Some note-worthy observations and comparisons in no particular order:
– Sikh leaders have come out to condemn the behaviour of the offender and his family and to show their support for the victim. This contrasts noticeably with Muslim leaders after a Muslim atrocity, where the emphasis is on disowning the perpetrator and pretending he wasn’t really one of them
– The murder does not appear to religiously inspired. This was a murder by someone who happens to be Sikh. There is no suggestion that he thought his actions were justified by his religion.
– That Sikhs have cover for going about armed is largely irrelevant to most knife crime. Removing daggers from law-abiding Sikhs is not going to stop murderers from carrying knives.
– The lack of concern by the police for the victim is palpable. Derek Chauvin, however, had already called for the ambulance before he and his team had to restrain George Floyd. They continued to beg for the ambulance to arrive all the way through the incident.
– The resulting angry crowds are not burning down shops and looting. Sikh temples are not being attacked: their anger is directed – correctly – at the police.
– No-one in authority has taken the knee.
– The Pedant-General summarising the situation rather well.
To which I would add to anyone saying this horror should not be politicised: the incident is intrinsically political.
Why? Because the incident centres not just on the murder itself and murderer’s use of the word-of-power ‘racist‘, but also on the subsequent actions of the police, who responded to that word-of-power as the user intended them to.
So, this is all political because the police are the literal enforcers of the state’s will, responding as they have been trained to respond. This is a consequence of decades of establishment policy decisions by both Labour and ‘Conservative’ governments, a product of politically directed institutional police culture.
It has been said that one(!) police officer has resigned. He should be joined by the Chief Constable of Hampshire whose ‘leadership’ made these events possible.
Back to the PC who has resigned. Does resignation shield him/her from further disciplinary action? If his/her record is stainless thanks to a prompt resignation, can he/she apply to other police forces for employment?
Resigned? There should be charges brought against the individual and the Force itself.
Have always wondered-is it possible to sue the State in any way as official policy directly resulted in the death of an individual. Same for someone being attacked/killed etc by an illegal immigrant/repeat offender that is released back in the community-is there any recourse for legal action under any law e.g. Human Rights of the victim etc?
The incident (perhaps) showing that Political Correctness is not just someone having the vapours over language use but taken to extremes results in harm.
Maybe some institutions have been marched through, taken over, with minions expected to chant the Holy Writ?
Walking past the news stands at Asda this morning, the Mirror is reporting that Farage has been Booed in Parliament for “Exploiting teen’s death”, now we know who he really is proclaims the Mirror. Well now we know who the rest of them really are too don’t we?
Yes it is political – because the police “took the knee” over Mr Floyd, and because, even years before that, police training was all about how society is “structurally racist”, how racism is about “power relations” (so only white people can be racist) and how any claim of racism must be responded to as-true and must take priority over everything else.
Frankfurt School Critical Theory (“Woke”) Marxism as standard training and operating procedure – not just for the police, but for every institution in society.
As for pretending that more regulations against knives will deal with any of this – yes such a position is utterly dishonest.
QOTD! Blimey. I’ve been lurking here for 20 years…
Farage. 🙁 Don’t know what to think here.
Farage’s line and Parliament’s reaction will not sway anyone.
Reform supporters agree that, yes, rage is appropriate and the we have to see the race card being played from the bottom of the deck for what it is.
Standard MSM line-toers see him stoking riots.
What could he have said that would NOT have handed the MSM an open goal?
Yes it is good that Sikh leaders are siding with the victim – not the murderer.
To attack and kill an unarmed person is against Sikh religious law – regardless of what religion that person is.
To be fair to Islamic leaders – they react differently because Islamic law is different, they act in accord with their own religious law and in accord with the personal example of Muhammed.
Excellent resume.
Sorry – I should be clear. Whilst there is obviously an issue with the race card being played from the bottom of the deck, there are two more pressing concerns:
– the fact that that race card was accepted as being a completely acceptable play by the police.
– SO F*CKING WHAT??? Let us assume that Nowak WAS a racist and did shout nasty things and even did knock the turban off. That does not justify murder in retaliation. It does not even justify the stabbing in defence.
Let’s show that this is utterly disgraceful EVEN IF Vickrum was right. Stabbings should always trump minor altercations, let alone hurty words.
Yeah, Paul but Muhammed was evil. Warlord, rapist, paedophile, oath-breaker, pillager, torturer and genocidal maniac.
