Seth wrote:JimC wrote:Seth wrote:JimC wrote:Wumbologist wrote:
It's highly unlikely. Even here in the US with legal concealed carry in most states, incidents like this are rarely interrupted or stopped by law-abiding gun owners. It's hypothetically possible, sure. However, in practical terms, even the most gun-friendly states typically have concealed carry rates in the low single digit percent of the population. The odds of a concealed carrier happening to be around when something like this are incredibly low. Add in the fact that most of these sort of incidents happen in places where legal carry is prohibited, and it becomes even less likely. And even if you do happen to have a concealed carrier in the right place at the right time, they're at a disadvantage in a chaotic situation like this, as they have to be mindful of bystanders whereas the maniac does not. Yes, a law-abiding gun owner COULD theoretically stop an incident like this... but the odds are too negligible to take seriously.
That is a good antidote to the Tom Clancy fantasy that Seth was expounding (it was in the context of a "wild west" fantasy that I made the Wyatt Earp comment, not to insult gun owners per se, but to attack the fantasy). For a wide variety of reasons, it is unlikely that having whatever number of gun-owning civilans around would have made a difference in this (and many other) situations.
However unlikely it may be,
it's the right of EVERY citizen to carry defensive arms to provide for their own safety (which is the most important consideration) and since it has been proven that allowing lawful concealed carry not only does not result in more danger to the public, but far LESS danger, there is no reason not to allow it, as 40 states now do. And what we know of nearly every such incident as that in Belgium is that where the public is forbidden to carry arms, nobody but the killer has any arms, and therefore no chance to put a stop to the attack or protect their own lives at need. That much is certain, and that is utterly immoral and violative of fundamental human rights.
I guess you can say that for the US, but it is the height of arrogance to project those views onto the rest of the world.
Well, not to delve too deeply into Godwinland, but I don't find it in the least bit arrogant to say that regimes, like Hitler's, that disarm their citizenry and then oppress and kill them (like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and a host of other despots and dictators have done throughout history) are violating the fundamental human rights of their citizens. The UK is no different except that it has not yet reached the point of murderous despotism.
Human rights are human rights, and they are universal, whether the UN thinks so or not. The right to be armed for effective self-defense is, as our Founders acknowledged, a right that is not granted by government, but is inherent in our humanity and exists in large part as a bulwark against tyrannical government as well as criminal predation.
So I do not find it arrogant to project that view on the rest of the world, I find it arrogant and despotic to argue that the right to keep and bear arms is NOT an individual, universal, natural human right belonging to each person on earth, without exception (subject to forfeit upon bad behavior of course...since I know someone will inevitably toss out that canard).
Arguing that people do NOT have that right is the height of arrogance and disdain and disrespect. One is permitted to made the decision for oneself not to be armed, but to impose that decision, by any means including the law, upon another is to say that the other person's right to effective self defense is less important than one's own fears or political concerns about one's neighbor being armed. MrJonno is a perfect example of the immoral and unethical disdain and disrespect of the rights of others expressed by hoplophobes worldwide. It matters nothing to him how carefully vetted or well-qualified his neighbor might be with firearms, nor how grievous and immediate her need to protect herself against a known or unknown physical threat. His disrespect and arrogant disdain for other person's safety has him advocating that his neighbor be gunned down by the police for daring to have a gun because her violent ex-husband is threatening to kill her and the police will do nothing to stop him.
So, your arrogance-meter is pointing the wrong direction. It's not arrogant to wish for and project personal freedom and liberty on all persons in the world, and the best way for them to achieve and protect those liberties is for them to be armed so they can prevent others who would oppress them, try to harm them, or try to disarm them from doing so, by force of arms if necessary.
At the risk of offending my many US friends, I will say that that is a general tendency which seems far too common, and is one of the reasons why the US is regarded as arrogant and overbearing. Tend your own garden, and don't set the agenda for the rest of the world...
I refuse to apologize for advocating liberty and freedom for all people, including those in the UK whose right to keep and bear arms, which was supposed to be secured by UK law long, long ago, are being oppressed, endangered and enslaved by their own government and their arrogant, disdainful neighbors.
You get to make the choice for yourself whether to keep and bear arms. You don't get to make that choice for another law-abiding adult, ever. To do so is immoral, unethical, arrogant, disdainful and dangerous.
