Milos Zeman’s a bit of a joke to be honest

And yet there’s some good sense sometimes:

Czech government tells its citizens how to fight terrorists: Shoot them yourselves

Guns are easily available – I’ve sat having a beer with someone carrying a pistol for example. True, it had to be carried inside a case, not a holster etc, but the laws are sensibly lax:

The Czech Republic already has some of the most lenient gun policies in Europe. It’s home to about 800,000 registered firearms and 300,000 people with gun licenses. Obtaining a weapon is relatively easy: Residents must be 21, pass a gun knowledge check and have no criminal record. By law, Czechs can use their weapons to protect their property or when in danger, although they need to prove they faced a real threat.

Why shouldn’t the populace defend the populace?

79 comments on “Milos Zeman’s a bit of a joke to be honest

  1. Why shouldn’t the populace defend the populace?

    Because eventually they will realise that they should defend the populace from the politicians. The politicians usually do not like this.

    They want to have guards with guns, walls, fences, cameras, all the security money can buy. They are less keen on the rest of us having the same security.

    Every adult male in the UK with a clean criminal record ought to be issued with an assault rifle.

  2. SMFS calls it right.

    A well-armed population that has the training, guts and above all the weapons to not take any shit from criminal/terrorist scum might just decide they are not going to take any more shit from political/bureaucratic scum either.

    You can be sure the porkers don’t want that.

  3. Hallowed Be – “We managed to fend off the fenian hordes without them. We’re doing fine.”

    We have consistently lost to the Irish and surrendered time and time again. How this is “fine” I don’t know.

    But more importantly, the population back then was different than it is now. White British people were, and to a large extent still are, extraordinary law abiding. The Third World immigrants foisted on us are not. We can expect more of the Chicago Facebook torture porn in the future. A lot more.

  4. “Why shouldn’t the populace defend the populace?”

    Culture? Apart from country areas, the UK has lost the shared sense of morality and personal responsibility that is a necessary condition for the prudent and safe ownership of guns.

    In a society as fragmented by immigration and insidious moral relativism as the UK is, the state will inevitably and increasingly stake a claim to have a monopoly on violence – and gun controls will be strengthened. It’s part of the price we have to pay for our rapidly diminishing ethnic and cultural homogeneity. (Only 0.1% of the Czech population is muslim, by the way.) And a diverse (and thus atomised) population held together by a strong state is the vision of the nation that most guardianistas hold, implicitly or explicitly. It is where social liberalism and left-liberalism tend to end up.

  5. SMFS
    “We have consistently lost to the Irish and surrendered time and time again. How this is “fine” I don’t know.”

    Irish terrorism is in abeyance. That’s why i say it’s fine. What would you change?

    3rd world terrorism is not in abeyance so it’s more of a current worry but its not fear for your life everyday stuff. An armed general population doesn’t have to lead to US levels of gun deaths but you have to admit the risk is there. I’ll not be putting my vote to that.

  6. “Irish terrorism is in abeyance. That’s why i say it’s fine.”

    That doesn’t necessarily follow.

    “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”

  7. Theo–So the more dangerous an environment the less people should be able to protect themselves?

    Crims and Jihadis can get all the firepower they want. I want the same..

    HB: You shouldn’t be asked. All have a right to defend themselves against unprovoked assault.

    NiV: Sweet Screaming Jesus– I agree with him.

  8. Hallowed Be – “Irish terrorism is in abeyance. That’s why i say it’s fine. What would you change?”

    We give them half of what they want. We disband all the security services aimed at fighting terrorism. We give them a veto over the police forces. We release all their murderers. While all they do is promise to stop while they re-group and re-arm for the next round.

    How is that fine?

    “An armed general population doesn’t have to lead to US levels of gun deaths but you have to admit the risk is there. I’ll not be putting my vote to that.”

    White British people, like White Americans, are very law abiding. They are not about to shoot anyone. So there is no point disarming them. Blacks on the other hand kill each other at about ten times the rate White people do. About the same rate as schizophrenics do. And somehow they manage to get the guns they need no matter what the law says. The Charlie Hebdo killers even got an RPG.

    So all your laws amount to is disarming White people so they can be killed more easily. I don’t see that as a bonus.

  9. NiV – it may not necessarily follow but we didn’t give up any freedom for security, so…

    SMFS –
    “We give them half of what they want. We disband all the security services aimed at fighting terrorism. We give them a veto over the police forces. We release all their murderers. While all they do is promise to stop while they re-group and re-arm for the next round.”

    Yeah well it wasn’t total victory like either side would have wanted but peace was made and peace is contagious. Or rather violence is contagious. The current generation are’nt half as likely to take up the cause of mass murder and their offspring even less likely. So as i say, though potential is still there, it’s fine as it is and assualt rifles for all the adult males is not going to make things better.
    Law abiding white Brits?- well if you say so, but you see you have a problem in that you can’t make laws by racial group. If you could and your assumption is correct then we would indeed be sacrificing freedom for security.

  10. I still remember getting on the Prague metro in 1990 and seeing a chap get on with an AR-15 over his shoulder. Lax gun laws in close to Communist times seemed odd.