NickM, I rather think that’s what Paul M was hinting at…
The Pedant-General – if people are trained to accept Critical Theory, Frankfurt School, Marxist doctrines (such as those described as “anti-racism”) why are you are astonished when they act accordingly? After all they would be sacked, and lose their pensions, if they did not act in line with these doctrines. Hero types who refuse to accept the indoctrination would not even pass training college.
British people seem to find it difficult to understand that if you train people with certain doctrines, and sack them if they do not follow them, they are likely to follow them – sorry but philosophy has effects in “real life” such as cuffing a dying man (and mocking him) because someone has told you he is a racist. “Educate” people to be like that (to know they must show their contempt for “racists” and believe any charge of “racism”) and punish them if they do not act in accordance with the doctrine – and they are likely to behave as the police did.
And, yet again, it is NOT just the police – it is every institution, including the commercial corporations.
NickM – in the United Kingdom people will soon be sent to prison for such comments, indeed some people already are (even the statute has not yet been passed – the CPS is “creative” at times, and judges and juries are happy to go along with it – as they might get accused of being “racist and Islamophobic” if they do not convict).
They offer the defendant a “deal” – plead guilty (to something) or stay rotting in this prison till you do plead guilty – being abused by the prison gangs. And heroes who refuse to plead guilty and, eventually, come to trial – face the danger of a Progressive jury (Red-Green alliance) eager to show how they hate “reactionaries”.
British cities are becoming like New York City or other American cities where it is impossible for a conservative to get a fair trial and SOME juries love (yes love) finding the innocent – guilty, and finding the guilty – innocent. Juries think this makes them “rebels against society” (in the sense of Civil Society) – and they are correct, it does.
The authorities, and much of the population, in such cities as New York, hate and despise the principles of Western Civilization – and there are many in British cities who now take the same position.
The late William F. Buckley said he would rather be ruled by people drawn at random from the Boston telephone directory than be ruled by the academics of Harvard – but, alas, that is no longer so clear cut, as many ordinary people in major cities now share the evil (and they are evil) doctrines the academics have long taught.
Paul M,
” why are you are astonished when they act accordingly?”
I’m not in the slight bit astonished. What makes you think I am?
I’m despairing. I’m horrified. I’m at a loss as to know how we deprogram such a large swathe of TPTB. But I’m not in the least astonished.
I’m not on board with this logic.
“Removing daggers from law-abiding Sikhs is not going to stop murderers from carrying knives.”
The law abiding don’t murder so this statement is neither here nor there. The point is no one gets an exemption card. If no-one can carry knives then no-one can carry knives. A not insignificant % of violent death by knife are not murder as self defence even with a knife is still a defence to murder. The point of banning knives is to replace arterial bleeds, and collapsed lungs with with concussions and blackeyes as the more likely outcomes of street altercations.
Removing daggers from law abiding Sikhs will not stop murderers from carrying knives. It would however make the rules the same for all.
When we look at Sikhs now, do we act according to them having a knife?
I’ve been doing a lot reading and researching about the history of the Anglo-Saxons, pursuant to a project I’m working on — even to the extent of learning Old English. An altogether admirable people, I reckon. Pity about Hastings, though. But Hastings doesn’t hold a candle to what’s being done to the Anglo-Saxons nowadays. Or so it seems. As a sympathetic American I must rely on news reports and suchlike for what passes for information on the situation. Hoping those reports are exaggerated.
As I said, an admirable people. Please, don’t let them break the shield wall.
I think that all those who went down on one knee in solidarity with the repellent thug George Floyd need to be reminded of the fact every time they comment on this case. Post an image and expose their hypocrisy and double standards at every opportunity.
Yes, it’s political.
Back in early 2021, a friend of a friend of mine was abducted, raped, and murdered by a police. It wasn’t a “the police didn’t do their job”, it was a flat-out “an actual police actually killed someone that I’d met and sort of knew, after sexually assaulting them”. It was all over the news, you know exactly who I’m talking about.
The cries at the time were all about “don’t blame the entire police force for one bad apple” and trying to work out how to frame it as her own fault (with a side of “where was her boyfriend, huh?”)
I know why it’s different this time, and people are going flat-out on the police, but my god, you knew this years ago.
It’s very, very saddening.
