A U.K. judge handed down shockingly harsh sentences to peaceful climate activists, sparking outrage and disbelief. Is this justice or suppression of dissent?
You can obtain guns, but there are limits and requirements to try to make sure they’re being stored properly and only bought in reasonable numbers for legitimate purpose.
I assume if you write in “I want to provide security for protestors” on your application, they wouldn’t be too inclined to consider it a legitimate purpose.
It’s not about protesting with the intent to commit violence. I think the police would be less inclined to escalate things if people were carrying long guns at the perimeter of the protest. It’s easy to commit violence against a group of people if you’re reasonably sure they’re all unarmed.
I think we kinda misunderstand what the other person is saying/what they imagine the outcome to be. There’s a crass culture difference here.
In the UK (and presumably most other European countries) the police would 100% escalate things if they see someone with a gun near a large aggregation of people. Carrying guns like that is simply illegal and the only reasonable deduction is that you carry a gun because you want to use it - i.e. you are about to commit murder.
Police violence against protesters is usually limited to water cannons and tear gas, maybe rubber bullets. Protester violence is rare, sometimes throwing rocks, maybe Molotov cocktails and burning cars.
Police violence against protesters is usually limited to water cannons and tear gas, maybe rubber bullets. Protester violence is rare, sometimes throwing rocks, maybe Molotov cocktails and burning cars.
It’s the same in the US. The question is “How do you organize your protest such that the police won’t attempt to disperse/subdue you and give you a 5 year prison sentence?” The power the police (and the state in general) has is derived from their ability to commit violence without reprisal. That’s how it works in every country on Earth. The only meaningful way to deter them is to be organized in a way that says “We have protection. Fuck around and find out.”
I would assume the police would have the tools to fend off people using “mechanical weapons,” like bows, maces, spears, etc. They also have gas masks and the like to deal with chemical agents, like pepper spray. I’m not an advocate for using fire or explosives as a weapon, as they tend to cause too much collateral damage. So what else is there to be done than having a number of people carry around firearms, possibly loaded with less-than-lethal rounds (if they’re even legal), and hope that they won’t have to use them?
The reality of the situation, as far as I’m aware, is that the state has grown tired of people protesting. They’re sending out their goons to subdue people with violence (or the threat of violence) and ruin their lives with indefensibly-long prison sentences. Marching around completely defenseless while under this type of rule is pure folly.
I don’t know what the laws are like in the UK concerning firearm ownership, but I can’t imagine they’re on the side of arming the peasantry.
You can obtain guns, but there are limits and requirements to try to make sure they’re being stored properly and only bought in reasonable numbers for legitimate purpose.
I assume if you write in “I want to provide security for protestors” on your application, they wouldn’t be too inclined to consider it a legitimate purpose.
By and large guns don’t provide security.
There are a lot more creative ways to protest violently though!
It’s not about protesting with the intent to commit violence. I think the police would be less inclined to escalate things if people were carrying long guns at the perimeter of the protest. It’s easy to commit violence against a group of people if you’re reasonably sure they’re all unarmed.
I think we kinda misunderstand what the other person is saying/what they imagine the outcome to be. There’s a crass culture difference here.
In the UK (and presumably most other European countries) the police would 100% escalate things if they see someone with a gun near a large aggregation of people. Carrying guns like that is simply illegal and the only reasonable deduction is that you carry a gun because you want to use it - i.e. you are about to commit murder.
Police violence against protesters is usually limited to water cannons and tear gas, maybe rubber bullets. Protester violence is rare, sometimes throwing rocks, maybe Molotov cocktails and burning cars.
It’s the same in the US. The question is “How do you organize your protest such that the police won’t attempt to disperse/subdue you and give you a 5 year prison sentence?” The power the police (and the state in general) has is derived from their ability to commit violence without reprisal. That’s how it works in every country on Earth. The only meaningful way to deter them is to be organized in a way that says “We have protection. Fuck around and find out.”
I would assume the police would have the tools to fend off people using “mechanical weapons,” like bows, maces, spears, etc. They also have gas masks and the like to deal with chemical agents, like pepper spray. I’m not an advocate for using fire or explosives as a weapon, as they tend to cause too much collateral damage. So what else is there to be done than having a number of people carry around firearms, possibly loaded with less-than-lethal rounds (if they’re even legal), and hope that they won’t have to use them?
The reality of the situation, as far as I’m aware, is that the state has grown tired of people protesting. They’re sending out their goons to subdue people with violence (or the threat of violence) and ruin their lives with indefensibly-long prison sentences. Marching around completely defenseless while under this type of rule is pure folly.
They would not be amused.