  11. I can’t see the state ever allowing Brits to defend themselves with lethal force. They’d rather see hundreds of dead civilians and the rape of thousands of children than arm the populace.
    The policy on NI was to maintain an ‘acceptable level of violence’, so a few dozen civilians murdered every year was deemed a price worth paying by the powers that be. This only changed with the attack on Downing Street by the IRA, which resulted in the ‘Ring of Steel’ around central London and the so-called ‘Peace Process’.
    The same policy applies now to islamic terror, except with added rapes.

  12. HB –America’s gun violence consists mainly of black criminals shooting other black people in Democrat controlled shithole cities such as Chicago/Deadtroit/Baltimore/New Orleans–and gun suicides.

    Hear Bill Whittle:

    “Every time there is a shooting in America, our moral betters on the left immediately ammo up the assault rifle of their rhetorical arsenal: namely, our country’s sick, twisted obsession with personal firearms; our adolescent, psychosexual, dangerous and frankly embarrassing when facing our European film critic friends AMERICAN GUN CULTURE.

    Hopping over to the ever-reliable Wikipedia, for example, we discover that when it comes to per capita gun ownership, the USA does in fact top the list: when measured as the number of guns per 100 residents, the US comes in first, at ninety! NINETY guns per one hundred residents: evidence for the Progressives on the left that they do in fact live in the murder capitol of the world; because when it comes to gun ownership, America IS number one with a bullet, with by far the highest per capita gun ownership in the world – 90 guns per 100 people being half again more than the number two spot held by Serbia, with 58.2.

    Now all we have to do to prove the left-wing Progressive weenie case for banning guns is to do is a quick search for the per capita MURDER rate… and sure enough, leading the number two country by about half again more with 90 murders per 100,000 people is… Honduras.

    Socialist, gun-controlled Honduras. Because even though America has by far the highest per capita gun ownership rate, we don’t have the highest per capita murder rate. And unfortunately for the Progressive leftist argument, we’re not second either. Or third.

    When it comes to per capita murders, Team USA didn’t even make the top five.

    As a matter of fact, we didn’t even make the top ten.

    Or the top twenty. Or the top thirty. Or the top forty. We’re not in the top fifty per capita murders. Gun Culture America is not in the top sixty nations in terms of per capita murders. Or the top seventy. Or the top eighty. Or the top ninety.

    Of the 218 nations and territories listed for per capita murders, the United States of America – murderville – did not break the top one hundred. We are, with 4.7 murders per 100,000 people in 2012, number 111.

    111th place puts near top of the bottom half of all of the nations and territories in the world when it comes to total per capita murders… and virtually all – if not all — of those nations ranked higher than us are big-state socialist utopias with stringent gun control laws.

    How tragically disappointing that must be for our moral superiors.

    And unfortunately for the left, it gets worse. Because 111th place America’s murder rate of 4.7 per 100,000 citizens is artificially much higher than it should be, because it includes so many deadly, murderous, toxic places… like number one on the list of highly gun controlled, Democratically-governed-since-the-stone-age murder pits like Detroit Michigan.

    Detroit, with strict gun control laws has a per capita murder rate of 54.6 murders per 100,000 citizens. If Detroit were its own country, it would just beat Venezuela for SECOND as the most murderous country in the world, behind Honduras.

    America’s 111th place, 4.7 murder per 100,000 people also includes, in order, Democratically governed, heavily gun controlled New Orleans, with 53.2 murders per hundred thousand; St. Louis, with 35.5; Baltimore with 34.9; Newark, 34.4; Oakland, 31.8; followed by Stockton 23.7; Kansas City 22.6, Philadelphia 21.5, Cleveland 21.3, Memphis 20.2, Atlanta 19.0 and Chicago, with 18.5 murders per 100,000 per year.

    America’s per capita average of 4.7 murders includes all of these high-crime areas. The first city to appear in Gun-Mad Texas is Dallas, which isn’t in the top twenty. America’s overall average of 4.7 is as low as it is because of places like Plano, Texas – the last city on the list – with a murder rate of 0.4. Having been to Plano Texas several times, I can tell you with confidence that virtually every home in Plano Texas has an entire arsenal of Ar-15 assault rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, 30.06 hunting rifles, .45’s, .357s, 38s, 9mms, an assortment .22s for the kids to practice with, not to mention every species of bowie knife, hunting knife, jack knife, bayonet, switchblade pointy rocks and sharp sticks.

    The per capita murder rate in Gun Nut Central is 0.4 per 100,000: if the United States of America, as a nation, had the same murder rate as Plano Texas, we would not but 111 out of 218; we’d be 211 out of 218 – well below Switzerland at 0.6, HALF of Germany, Spain and Denmark at 0.8, and well, well below half of New Zealand, the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, France and Australia. If all of America had the murder rate of the gun-nut capital of Gun Culture USA – Plano, Texas – then America’s per capita murder rate would be ONE QUARTER of those murderous, violent, rampaging, death-worshipping Belgians with their horrific 1.6 murders per hundred thousand.”

    The above was written before the “benefits” of cultural enrichment had descended on Belgium.