Let this be your reminder that, upon seeing others’ reactions to abduction and rape, neonsnake declared
“Seems to me that they certainly do love themselves a curry house, a kebab shop, and a Turkish barber, but the moment that they see the workers from those establishments going to shops to stock up for themselves and their families, our erstwhile compatriots do a little terrified wee in their knickers.“
As a matter of fact, i do not know/remember who neonsnake is talking about. But i object to this:
IIRC, in 2021 we already knew that British police had been turned into little more than an instrument of political repression. Those of us who had been paying attention.
I cannot imagine who, on this site, might have defended British police in 2021.
Cayley, your link hasn’t worked.
Other than that, absolutely cracking point. Well done.
HallowedBe
“The law abiding don’t murder so this statement is neither here nor there. ”
I’m afraid I don’t follow – I think we are vigorously agreeing?
I am pointing precisely to the fact that the law-abiding don’t murder. That’s why disarming Sikhs will have no impact and why, therefore, calls to disarm Sikhs are misplaced.
Until they do, and then they have become non-law-abiding.
Disarming ALL Sikhs would thus deprive the newly-law-despising Sikh from being stabby.
(Of course, I’m not defending the weapons-grabbers. I’m more of a “everyone must be armed” type. But, if you buy their main thesis, disarming even the nice guys is consistent.)
Bobby
Fair, up to a point Lord Copper 🙂
I would also concur on “arm everyone”. I think we could also do a lot more in terms of controlling the more violent elements of our population and encourage a great deal more self-resilience on the part of the law-abiding population.
Sort the people out, not the things.
@bobby b
(Of course, I’m not defending the weapons-grabbers. I’m more of a “everyone must be armed” type. But, if you buy their main thesis, disarming even the nice guys is consistent.)
It is a curious thought experiment to consider: had Henry been armed with a knife and both he and the other guy had been injured, though not killed, I wonder what would have happened? Or if Henry had still ended up dead but both men were injured, what would have happened?
FWIW the advantage of a pistol? When there is a knife fight probably everyone is going to end up bleeding. If you draw a pistol, even if both people do, most likely retreat is the outcome since you are likely to start far apart. Of course you are more likely to die from being shot than stabbed. So I suppose it is swings and roundabouts. One of the great misunderstandings about defensive gun use is that the only defensive gun uses that count are where the perp is found in a pool of his own blood. Not that I am opposed to that outcome, but the vast majority gun defensive uses result in withdrawal and no injuries.
Fraser Orr wrote :
“Of course you are more likely to die from being shot than stabbed.”
Hmm. I’m not so sure about that. It takes a great deal of practice and not-a-little skill to become proficient enough with a firearm to reliably place killing shots at any sort of range. Most handgun shooters are actually lousy shots – go sit in the gallery of any public range if you don’t believe me, and count the bullet impacts in the floor, the ceiling and the walls. And there’s plenty of examples of frenzied gun battles at bad-breath range that resulted in no injuries at all.
I’d be a lot more concerned about an attacker with a knife than one with a handgun, especially at shorts distance. As Lord Peter observed, a bullet may go anywhere, but steel’s almost bound to go somewhere, and I’d suggest that, all other things being equal, an idiot with a knife will likely do a lot more damage, more often, than an idiot with a gun.
llater,
llamas
I’d be a whole-lot more concerned about an attacker with a knife than an attacker with a gun.
But not totally irrelevant.
Sikhs in Singapore carry a kirpan with a rounded point and blunt edge. They can do the same in Britain. Or they can cary a folding blade of less than 3 inches in length, the same as everyone else.
The Pedant General – I understand your position better now, thank you.
The police have received racist, so called “anti racist”, training (based on Critical Theory Marxist doctrines – although the word “Marxist” is not used in their training, the Marxist origins of “Critical Theory” so called “anti racism” are covered up) – that is why they acted the way they did in the case of Henry Nowak. And it is not just the police – it is every institution in society.
The police have NOT received training saying that raping and murdering a women is O.K.
That is why the Henry Nowak case is political – and the other case is not political.
The Henry Nowak case is not about an individual evil police officer – it is about a corrupted system, and (again) it is NOT just the police – every institution in society has been corrupted by the left.
Nor is this just a British thing – for example when an Australian woman was murdered by a Somali police officer in Minneapolis, the international establishment were indifferent.
As they are about the endless fraud committed by the Somali community – who should not have been allowed into the United States.
