Taken to Task

Someone was offended by my UK question (see original comment for his active links):

Signalman 9 January, 2017, 12:05

Frankly, David Codrea, I expected better than this regurgitated BS from you. Quoting from Sky TV and GunPolicy.org as though they were reliable sources, FFS??????? How would you like it if I trusted HuffPo and the NYT to give me the facts about the US? Get a bloody GRIP, man - and try checking the facts, which are all in the public domain!!

If HuffPo or NYT writes something that is true, it would be a logical fallacy to discount it because you disagree with their politics. What did I quote from either Sky News or GunPolicy.org  that is not true? Specifically?

OK, let's commence with the hatchet job here:"In the United Kingdom, the right to private ownership is not protected by law."
That's true - but the 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.http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/self-defence-law.html

So what’s your beef? Aside from wanting to engage in a “hatchet job”? You said what I quoted is true. I did not say ‘self-defence’ was illegal, albeit we all saw what happened with Tony Martin.  I do maintain self-defense is more effective and likely to have a happier outcome the more effective an individual’s choice of weapons. But the topic here is civil war.

"The law on the use of force against someone committing a crime is very similar to that on the use of force in self-defence. However, unlike the law on self-defence, it has been set out in statute. The Criminal Law Act 1967 states that an individual is entitled to use reasonable force to prevent a crime being committed."http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/law-on-using-force-against-someone-committing-a-crime.html

Again, the topic here is civil war.

As the barrister (attorney) makes clear in her article, reasonable force includes lethal force. The word 'reasonable' runs throughout English law, and recent court cases have interpreted it like this; if you shot a 6 year old who was trying to steal sweets from a shop, that would not be allowed as 'reasonable force'. If you shot armed criminals who were threatening yourself or your family, that would be seen by the courts and the police as 'reasonable force'. Not quite as defenceless as you thought, eh, David?

What’s the topic here again?

You describe us as being limited to " tightly-controlled sporting arms”; the way that comes across is though there are only a handful of guns in Britain - actually, there are three million rifles, shotguns and handguns in private ownership. As for being 'tightly-controlled' - do you know how difficult it is to get a firearms or shotgun licence in Britain? Unless you have criminal connections, or mental health problems, it's no more tedious or time consuming than getting a first driving licence - and a heck of a lot cheaper.http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/shooting/start-shooting/get-firearms-certficate-39303http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/shooting/start-shooting/how-to-get-shotgun-certificate-licence-32358#o6jZBmXRM3aGIreV.99The ONLY reason that so many Brits do not own a gun is because they don't want one - and certainly not because our laws make it that difficult to get one - let alone impossible.

How it “comes across” to you is not much concern of mine, seeing your combative attitude and how you’re spoiling to take umbrage. They are tightly controlled—licensed and registered. And that so many CHOOSE not to own arms seems to make my point about asking how Brits would fight a civil war.

I'm baffled as to why you seem to think that "if it ain't a semi-auto, it ain't worth crap!" Hunters in England find bolt-action rifles lethal against red deer and wild boar - but why don't you put it to the test, David? Get someone to shoot you with a .270 bullet, fired from a bolt-action rifle, or a .44 magnum fired from a lever action rifle (both of which are routinely sold in England) and see how non-lethal you find it.https://www.guntrader.uk/guns/rifles/midland-gun-company/bolt-action/270/160426110718006https://www.guntrader.uk/guns/rifles/rossi/lever-action/44-magnum/puma-161122074955002

Why -- are you offering to shoot me with one of those? No, of course I wouldn’t, nor would I like to be bludgeoned with a club or bashed with a rock. Does that mean you win this round? Besides, I never said what you're accusing me of saying. And again, the topic here is civil war scenario.

You quote GunPolicy.org to the effect that we are not allowed to possess semi-automatics or handguns (pistols or revolvers) in the UK. Oh, yeah? Then tell me what these are, David?https://www.guntrader.uk/guns/rifles/anschutz/semi-auto/22-lr/525-161220172858005https://www.guntrader.uk/guns/shotguns/remington/semi-auto/12-gauge/1100-synthetic-160311203352001https://www.guntrader.uk/guns/pistols-long-barrel/gsg/semi-auto/22-lr/1911-standard-170101154009713https://www.guntrader.uk/guns/pistols-black-powder/pietta/revolver/44/remington-1858-150210115220001

Yes, I quote GunPolicy.org, which I acknowledged is no friend but nonetheless has compiled global laws on the books—if you know of a cite that’s wrong, point it out.  I said "the gist"-- I gave a link, and the entries have cite numbers and links if you want to know more details.

Sure, we know non-criminal Brits are ALLOWED to possess certain sporting arms but we also know what they’re NOT ALLOWED to have:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/45/section/1
Again, the whole premise here is civil war.  It's like I should have put the words in the title or something.

As for our rights to the private ownership not being guaranteed by law - correct me if I'm wrong, but I have read on US websites that the majority of US states will only allow concealed carry if you get a licence from the state government. Further, that you cannot get a concealed carry permit at all in such places as New Jersey, NYC, Chicago and Washington DC. So much for the Second Amendment, about which so many Americans constantly brag, which 'guarantees' that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Tell THAT to the families of the US Marines murdered in the USMC recruiting office in Chattanooga, who were forbidden to have their issue sidearms with them!

Conflate much?  You really don’t understand the difference between PRIVATE OWNERSHIP and concealed carry?  And why so triumphant in pointing out there are infringements here? Thanks for the tip! But as long as you bring it up, educate us on carrying in the UK.

As for sending us guns, I suggest you send them to places like Cook County, Illinois - whose need is far greater than ours.

That remains to be seen. Cook is still surrounded by the USA.

And, with regards to the likelihood and likely outcome of civil war in Britain, try reading this piece, written by someone who - UNLIKE YOU - is well informed:http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/reflections-on-civil-war-in-britain.html

Did I declare it unlikely? Did you not read the fourth paragraph? I merely expressed doubts about who would initiate it and asked if it came from freedom-seekers “with what?”

And stick to writing about America.

Glad you’ve decided to be the arbiter of discussions I’m allowed to invite people to have, sources I'm allowed to use and questions I'm allowed to ask.

That’s it for me—I’ve got work to do and little time to get it done before I sign off on my hiatus, so feel free to continue airing your grievances without me .