndMild

New member
Wayne, there is more to it than one could get to in one post. Corporal punishment needs to be given in a manner so as to protect the child from worsened results of poor choices and not arbitrary punishment for the sake of 'toughening' the child. (Of course that is the modern viewpoint and not the viewpoint of the winners of many historical wars.)

I conjecture that what we're seeing in Britain is the cumulative results of 2-3 generations of ineffective parenting, ineffective discipline, random parental violence (i.e. rages by drunken parents), state dependency, et cetera. which leads the citizens to become for lack of a better term 'sheeple'.

Here is a link to a general article which discusses some of the concepts but you're seeking but please remember that the article was written from the viewpoint of a person who probably has no experience in studying effective traditional parenting...and his conclusions were drawn only from seeing pathological parenting. http://www.childtrauma.org/ctamaterials/vio_child.asp
 

LightningJoe

New member
From what I've heard, the British never much cared for guns or gun rights in the first place and that's why they haven't resisted the erosion of those rights. They don't value them.
 

Bog

New member
Britain is rapidly turning into a case study of what happens when you "make things easy for the majority". My folks brought me here when UK schooling was amongst the best on the planet. These days, it's a joke. When I went through the UK school system, I was taught to fly planes, fire everything from a .177 airgun through to a Bren gun, and take care of same.

They also taught me a lot of good science. Really, really good science. This, sadly, makes me some kind of Tango these days unless I lie on the form that says "Do you know how to make a bomb?" because I and every other bugger who did O-level chemistry at age 16 knows how to make a sodding bomb. They seem to have "corrected this oversight" now, and UK science teaching is a joke, fit to make bubbling black ichor stream from my eye-sockets.

There's been a raging debate in the Commons today about whether it's "damging" or not to let children play with toy guns. TOY GUNS. http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7160000/newsid_7164000/7164012.stm Jumping geriatric Jehoshaphat on a giant jellybean.
 

Bud Helms

Senior Member
The Tourist said:
During this past week we had an insipid thread about community policing where LEOs should act as shock troops spreading PTSD.

As I recall, that thread wasn't "about community policing where LEOs should act as shock troops spreading PTSD" exactly. It was a discussion around an expose' article concerning a slogan chosen by the cadets in a particular police academy. Some one in that thread may have advocated that, but that LEOs should do so was not what that thread was about. As I recall, in that thread there was general outrage at the idea.

Since this is about the politics of gun control, we're moving it to L&P.
 

jakeswensonmt

New member
OP'd by Vermont
In the United States giving up privacy from government for safety is largely a conservative thing.

To me it seems like the liberals and conservatives both bear the guilt for eroding our privacy. Conservatives spy on your bank account and listen in on your phone calls, liberals tell you how to raise your children and make it a crime to think unpopular thoughts. Both will confiscate your guns.There's guilt enough to go around for pretty much everyone in DC.

OP'd by Bog
This, sadly, makes me some kind of Tango these days unless I lie on the form that says "Do you know how to make a bomb?"

Unreal. Seriously. What form asks you that question? Where I grew up everyone who ever passed chemistry or played with sparklers knows how to make a bomb.
 

MeekAndMild

New member
This, sadly, makes me some kind of Tango these days unless I lie on the form that says "Do you know how to make a bomb?"
That is sad. I suppose that in these times when it is politically incorrect for the powers that be to acknowledge the ethnic difference between the average Al Quida operative and a geriatric Anglo-American it can't be helped. Just a few decades ago it was expected that responsible citizens could normally be trusted with such knowledge. When I read your post I immediately thought of the philosopher Hubert Dreyfus, a senior scholar who got his interest in science 60 years ago blowing things up in high school.
 

The Tourist

Moderator
Bud Helms said:
As I recall, that thread wasn't "about community policing

For the purposes of this debate, I'm not either. My point is duplicity.

When we speak about England, we point out aspects like disarmorment or mental attitude, as in 'sheeple.'

However, we do not apply those very ideals to ourselves. If it's wrong for the "English attitude," then it is also a wrong ideal for us.

My point is simply to cowboy up. Wrong is wrong. I am not a subject, I do not deserve to be treated as one in a Republic with enumerated rights. And I stand on my premise. Pick a side.
 

jakeswensonmt

New member
The BBC recently hosted a forum about gun laws in the U.S.A. (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thre...20071229192532), and like every forum they host it was filled with anti-U.S. posts, they came from people in other countries who were falling all over themselves to call us barbarians because of our love for firearms. It was both sad and funny to read what people in the UK, Asia, and Europe thought about our society.

Just read through a few pages of that forum. Pathetic. Sheeple. Amazing level of ignorance and idiocy displayed by not just the majority of UK posters, but from many other locations including plenty of brain-dead US anti's too. Had to laugh at all the muslim-sounding names from the uk, middle east, and africa demanding that the US disarm itself. Yeah, that's gonna happen Abdul...
 

Nev C

New member
Muslims disarming?

Just read through a few pages of that forum. Pathetic. Sheeple. Amazing level of ignorance and idiocy displayed by not just the majority of UK posters, but from many other locations including plenty of brain-dead US anti's too. Had to laugh at all the muslim-sounding names from the uk, middle east, and africa demanding that the US disarm itself. Yeah, that's gonna happen Abdul...