The long march through the institutions.
To be fair to the Somali community, and other Islamic groups in the United States and other infidel nations, they do NOT see themselves as engaged in fraud – they see themselves as undertaking certain procedures in order to collect the tax upon infidels – which they believe is not only their right, but also their religious duty, to collect.
And they would point out that many non Muslims, such as the Mayor of Minneapolis and the Governor of Minnesota, help them in this task.
Nor is this just a Democrat State thing – after all such activity is common in Republican controlled States such as Ohio.
In Western Europe (including the United Kingdom) the financial and sexual (rape gang) penalties on infidels are being enforced – and the establishment is indifferent about this.
The Red-Green alliance in Western Europe and elsewhere (indeed as far away as Australia) proceeds in its task of destroying Western nations.
It will be interesting to see if Japan proves an exception to this rule.
The recent burning of ancient Shinto shrines is leading to questioning in Japan – and the Islamic community in Japan is still relatively small, they could be removed – sent home.
The question is will the Japanese government (elected and unelected) break with the general Western establishment consensus?
I do not know.
Marius – more regulations on carrying weapons will solve nothing. Indeed it a diversion – it is what the establishment wish us to talk about.
I thought about this some more and decided I needed to know the answer, and Fraser Orr was right and I was wrong. You ARE more likely to die from being shot than being stabbed, in the US at least. In a violent encounter which ends in death, the cause of death is between 3 and 4x more likely to be a firearm than a knife.
What had me misled was that the statistics do a complete volte-face when the outcome of a violent encounter is serious injury short of death. In these cases, the cause of serious injury is 3 to 5x more-likely to be a knife than a firearm. This may be the real-world demonstration of the ’21-foot rule’ – an attacker with a knife who can get within 21 feet of his victim can close and complete the attack before the victim can respond effectively.
Learn something new every day. I was also interested to see images of the murder weapon in the Nowak case, a long, tapered blade 8-10″ long that looks more than anything like a fillet knife. In many places in the US, such a weapon would be unlawful to carry on the person, whether open or concealed, and I’m taken-aback to hear that the murderer apparently carried this weapon openly displayed with no fear of any consequences. What a strange new workd we do live in, to be sure.
llater,
llamas
“The law abiding don’t murder . . .”
A big front of the culture war comes from the claim that the law abiding do murder. That self-defense is a crime, rather than a basic human right, and that when self-defense is legal, killing in self-defense is legalized murder.
It’s not just about the law, but about crazed ideas of what the law ought to be.
A kirpan is no more of a threat than a sgian dubh tucked into the top of a sock worn by a Scotsman in a kilt.
Indeed, the former is even less accessible to the person wearing it because it is worn sheathed, wrapped in a cloth belt and next to the body inside undergarments.
One point that comes up is that police body cameras have shown to anyone who wants to see how the officers behaved. BCs started to be used, I think, in the US and have been useful overall.
Ironically, BCs may have been called for by people who see themselves on the “woke” end of things but cameras are, in a sense, a neutral entity. Transparency is a good thing.
At the very least, we can see, in full, what’s happening to policing in the U.K. and even a sanctimonious character such as Sir Keir Starmer will find this hard to ignore. Although he will try and make it all about how horrible Farage is. Thereby proving what a bellend he is. Again.
@Paul Marks…
Marius – more regulations on carrying weapons will solve nothing. Indeed it a diversion – it is what the establishment wish us to talk about.
Absolutely correct, Paul. Very astute.
JJM,
A kirpan is no more of a threat than a sgian dubh tucked into the top of a sock worn by a Scotsman in a kilt.
Indeed, the former is even less accessible to the person wearing it because it is worn sheathed, wrapped in a cloth belt and next to the body inside undergarments
But I thought the “Devils in Skirts” didn’t wear undergarments. I thought this was proved by that fine documentary, “Carry On Up The Khyber”! Not that I want to Bungdit Din!
JP,
Does anyone care what Keir Starmer thinks (if that is even an appropriate word?) He is going to be on his Khyber Pass very shortly. Anyway he isn’t a “bellend”. He is a Dickus Minimus who can’t even wank higher than the midgets in Wome.
Anyway, I’m thinking of getting a sword. Something like an arming sword. I don’t want to go the full Zweihänder…
I disagree. Without equality, there is resentment and distrust.