  13. Theo–So the more dangerous an environment the less people should be able to protect themselves?

    Ecksy: given the state of our culture (or what’s left of it), we no longer have the necessary conditions for safe and widespread gun ownership, so allowing people “to protect themselves” with guns would lead to an even more dangerous environment for all.

  14. Mr Ecks- shitholes exist, different racial groups exist, gun laws in Yorkshire don’t mean much if you can hope over the border to Berwick. Plano sounds a nice enough place live and to pick cherries but if you’re talking about giving the adult population of unicornville and shitville alike guns to make things better it’s still deeply unconvincing.

  15. “Ecksy: given the state of our culture (or what’s left of it), we no longer have the necessary conditions for safe and widespread gun ownership, so allowing people “to protect themselves” with guns would lead to an even more dangerous environment for all.”

    I am interested in protecting me and mine Theo. Considering you have daughters ( I think–unless I that is Interested) you should be the same. You want to see your family suffer at the hands of those illegally armed? While you have no chance to successfully intervene?

    Nor do I agree that the native British are sundered. Sure we have a couple of million middle-class Marxist London (nice) Bubble scum (tops) . But the London nice Bubble would rapidly destroyed or changed forever by even a nodding acquaintance with the denizens of the London “nasty” Bubble. Which they lack at present. Times change.

    The Media noise the Bubblers make misleads people. I think you will be surprised how much English spirit survives. We need to break free of the “elite” class of scum that’s all.

  16. HB: The Shitville crowd can get all the firepower they want. The only question is if you want to be able to return their fire.

  17. @SMFS

    “Blacks on the other hand kill each other at about ten times the rate White people do”

    It’s 8 to 1.

    It’s really black men, not blacks. That 6.5% of the population commits 54.5% of ‘homicide by firearms discharge.’ For non-black males, the U.S. rate is under 2 per 100,000, quite low on the world stage.

    Theo, this is ignorant:

    “Ecksy: given the state of our culture (or what’s left of it), we no longer have the necessary conditions for safe and widespread gun ownership”

    Spontaneous order takes over.

    http://oll.libertyfund.org/groups/104

  18. Gamecock
    I used to be an anarcho-capitalist, so I’m quite familiar with (not ignorant of) your libertarian arguments.
    ‘Spontaneous order’ could take over only where the culture is appropriate. It’s not going to emerge in an increasingly multi-ethnic, multi-faith and morally pluralist country.

  19. The IRA was ended by 9/11, at which point it became obvious to their main source* of funding, the pubs of Boston whose understanding of terrorism was restricted to Republican songs of the 20s, that sending money to terrorists might not be such a bright idea. The fact that they’d been so thoroughly penetrated by the security services that no-one knew who was a tout and who wasn’t, didn’t help either.

    Blair (predictably, given his success at negotiating with the EU – giving away half our rebate for a vague promise that the CAP would be reexamined at some point in the future) made a complete balls up of the negotiations and gave away far too much.

    * and their second source, Gaddafi, was gone a few years later

  20. Ecksy

    “I am interested in protecting me and mine Theo. ”

    So am I, particularly my daughter. But allowing more widespread gun ownership will ensure only that more irresponsible people – the neurotic, the angry, the bitter, the drunk, the drugged, the poorly socialised etc, etc – will be trigger happy.

  21. Re-arming the British people would not be a problem: I speak as someone who as helped run more than one shooting club, and taken a variety of people, from a standing start, to firearm certificate in a few months.

    What those people had in common was maturity, responsibility, competence and, I am pretty confident, patriotism.

    The clubs have had a hard time, but the movement could soon be revived. Bring in former servicemen and policemen to leaven the civvies, and in two years I will deliver the makings of a militia, along with an increasingly mature, responsible, competent and patriotic populace.

  22. Theo, you are worrying too much. Laws can exclude most of the unfit, and so can the clubs. Recall that, as explained by Bill Whittle, the safest parts of the US have a lot of firearms.

    What we lack is the culture, where youngsters are trained in responsible firearms handling by parents. So, we use the clubs.

  23. Theo you sound like a bleeding heart social democrat. Ecksy is right you are wrong. Law abiding citizens should be allowed to own weapons and defend their own property with lethal force if necessary.

  24. : The Shitville crowd can get all the firepower they want. The only question is if you want to be able to return their fire.

    Firearms. Because I can’t throw a rock at 1100fps.

    Anyone who demands that you don’t have access to weapons, is saying they are happy for you and your family to be vulnerable to murder, rape and pillage.

    I would love to have access to the best tools I need to keep my family safer, but living in the Soviet Socialist Republic of Wales I can’t, because politicians would rather see us as a statistic in crime victim figures than a happy, productive, armed family.

    So we use other defence techniques instead – living in nice areas, not driving flashy or new cars, not carrying or wearing expensive outfits, being as grey man as possible. Not great for the economy though… Especially if more people do it.