Muslims preaching anti gun sentiments, what a joke, citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have guns do they!
 

ranger39000

New member
I'm surprised at the number of supposed "LEO's" from U.S. on the forum. I hope the "police" on forum do not represent the majority of them. If so, we, as citizens, are in alot of trouble.
 

HarrySchell

New member
The sad case of Britain has been coming up pretty regularly in the last couple of weeks.

I keep posting comments in Britsh media asking people when they will finally have had enough and insist the political class change its path. I guess that is about all one can do. The current formula clearly is not winning. But my guess is the average Brit just wants to "muddle through". No longer great, Britain.

There is a lesson for us in this travesty.
 

Mk VII

New member
There's a reason why they are all flailing around ineffectually. Here is how a 'United States'-style treatment of a similar incident here went. (i)A mistrial, (ii) a hung jury, (iii) an acquittal:-

Pc is cleared of murder in car thief shooting
By Sue Clough, Courts Correspondent



THE first police officer to be charged with murder while on duty was acquitted by an Old Bailey jury yesterday.

Pc Hodgson, 49, a firearms expert, was part of the crew of an armed response vehicle that spotted a stolen sports car outside a shop in Barnes, south London, in February 1995. He shot David Ewin, 38, twice as he tried to drove the car "like maniac" in an attempt to escape.

Pc Hodgson's future is still under consideration by the Metropolitan Police and he remains suspended from duty. The incident has led to a wide-ranging review of police firearms procedures. Det Supt Aidan Thorne, of the Criminal Investigation Bureau, said outside court: "There are a large number of lessons to be learned and they are actively being considered."

Mr Ewin's mother, Jean, described the verdict as outrageous. She said: "People steal cars all the time - it's no excuse to shoot."

Pc Hodgson claimed that he had no other choice when he fired at Mr Ewin as he shunted backwards and forwards at high speed.

Mr Ewin, a convicted criminal on licence from a five-year sentence for armed robbery, was high on a mixture of cannabis, cocaine, heroin and alcohol.

John Bevan, QC, prosecuting alleged that Pc Hodgson fired in panic or anger, breaking his firearms training instructions, not only on the use of guns, but the circumstances in which they could be used. These stated: "Firearms may be fired only as a last resort when other methods must have been tried and failed or are unlikely to succeed under the circumstances."

Mr Bevan claimed that the shooting was "unnecessary" because there were other options open to the officer, and by the time he pulled the trigger of his regulation issue Glock pistol, Ewin posed no threat to him or to bystanders. "The only danger he posed was to the bodywork of the cars around him," Mr Bevan said.

Mr Bevan said Hodgson's partner, Pc Patrick Kelly, had never drawn his gun. He had described himself as "very confused and shocked because at no stage had he perceived it as an armed incident".

As Mr Ewin was hit, he shouted: "You bastard, you have shot me in the stomach." He was flown to hospital by air ambulance and was operated on, but died two weeks later.

When other officers arrived at the scene they found Hodgson pale and shaken. He said: "Why didn't he do as he was told . . . I had no choice."

As Mr Ewin tried to drive off, spinning the car wheels until they smoked, Pc Hodgson grabbed hold of his shirt and other vehicles boxed him in. There was a danger at this stage, said Mr Bevan, that Hodgson would be squashed between the cars. After trying to smash the windscreen with the butt of his gun, the officer moved to the pavement where he crouched down and fired two shots.

"The shooting of Ewin was unnecessary at a time when the physical risk to the defendant had passed because he was on the pavement and could have stepped back had he wished to," Mr Bevan said.

Hodgson said he fired his gun twice after Mr Ewin ignored all warnings to stop and because he believed his life and those of bystanders were at risk. He told the jury: "The danger was escalating second by second. I had tried everything else, all conventional methods, I fired as a last resort. I had never encountered anything like it before. I had never come across anyone so desperate to get away and ignoring everything."

Pc Hodgson, who has been in the police firearms unit, SO19, since 1980 said he had never before had to fire his weapon on operational duty. He said that without exception in his experience suspects confronted by armed police gave themselves up. When he drew his gun and shouted "Armed police" he had expected Mr Ewin to surrender.

Pc Hodgson said he regretted Mr Ewin's death but repeated that he believed that he had no choice. Mr Ewin had ignored his shouts of "Armed police" and the officer feared that he might be armed.

Pc Hodgson, who had denied murder and manslaughter, faced three trials before he was finally acquitted of murder and manslaughter. His first trial last December was aborted just before the jury was due to retire after an outburst from the public gallery (shouted allegations from the public gallery caused the judge to discharge the jury and declare a mistrial). The second jury was unable to agree a verdict.

Before the third trial started Richard Ferguson, QC, for Hodgson, applied for it to be stayed on the grounds of abuse of process.

He cited medical and psychological evidence that the prolonged ordeal had affected Hodgson's confidence and ability to defend himself properly. But the judge ordered that the trial should go ahead.

Det Supt Thorne said: "At the end of the day this is a tragedy for all concerned. A man has died and Pc Hodgson's future is now being considered. It is a very unusual set of circumstances that a man stands trial three times for murder."
 
Top