@NickM
But I thought the “Devils in Skirts” didn’t wear undergarments. I thought this was proved by that fine documentary, “Carry On Up The Khyber”! Not that I want to Bungdit Din!
My father used to say that the correct answer to “what is worn under the kilt” is “nothing is worn under the kilt, it is all in perfect working order.”
I have a sgian dubh and you’d be hard pressed to do much damage to someone with it, certainly the modern ones that people wear at weddings and ceilidhs though I am sure they were more damaging in the past. They are short and not very sharp. Probably better to keep a Sig Sauer in your sporan.
“Is that a Sig Sauer in your sporan or are you just pleased to see me?”
Fraser,
Ceilidhs inevitably involve folk “music” which I regard as an offensive weapon. Not that I’d want to ban it because I’m not into banning which is why, fairs is fair so why can’t I have a Glock?. And I promise not to use it against Clannad. As a liberal I’m OK with things I hate and I beg the same indulgence from others. Now, Showaddywaddy… Well, we all have to make exceptions… 😈
Just look at this. And, yes, that’s The Guardian!
NickM,
Carry On Up The Khyber is up there in my top 20 funniest films of all time. What’s interesting is that the writers knew their history and culture: the film is full of Kipling references.
Needless to say the film would be banned by today’s puritans of misery .
“Ah, my brave Burpa warriors”!
Without equality, there is resentment and distrust.
That’s a pinched and crabbed way of seeing the world.
Every once in a while all the newspaper columnists, the talking heads on the telly and bien pensants of Radio 4 will latch on to a subject and for maybe a week that’s all that gets talked about. We had one of those moments a few years ago when one of the Scandinavian countries (Norway, perhaps?) banned the wearing of burkas. So the big discussion point was whether we should do the same in Britain.
Boris Johnson was an MP at the time but also still had his column in the Daily Telegraph. He addressed the question in one of his articles. He said whether he thought women in burkas looked like pillar boxes was irrelevant. We are English, and part of being English is that we are tolerant; we don’t make laws dictating what people are allowed wear.
The same argument goes for Sikhs and their kirpans. Kirpans are part of the expression of their religion, so they get an exception on carrying knives. Again, being English, we don’t generally dictate religious practice. Carrying a kirpan hardly rises to the level of suttee, does it?
For what it’s worth, several Sikh organisations and a Sikh MP have made it very clear that the knife that killed Henry Nowak was not a kirpan.
@llamas
I think you may be committing the prosecutor’s fallacy here.
Suppose that the ratio is 3 to 1 and more than 75% of violent encounters involving knife or gun are gun then the chance of dying on encountering a knife is higher than that on encountering a gun.
Hmm. My feed just sent me a video showing the brother of the convicted murderer in this case, who is himself facing charges of AATF in the murder case, involved in some kind of street altercation last year. He is ckearly shown brandishing a 3-foot sword in an attempt to make his point. It would seem that carrying and using dangerous weapons in public is something of a family tradition.
llater,
llamas
What is not irrelevant is that, in a burka, nobody can tell whether you are a woman or a man. More important, burkas are handy to hide automatic weapons and/or suicide vests.
That works just as well for non-Muslims btw.
IIRC John Simpson wore a burka in Afghanistan to do journalism for the BBC.
In Italy, during the “years of lead”, it was forbidden for civilians to wear balaclavas. But special police forces routinely wore them during raids, on terrorists as well as mafia; and i suppose that they still do.
@Snorri Godhi
That’s your takeaway? Seriously?
I’ve taken to wearing a hoodie when venturing into the city. Don’t want to be the ONLY person who can be identified.
“ IIRC, in 2021 we already knew that British police had been turned into little more than an instrument of political repression. Those of us who had been paying attention.”
Police follow orders. They respond to those in charge. Persecute those with opinions? Yessir! Entrap someone with an undercover copper. Yessir! Round up Jews, Roma, the half and lame, rebellious clergy? YESSIR! Three bags full sir!
I’ve taken to wearing a hoodie when venturing into the city. Don’t want to be the ONLY person who can be identified.
A short while back I was intrigued by news that some people in cities that have high CCTV densities have taken to colouring their faces with blocks of dark and light face paint (urban cam paint?). This apparently neatly defeats any useful identification.
NickM – quite so Sir.