    It will happen more as security decreases. after a spate of armed (with machetes) carjacking in Baildon, West Yorkshire, some of my friends there have traded in their expensive cars and now only drive second hand cheap cars.
    Maybe security will become so bad that public opinion changes and we can own firearms again…

  25. So, Ecksy, we end up with a society in which we all bear firearms and the risk of being shot increases because that society doesn’t have a culture of responsible gun ownership. Every time you stepped outside there would be greater risk of being shot than there is at present. Levels of trust would sink, and basic social interactions would involve high levels of suspicion. We would be much less safe.

  26. Mr Ecks- i think its fine at the moment. Wild west, red indians and desperadoes abroad in the wilderness with the nearest law enforcement over then next mountain I would definitely feel different.

  27. Jonathon,

    “I can’t see the state ever allowing Brits to defend themselves with lethal force. They’d rather see hundreds of dead civilians and the rape of thousands of children than arm the populace.”

    The state didn’t want us leaving the EU, but look at where we are.

    The politicians, the establishment and the media were like a club, and kept ideas and people out of general circulation. Ideas struggled to even get off the ground because the networks (press and TV) were part of the establishment. This year would normally have ended with Clinton vs Jeb Bush, with Clinton winning, and the UK remaining.

    I think we’ve reached a point where the whole “underground” discussion on the internet, in places like Twitter and Facebook has finally unplugged enough people from those media aunty views. You could see it with the Swift Boat stuff, but it’s so much bigger now. That whole “BBC” attitude where someone advocating a good argument for liberalising gun laws wouldn’t get a look in is gone. Not saying it’ll happen overnight. Opinion change takes a long time to brew. But it might.

  28. “So, Ecksy, we end up with a society in which we all bear firearms and the risk of being shot increases because that society doesn’t have a culture of responsible gun ownership.”

    Don’t be stupid.

    ‘An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.’ – Robert A. Heinlein

    This polite standoff exists throughout the 3rd world, notably lacking in culture. Peasants with Kalashnikovs are legion.

    It is the West’s decadence that permits people to NOT be armed. As the decay accelerates with the invasion of people with a book that says they should kill you, at some point Westerners will realize that they can no longer afford to not be armed.

  29. “Every adult male in the UK with a clean criminal record ought to be issued with an assault rifle.” Nah: if by ‘assault rifle’ you mean a semi-automatic, I don’t want one. I’d like a bolt action rifle: that’s what I used when I shot. I wouldn’t mind an automatic pistol, or revolver, too: it would be fun to learn to use one. And naturally I’d like a shotgun. And I’m sure I’d enjoy learning to use an RPG. What’s left? A flamethrower perhaps: do people still use those? A light machine gun? A mortar?

    Actually, a mini-submarine might be fantastic fun. And all of those would Get Me Out Of The House, which might be a good thing.

  30. Theo: Those are all reasons FOR effective self defence. Or do you fancy taking on half-a-dozen knife-culture RoP followers –with permission and encouragement from the Almighty to kill/rape you and yours–with your brolly?

    HB “i think its fine at the moment. Wild west, red indians and desperadoes abroad in the wilderness with the nearest law enforcement over then next mountain I would definitely feel different.”

    That is the present day.

    Short of murder Plod has already been told to lay off our Dear Guests. And if they don’t arrive in time to save you it doesn’t matter how far away they started from. Not to the victims.

  31. Jonathan, so ideally what is needed is for some Islamist savages to murder a couple of MPs?

  32. TOBII

    What those people had in common was maturity, responsibility, competence and, I am pretty confident, patriotism.

    Absolutely. And gun owning should be easier for those in shooting clubs. But what is proposed here or being discussed is the right of everyone (with very limited exceptions) to bear arms.

    What we lack is the culture, where youngsters are trained in responsible firearms handling by parents.

    Exactly. That culture would need to be re-established before the right to bear arms was re-introduced.

    Recall that, as explained by Bill Whittle, the safest parts of the US have a lot of firearms.

    Yes, I know and fully accept that. I am not anti-gun. However, the US has a tradition and a culture of carrying firearms. The UK hasn’t had that since 1920. I still have my grandfather’s revolver which he carried with him when he daily took the proceeds from his thriving business to his bank in the pre-1920 period. (Occasionally, I bring out the revolver on those rare occasions when some Guardian-reader visits chez nous. The reaction amuses me.)

    BII
    Law abiding citizens should be allowed to own weapons and defend their own property with lethal force if necessary.

    Two points:

    1. what is under discussion in this thread is the right of everyone in the UK (with very limited exceptions) to bear arms.

    2. in any event, law abiding UK citizens are already allowed to own guns. And we can defend our property with lethal force if necessary, providing our use of a weapon is proportionate to the circumstances.

    Gamecock

    This polite standoff exists throughout the 3rd world, notably lacking in culture. Peasants with Kalashnikovs are legion.

    Having travelled in the third world, I can assure you the standoff is not “polite”. Rather, there is a climate of fear. And third world murder rates are very high. I have no wish to turn the UK into anything resembling the anarchic, threatening and violent third world societies.

    In the US, there is a centuries-old tradition of bearing firearms and a culture in which guns are treated responsibly and with respect. In the last 100 years, the UK has lost that. And it cannot be re-established easily. Particularly with 2.8m muslims and up to 30% of the population inadequately socialised, if not semi-feral.