As for Prime Minister Starmer – his recent speech on Islam was as absurd (if not even more absurd) than the speech President Bush made at the Islamic center in Washington D.C. a couple of days after 9/11 – a speech that made it horribly clear that President Bush did not have a clue about Islam (had an utterly false understanding of it) and would do nothing to argue against its spread in the United States or elsewhere – hence the current situation in places such as New York City (soon it will be the 25th Anniversary of 9/11 – the Mayor of New York City will pretend to be upset, whilst privately gloating – and he has good reason to gloat, looking at what is happening in parts of Minnesota, Michigan and other States).
I can not make up my mind if people like Prime Minister Starmer really believe the utter nonsense they say (the fictional contributions of followers of Islam to building Britain – and the utterly false, indeed inverted, account of Islamic doctrines that Prime Minister Starmer, and others, presents) whether they are really that ignorant and deluded – or whether they are just lying, well not “just” lying – lying on a truly massive scale.
“We have to lie – in order to keep the peace” may be their self justification – but, in reality, the lies (or delusional statements – I do not know which it is) are destroying Britain and other Western nations.
Especially when the murder weapon wasn’t his legally permitted kirpan, but another knife that he was carrying illegally.
JuliaM
“Which he was carrying illegally” – to someone of my father’s generation this statement (implying that people have no basic right to have weapons for the defense of themselves and others) would have seemed utterly mad. What has happened to this country?
@ Clovis Sangrail – sorry for the delay, I only just saw your comment.
You may well be right. I found the stats here:
https://www.cvpsd.org/post/the-deadly-dichotomy-why-knife-attacks-cause-more-injuries-but-gun-attacks-cause-more-deaths
and they go into a lot more detail about the nature of the encounters and how they are categorized. I was merely trying to figure whether Fraser Orr’s statement was true or not, as stated, and I think these numbers show that it is.
llater,
llamas
@llamas
No worries.
Yes, your quoted source suggests (after doing a little calculation) that death is about twice as likely (about 6%) in a gun encounter as in a knife encounter (about 3%), although we should always note that YMMV.
@llamas
I was merely trying to figure whether Fraser Orr’s statement was true or not, as stated, and I think these numbers show that it is.
Interesting discussion, but if I could put on my pedantic hat for a moment, I said “Of course you are more likely to die from being shot than stabbed.” I said “shot” not “shot at”, which given the dreadful aim of most people with a short barreled weapon is an importance difference. However, your statistical analysis was interesting nonetheless. Bullets are inherently more deadly because they have a lot more energy and produce massive shock waves in the flesh during deformation, especially when using the hollow points typically used in these situations. These hollow points ensure that all that energy is dissipated in the unfortunate recipient’s body rather than passing through.
I wonder what the difference in deadly outcomes are in a typical personal defense situation where the defender is using a handgun with and without aim enhancement like a laser attachment or a red dot sight? There is a saying that if you shoot at the king you had better not miss, but I think that is not true in these kinds of self defense situations. Pointing the weapon, or even more discharging it without hitting the perp is surely enough to scare off all but the most dedicated or drug addled attacker. Perhaps some of you more expert with guns than I can pipe in.
Fraser Orr wrote:
“I wonder what the difference in deadly outcomes are in a typical personal defense situation where the defender is using a handgun with and without aim enhancement like a laser attachment or a red dot sight?”
I have some thoughts on this.
I bought my first Crimson Trace laser in the 1990s, and bloody expensive it was too. I used it regularly and it worked very well, within its limitations. I still have it, and use it from time to time. The issue I have with anywhere outside the controlled range environment is that you spend time acquiring the dot, which would be much-better spent acquiring the target. I would not, for example, use a laser on the handgun I carried in bear country.
Since then, the market has been flooded with affordable lasers from China, with the result that the range is sometimes a kaleidoscope of dancing dots of different colours. However, I do not notice any improvement in marksmanship, and I believe many users see the laser as a sort of magic carpet which will guide the bullet unerringly to the target. Unfortunately, the laser won’t help with sight acquisition, sight picture and trigger control, all of which are only acquired with practice an effort, just like most other skills that are worth having. The same applies to reflex sights on handguns, although I have to say that reflex sights on a rifle are a quantum leap and I wouldn’t have a non-telescopic rifle without one.
IMHO, after seeing the common standard of marksmanship with a handgun, I don’t worry too much about the threat of a handgun-equipped assailant who’s more than 30 or 40 feet away, laser or no laser. And that goes double if he’s pointing it one-handed. Nobody’s that good, not even me.