  33. Theo-

    Personally I always thought the best way to re-introduce common firearm ownership to the UK (and just in general really) would be by having a system like in the Czech Republic or other countries. By having a licensing system, but one that is considered ‘shall issue’. Have waiting periods, psychological testing and strict penalties for misuse, over 21s only.

    Anyone who doesn’t have a significant criminal history should have access to the tools to defend themselves. After all we need to be able to defend ourselves against the semi-feral…
    firearms are simply the best and most efficient tool for doing that.

  34. Ecksy:

    …do you fancy taking on half-a-dozen knife-culture RoP followers –with permission and encouragement from the Almighty to kill/rape you and yours–with your brolly?

    Of course, I don’t. But I don’t fancy taking on half-a-dozen gun-toting RoPers with my revolver either! (Even less than knife wielding ones, because at least you can run from a knife.) The risk of my being attacked are pretty minimal at present. If everyone could bear firearms tomorrow, the risk of being shot would soar. The deterrent effect of firearms works only in a culture that instills self-control along with respect for guns, and in a society without ethnic and religious tensions.

    Expel the muslims and the feral blacks, ensure that schools instill the right values, and set up a programme for re-educating the British people about gun ownership, then I’d agree to a right to bear arms.

  35. “In the US, there is a centuries-old tradition of bearing firearms and a culture in which guns are treated responsibly and with respect.”

    Nah. People are people.

  36. Sorry, been off working for a couple of hours.

    Theo, you are very nearly there; just one bad fright away from the truth.

    Have a little faith in your fellow-citizens, in your culture. In 1987 I attended a big pistol competition at Bisley. There were something like a thousand shooters present, most with handguns in holsters (magazines and speedloaders in pockets, quite unofficially). Never felt safer.

    By the way, fellow readers, there is no such thing as an assault rifle. There is a battle rifle, of which dearieme’s SMLE is a splendid example. “Assault rifle” is gun control propaganda.

  37. By the way, fellow readers, there is no such thing as an assault rifle.

    Actually, there is such a thing as an assault rifle in U.S. law. To be an assault rifle, the rifle must possess the following three characteristics:

    First, it must be capable of selective rates of fire: i.e., it must be able to be switched from semi-automatic to fully automatic firing.

    Second, it must possess a detachable magazine.

    Third, it must fire a mid-size rifle caliber cartridge… Something in the neighborhood of a 7.62mm cartridge.

    Where people get confused is when they see the “AR” in “AR-15” and assume that means “assault rifle”. It doesn’t. “AR-15” stands for Armalite Rifle Design #15. Armalite was the company that designed and marketed the AR-15. It is now a part of Colt.

    I own an AR-7 (now made by Henry), and not even JuliaM could mistake that rifle for an assault rifle. I think.

  38. SMFS said:
    “Blacks on the other hand kill each other at about ten times the rate White people do”

    Yes, I’ve seen statistics that suggest that the USA’s “gun problem” is just another aspect of its race problem; gun murders by whites are at about the same rate as Belgium; gun murders by Hispanics are at about the same rate as Mexico; gun murders by blacks are at about the same rate as Jamaica.

  39. Let me put it another way, Theo.

    It is their guns that give you fear. It is their guns that give them comfort. Their fear came before their choosing to carry guns, not after.

  40. Nah. People are people.

    It just flat-out never occurs to you that anyone who chooses to own a firearm has the maturity or intelligence to treat them with caution and respect, does it?

  41. It is their guns that give you fear. It is their guns that give them comfort. Their fear came before their choosing to carry guns, not after.

    Wow. That’s deep. Like, Richard Murphy deep.

    Ever considered dressing it up as a study and getting it published?

  42. Dennis, your description is correct, though it is a military classification. I know of no legal one.

    The origin of the name comes straight from the German Sturmgewehr.

    BTW, I own an AR-15 and an AR-10.

  43. This is rather missing the point. The reason that the Czechs don’t have a lot to fear from their ROPpers is not that every Tomáš, Dominik and Honsa is toting an AR-15, but that they only let 4,000 Sharia enthusiasts into the entire country. That means if the goat fondlers get too importunate they can be dealt with. Whether that’s via locking them up, kicking them out or instituting a happy fun Einsatzgruppe for the length of a lazy weekend is immaterial. It’s doable, whereas in France it probably isn’t.

  44. DtP: there’s a difference between an assault rifle, which is a magazine-fed, select fire weapon in an intermediate calibre (cf. battle rifle), and an assault weapon, which is an ignorant hoplophobic term of art for any semi-auto rifle with the sort of cosmetic features that would make Dianne Feinstein have a conniption and therefore, although codified in law, effectively meaningless.

  45. I started shooting with the Formby Rifle club at the Altcar Rifle Ranges in about 1969 at the age of 13. A group of us would cycle to the club house which was in the middle of the ranges, buy 10 rounds each of .303″ ammo for around about 10s and borrow a club SMLE. We would then walk to the range that was being shot on that day. Some of them could have been a mile away, so there were 5 or 6 lads with a .303″ rifle and 50 or 60 rounds of ammo. We would do our shooting and then walk back, clean the gun, pass it back and then cycle home. Since then I’ve shot rifle, pistol and shotgun and competed in club and national competitions, even managing to win one and have shot with and against forces personnel with my semi-auto L1A1, a superb bit of kit and a bolt action Styer SSG. When I got made redundant in the late 00’s I stopped shooting due to the kids becoming more expensive and universities beckoning. I have not restarted but am thinking I should do so. One of my sons however is following in his fathers footsteps and is now shooting rifle and shotgun competitively and airsoft internationally. In all of that time I have only seen one person who I had concerns about as a shooter. The club eventually decided that they didn’t like him either and the police were informed that we had our doubts, he lost his FAC. I can only say that all of the shooters I have known have been some of the most law abiding and patriotic people I have ever met. Licensed shooters in this country are not an issue. As the saying goes “Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns.”

  46. Dear dearieme @ January 8, 2017 at 4:02 pm

    “What’s left? A flamethrower perhaps: do people still use those?”

    Only in North Korea when you want to disinherit a relative.

    A mini-submarine? Would you like torpedoes with that?

    DP

  47. dearieme – “Nah: if by ‘assault rifle’ you mean a semi-automatic, I don’t want one. ”

    No. I mean an assault rifle. I would make it national policy to give every law abiding adult British subject an AK-clone made by Finland or Israel. Maybe South Africa. A couple of boxes of ammunition as well.

    It would pose absolutely no danger to anyone. Except maybe the owners. As long as White people got them.

  48. Theophrastus – “we end up with a society in which we all bear firearms and the risk of being shot increases because that society doesn’t have a culture of responsible gun ownership. Every time you stepped outside there would be greater risk of being shot than there is at present. Levels of trust would sink, and basic social interactions would involve high levels of suspicion. We would be much less safe.”

    In the short term. In the long term maybe not so much. We would re-acquire a culture of responsible gun ownership – especially if we started hanging murderers again. Social trust would rise as people realised they could go outside and protect themselves.

    At the moment the status quo is that anyone can rob, rape or murder a White person as they please. There is nothing much the police can or will do about it. We cannot defend ourselves. The criminal classes get all the guns they need or want. We should redress that balance by enabling people to shoot back.

    After all, the places in the US with the highest levels of legal gun ownership are also the safest and with the highest levels of trust. In the end we can decide to be prey for the criminals or we can be free citizens. I opt for the latter.

  49. Hallowed Be – “Yeah well it wasn’t total victory like either side would have wanted but peace was made and peace is contagious.”

    Not in Ireland it isn’t. It is a once-in-a-century outbreak of violence. Always has been. They are just regrouping for the next round. While we have been unilaterally disarmed.

    “The current generation are’nt half as likely to take up the cause of mass murder and their offspring even less likely.”

    Why not? It is fun and it leads to wealth and power. Elected office even. What you reward you get more of. We rewarded terrorism.

    “but you see you have a problem in that you can’t make laws by racial group.”

    Actually you can. Laws in the UK are often more likely to be applied to one race rather than another.

    “If you could and your assumption is correct then we would indeed be sacrificing freedom for security.”

    On the contrary. The presence of a feral community in our midst – no matter what colour they are – means that we have to have laws that restrict all of us. Our freedom is restricted in the name of security. Because the government is not brave enough to say we have a problem with Islamic terrorism and so we need laws against Muslims, they have to restrict all our freedom. It is the same with crime. By pretending it is not concentrated in one or two communities we all have to lose rights. The solution is simply to have no Muslims.

  50. SMFS

    “In the short term. In the long term maybe not so much. We would re-acquire a culture of responsible gun ownership…”

    The cultivation of a culture of responsible gun ownership has to precede any right to bear arms.

    “At the moment the status quo is that anyone can rob, rape or murder a White person as they please. There is nothing much the police can or will do about it.”

    True about robbery and burglary, but not true about rape or murder.

    “We cannot defend ourselves.”

    Again, not true. You can shoot a burglar or a robber with a legal fire arm, providing your response is proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.

  51. Theophrastus – “The cultivation of a culture of responsible gun ownership has to precede any right to bear arms.”

    How can you teach someone to own a gun responsibly if they are not allowed to own a gun? You cannot teach any culture of gun ownership from books.

    “True about robbery and burglary, but not true about rape or murder.”

    Actually it is pretty much true about rape and murder too. Look how long the Rotherham rapists went unpunished.

    “Again, not true. You can shoot a burglar or a robber with a legal fire arm, providing your response is proportionate and reasonable in the circumstances.”

    What the state thinks is proportionate and reasonable is not what most people think is proportionate and reasonable. So the laws are on the books but if you actually try to defend yourself, you are likely to be spending some time in a prison cell. Even if you had time to get your gun out of its locked gun cabinet and re-assembled it (because good gun owners keep the bolt separate) before you were over powered.

    The state is happy for people to be raped and murdered. It is less happy for them to defend themselves. I think I should have the same rights as Tony Blair or David Cameron or Theresa May. That is, when someone looks like they are going to assault me, I should be allowed to shoot them.