YMMV.
llater,
llamas
Just to throw a wrench into the discussion:
I’d rather face a .22 pistol than a knife.
I’d rather face a knife than a 45 cal pistol.
“Gun” is just too generic here.
@bobby b
I’d rather face a .22 pistol than a knife.
I was thinking more in a defensive situation. So in a confrontation if person A has a 22 handgun and person B has a knife, and assuming you are the defender, would you rather be A or B? Although I’d want a 9mm handgun or above in such a situation I think I’d still rather be A, it has the advantage of distance, and as I say pointing it or discharging it are usually enough irrespective of whether it hits the perp or not. Plus if he is running at me, even if my aim is terrible I can still probably get a couple of rounds in him when he is closer but not close enough to cut me. But I’m not as much of a gun person as either you or llamas and I have certainly never found myself in such a situation, so I’m curious your guys’ thoughts.
Do you accept police who are not intelligent enough to understand basic logic? Think about what happened for five seconds, and anyone with intelligence greater than a chimp should understand which party had far greater motivation to tell the tell the truth vs. the consequences of lying.
On another note those police officers did not just act like animals, they committed a serious crime.
Removing daggers from law-abiding Sikhs is not going to stop murderers from carrying knives.
No, it’s worse; unequal justice.
We have a good theoretical system set up for that idea here in the US.
The Constitution gives us all the presumption that we can carry weapons.
But as soon as you are convicted of a felony involving force, you can no longer have any weapons.
Some jurisdictions follow the law. If you are picked up speeding and you have a weapon, and you are a convicted felon, off you go to jail or prison.
In those jurisdictions, even though the bad guy wouldn’t follow the law voluntarily, many of them end up in jail and thus unable to rob again. So this works.
But too many liberal jurisdictions favor the poor set-upon felon, and those “felon in possession of a weapon” charges seem to get dismissed. A lot.
So, we have the system and the rules, but have too many people who see violent scum as victims.
The British state has for a long time seen the British public as their enemy. It’s just more obvious now that you have their behaviour to other groups for comparison.
Who would want to start a family in a country whose government makes it clear it has no intention of protecting your children from violent immigrants?
FWIW, I found this video from a British lawyer who I have found helpful in the past, which discusses the case and the legality in general of carrying weapons including the Kirpan in Britain. Summary: there is a specific exemption for carrying a blade for religious reasons or national dress referring to the sgian dubh. But when your intent changes from religious practice to self defense or the causing of harm the exemption disappears. One might say “too late!!” but there you go.
Thought you all might find it interesting.
At the end he discusses what you ARE allowed to carry for self defense in Britain and his answer is terrifying. He suggests a really bright flashlight (or as he calls it a “torch”) or a spray that doesn’t disable the attacker but does paint him with a color — I guess so that it is easy for the police to track him down after he has murdered you. It was one of those moments that I realized that I am thankful to live in the USA. I have a female friend who is being pursued by a stalker. She already is carrying mace in her purse, and is learning how to use a handgun. Not sure what options you British ladies have in such a situation. Stay home I guess or maybe get a dog.
In other news, two degenerates at a ‘festival’ last night in Toledo, OH, went to exchanging gunfire, commencing (as it is reported) at little more than arm’s length. In the ensuing fusillade, some 20 persons were struck and injured – but neither of the combatants were hit. Inexcusable in every way – but it demonstrates something about the current standard of marksmanship.
llater,
llamas
Panic ruins aim. Even good aim.
That, plus shooting behind one’s back, one-handed, while running away.
llater,
llamas
As does alcohol and weed which I imagine were in play at this “festival”.
Of course if there were more good guys with guns they wouldn’t be looking for the perps, they’d be scraping them off the grass.
For many years Vermont had the highest firearm ownership rate in the United States and it had no gun control regulations at-all.
It also had a very low murder rate – very low indeed in the old Republican days (Vermont is, alas, no longer a Republican State – but its culture has NOT been totally transformed – although demographic change is now under way).
It is the weapon – it is the person that matters, the culture of the persons – of the community.
London had no gun control regulations when my father was born there in 1913 and firearm ownership was common there – New York had the “Sullivan Act” (passed in 1911) strict gun control – and the murder rate in New York was many times what it was in London.