  52. I’m with Theo all the way here.

    Allowing widespread gun ownership in the UK would mean guns in the hands of law-abiding Muslims. Otherwise there would be a massive shriek about racism and the filth would knuckle under in no time. Which would soon after mean guns in the hands of law-abiding Muslims’ jihadi mates or their jihadi kids in or in their hands straight after they make the transition from law-abiding Muslim to jihadi nutter.

    Widespread legal ownership of guns would also increase the number of guns in circulation, which would inevitably lead to more guns in the hands of criminals. Today, very few British criminals have guns. That would soon end.

  53. MC – “Allowing widespread gun ownership in the UK would mean guns in the hands of law-abiding Muslims.”

    The only way to have a liberal society is to have no Muslims. Or other ethnic minorities for that matter. If we have law-abiding Muslims we have ever-growing laws designed to stop them doing what Muslims do. Not a single Muslim country exists with a decent human rights record. It is impossible. So this is complaining after the horse has bolted. We gave up that option a long time ago.

    “Which would soon after mean guns in the hands of law-abiding Muslims’ jihadi mates or their jihadi kids in or in their hands straight after they make the transition from law-abiding Muslim to jihadi nutter.”

    They can buy rocket propelled grenades if they want to. They can make bombs of various sorts. They can hack someone to death in the middle of a London street and no one will lift a finger to stop them. Why would having guns make any difference to them? We are sheep who stand around looking stupid as we are slaughtered.

    “Today, very few British criminals have guns. That would soon end.”

    Because we are sheep. Criminals do not need a gun to mug a White British person. You can take a British soldier and cut his throat in the street and no one will even raise their voice much less help. All they need a sharpened stick and a dark skin. With those they can take what they like. Not even with the stick. British people ought to be allowed to fight back. Ms May thinks that she deserved armed protection. I think I do too.

  54. MC – “Which would soon after mean guns in the hands of law-abiding Muslims’ jihadi mates …. Today, very few British criminals have guns. That would soon end.”

    Remember Instapundits’ rule – the laws are not there to protect us. They are there to protect them. If law and order broke down in this country, it is not the law abiding majority that would suffer. It would be the criminals and the Islamists. You say more guns means more violence? Good. Bring it on. The police exist to stop us punishing people who deserve to be punished. We are not just the majority, we are the over whelming majority. There would be a short period of readjustment and then Britain would return to being the law-abiding place it once was.

    There is no case for protecting criminals from justice.

  55. ‘Federal law. The only assault rifles legal (defined as above) in the US these days are those manufactured and federally registered prior to 1988.’

    Bullshit. And it’s 1986.

    ‘Assault Rifle

    By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power.’

    Source: NRA. I’ll go with NRA rather than Some Guy On The Internet.

    There is no Federal law defining ‘assault rifle.’ Not in FOPA. Not in the assault weapons ban.

  56. @Hallowed Be, January 8, 2017 at 11:22 am
    SMFS
    “We have consistently lost to the Irish and surrendered time and time again. How this is “fine” I don’t know.”

    Irish terrorism is in abeyance. That’s why i say it’s fine. What would you change?

    It’s not. ira/sienfein have drastically reduced bombing property and murdering police/army etc.

    However terrorist murders and maiming continues. The war continues, read NI press – or better still, go and live in West Belfast.

  57. “BTW, I own an AR-15 and an AR-10.”

    “Your point being what?”

    Since you shared with us that you own an AR-7, I just wanted everyone to know that my AR is bigger than yours.

  58. SMFS

    “How can you teach someone to own a gun responsibly if they are not allowed to own a gun? You cannot teach any culture of gun ownership from books.”

    But we are allowed to own certain guns. And a culture of responsible gun ownership could be encouraged by gradually liberalising gun clubs.

  59. So the laws are on the books but if you actually try to defend yourself, you are likely to be spending some time in a prison cell.

    SMFS, what do you suggest the process should be if you are discovered, or you call the police yourself, standing over a body with a weapon in your hand? If you say, “I was defending yourself” should that be the end of the matter? The police take your word for it, have the body carted away and leave you in piece?

  60. SMFS – “There would be a short period of readjustment”

    That’s one hell of a way to describe a full on race war.

  61. Theophrastus – “But we are allowed to own certain guns. And a culture of responsible gun ownership could be encouraged by gradually liberalising gun clubs.”

    The police do all they can to stop us owning even those. A gradual policy will not work because unless you accept the basic premise that law abiding people ought to be able to own whatever they like – if the discussion is about what sort of restrictions are sensible – the movement will always be towards more restrictions. Let’s start with the obvious and work from there – every adult ought to be allowed to own what they like up to a Ma Deuce.

    ukliberty – “what do you suggest the process should be if you are discovered, or you call the police yourself, standing over a body with a weapon in your hand?”

    If it is your house, I think the police should shake your hand and walk away. What is the point of arresting anyone? Why is jail time the default for someone who is no threat to anyone?

    Not that this is what I meant of course.

    “The police take your word for it, have the body carted away and leave you in piece?”

    Why not? If there is no evidence of a crime, why should anyone be in jail?

    MC – “That’s one hell of a way to describe a full on race war.”

    Your phrase, not mine. There are law abiding Blacks.

  62. MC–You answer your own points.

    Race wars –or any wars— don’t just happen out of nothing. The race war is already going on. 1400 British girls get raped/ abused–by 9 men– is it so far? They must have been busy lads. White man in Clitheroe gets stabbed to death by a dozen Dear Guests–CPS says “not in the public interest” etc. Not in their interest to let folk know the race war has already started.

    UK liberty–If the shooting is righteous then legal process can determine that. A clear process needs to be put in place . A non-leftist process with safeguards against shysters. And no sympathy for scum. Tony Martin was right to drop the punks who attacked his home. At the very least the cunts would be left re-considering their future in their chosen line of work.

  63. ” Today, very few British criminals have guns.”

    That’s by choice.
    If you know your way around the less salubrious parts of British cities, you can pick up a weapon almost as easily as a packet of breakfast cereal. Certainly as easily as your preference in Class A drugs.
    But if you’re a proper criminal in need of a gun (not some gangsta off Broadwater Farm, carries one as a fashion accessory) you rent, not buy. Because you’re engaged in criminal activities. Which means you’re always in danger of being turned over by the filth. With the sniffer dogs & the habit of tearing your home or business premises apart looking for places of concealment. Possession of a firearm’s a mandatory four stretch.
    There’s a guy I know, down here. Retired “armourer” provided the service. Still keeps his hand in, with an interesting little workshop in his house. Lathe, milling machine, presses. All you need to repair or modify. make ammunition.
    Incidentally, you might want to go look at http://www.a-alvarez.es to see what you can own down here, on a hunting license. Try caza, armes cortas. Although the “assault rifles” are in the rifles section. I particularly recommend: https://www.a-alvarez.com/caza/rifles/100015009/rifle_tactico_ar_smithwesson_mp15._camo although my personal preference is: https://www.a-alvarez.com/caza/escopetas/15479/escopeta_de_corredera_tactical_defender in the pistol-grip version.Anyone looking down the wrong end of that will be aware that hospitalisation probably won’t be amongst the available options.

  64. “Allowing widespread gun ownership in the UK would mean guns in the hands of law-abiding Muslims.” Not necessarily: just as the laws after the Glorious Revolution carefully denied firearms to the religious bunch of the day likeliest to harbour murderous, traitorous nuts, one could do the same now. It wouldn’t be PC of course.

  65. Come to think of it, there’s a terrible flaw in my whimsical satire. What if law-abiding moslems were armed? Would that not make it easier for them to defend themselves from the nuts in their midst? Indeed, who is best placed to identify and neutralise such people?

  66. Since you shared with us that you own an AR-7, I just wanted everyone to know that my AR is bigger than yours.

    And my FNH SCAR 17 will outperform any AR on the planet. So will my SIG 556. As will my SCAR 16. Not the point. Not even close. And since you made your point that you couldn’t grasp my point, I mentioned the AR-7 because it is a 2.5 lb. .22lr survival rife that breaks down into three parts and stores in its own stock. As such, is about as un-assault rifle as it gets.

    Given that you feel the need to bolster your manhood with boasts of big firearms, I can now fully understand your cynicism about other people’s motives for ownership.

  67. Mr Ecks,

    If the shooting is righteous then legal process can determine that. A clear process needs to be put in place .

    OK, so what should the process be if the police turn up to someone’s house and that person is standing over a body?

    SMFS suggests “the police should shake [the person’s] hand and walk away.”

    What do you think the police should do?

  68. ukliberty – “OK, so what should the process be if the police turn up to someone’s house and that person is standing over a body?”

    What the process should be in any suspected crime. First of all, determine if a crime has taken place. If the body is his wife, it probably has. If the body is a low life with breaking and entering tools in his hand, it probably hasn’t.

    If no crime has taken place, why should the shooter spend even five minutes in a cell? Why shouldn’t the police simply assess him as a low flight risk, secure the scene, work out what did happen and take it from there?

  69. “I have no wish to turn the UK into anything resembling the anarchic, threatening and violent third world societies.”

    Too late. It’s well on the way there, yet you are determined to ensure that only the threatening and violent have access to guns, while the law-abiding become their prey.

    I’m afraid you’re about to be steamrollered by history. You can only get widespread support for ‘gun control’ when the culture is so safe that people don’t believe they need guns. The more dangerous the West becomes, the sooner that support will disappear.

    And it’s all a load of bollocks, anyway.In ten years, Westerners will be able to 3D print any gun they want in their garage.

  70. “There is no case for protecting criminals from justice.”

    There is if you’re a cop who wants an easy life and a fat pension. Within limits, the more crime, the more demands for increased police powers and funding. It only goes wrong when the crime rate rises high enough that the law-abiding aren’t any more, and decide they’ll be better off just shooting the bad guys and feeding them to pigs.

    Anyone who thinks the British police exist to protect the decent people from criminals is delusional. They exist primarily to protect the criminals–both private and public sector–from their victims.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.