Should Britain have a voluntary Civil Guard ?

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

So, rampaging mobs in London have been forced to turn and run when confronted by chaps waving hockey sticks and cricket stumps. Even Millwall residents who were completely unarmed were sufficient to deter some looters who turned up on their patch - one wonders how well the citizens of London would be able to keep law and order given the proper training and some decent kit.

But, the Brits have also got a petition in the air about repealing the ban on capital punishment. So, should we judicially execute people? A writer on the Times letter page, claiming to work for an organisation called Amicus, says that in the USA, the States that have the death penalty have a higher murder rate per capita than the states that have banned executions. True or false, guys? Tell us if you know.

But, if rioting in the UK continues to be a feature of daily life, then it may be that cops and even civilians may have to resort to lethal force to stop rampaging looters. So, I want to ponder the rights and wrongs of ordering troops to open fire. Of taking out an aggressor with a lethal blow from a baseball bat or similar.

It may even be necessary to declare a State of Emergency in a future crisis. If looters and rioters do not disperse, I am happy for a Home Secretary to issue orders for rioters to be shot at with live ammo, or for looters to be shot on sight. I just wonder if this may be counter productive, or what other effective means there are of preventing looting.

Guns are not on sale to the public (yet) but if they became available, would I use one? Permit their use by police or troops if I were in office? Whereas executions have little value as a deterrent, the use of hot lead or cold steel may well be effective in clearing a street of rioters. If it were absolutely needed to prevent mobs from setting fire to buildings, I would be happy to give the order, or to open fire myself, if need be.

Certainly, as recent experience has shown, the use of Wooden Hand Weapons (WHWs) is very effective against rampaging mobs. These people are mainly opportunists and have a reputation of fleeing rather than standing their ground when confronted by the righteous anger of the local people. I am therefore more in favour of allowing the people in the community the right to carry WHWs or any other Effective Weapons to deter rioters, muggers and other ne'er do wells, rather than arming the police or calling upon the Troops.

So long as we accept that we are only prepared to kill as a last resort, and that any citizens out on patrol on the streets are competently led by someone in authority with the necessary training, and that they have the means to capture and hand over any suspects to the Civil Powers, I don't see any problems in allowing citizens to police their own areas. Nor should we deter people from stepping up to defend their property or fellow citizens when confronted with Anti Social Elements. Britain has got too many criminals already. Perhaps a few going home in body bags is something that we should accept as the price of having a safe space to live and work.

Volunteers should be encouraged to come forward and receive training in first aid, traffic control, assisting with the aftermath of natural disasters, as well as riot control and civil defence. A bounty could be paid to them and Civil Guard created that would ease the workload on the police. certain features, like volunteers and First Aid Training already exist in the UK. What I propose it simply to widen its scope. The bounty paid would ease the welfare budget, and give people a more useful role in society than just drawing a welfare cheque. Volunteers should be suitably kitted out with proper batons, helmets and riot shields, of course, as well as proper uniforms and anything else needed to protect and serve the community.

Obviously, America and other countries have more experience of this sort of thing already. I just wonder how this works out in practice.

Comments

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

Nunchucks and edged weapons take skill, strength and constant practice to use effectively. You need to know what you are doing with a Glock, too, but it is a different skill set more easily attained by everyone.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

At present, I don't see the need for shotguns. however, if the situation were to change and my team was meeting incoming fire on a regular basis when on patrol or dealing with an incident, I would expect that citizens would have the right to acquire shotguns, and use them in accordance with the rules of engagement -
Is the threat severe enough to warrant their use?
Is this the minimum use of force to meet the needs of the law abiding community?

The whole problem I have with firearms is that I have actually used one myself. Ditto an edged weapon. Only in practice, mind - but often enough to see the limitations of these tools.

I don't want innocent people getting killed by crossfire, I don't want to send people into situations where they are inadequately trained to deal with what comes up.

I reckon that a guy my age, with a helmet, a round riot shield and a baton could take on a thug with a switch-blade or anything else short of a gun or a petrol bomb.

To tackle that sort of a threat, we would need a gunner - but every team could have one.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The only reason some Korean groceries in LA weren't burned to the ground during the 1992 riots was because the owners were heavily armed and made no apologies about it.

Firearms are a force multiplier. A cricket bat is all well and good if you are defending yourself against one attacker, or perhaps even 2, but 5? More than 5? Riots are masses of people, these riots seemed to have been organized teams of vandals and looters. You cannot convince me that

And, not for nothing, a shotgun is much more easily used as a less than lethal weapon than a pistol or rifle. Light loaded with bird shot or with rock salt a shotgun will send a intimidating and painful message without actually killing the target, or even injuring a bystander. Not that you shouldn't have some 00 or slugs in your pockets ready to go.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

weight of numbers seemed to have entered the equation where it mattered - in the minds of rioters.

The Turks and Sikhs surged forwards, and were slightly outnumbered - however, some rioter was gonna get hurt if contact got made, and every one of them decided that this was not a good day to go looting, there and then.

Rock salt and bird shot? I like the idea of using rock salt, but what sort of effective range are we talking ?

And of course, we don't need just one or two guys trying to take on the mob, if we are going to do this, we still need volley fire, weight of numbers.

The big thing about a local Trained Band or Volunteers Association is that it gets the kids off the streets and into training, discipline and serving the community in a non -military fashion.

So I support this , more than just supporting a bill to give the lone hero the right to self defence.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

When you have weight of numbers you are in good shape. Unfortunately, you can't have weight of numbers everywhere all at once, just like you can't have the police everywhere all at once. All your community organizing and volunteer associations are fine, even laudable if perhaps slightly creepy, but they still can't be everywhere all the time. Would you even want them to be? So, when that man stands alone, while all the help is elsewhere helping other, to deny him the right to self defense just seems monstrous to me.

I have no idea about rock salt, probably less than 15 yards. Bird shot stings like the dickens at 30 yards, I know that from experience. However, you don't ever want to actually fire the guns. That is the very last thing you want, because that is when blood is spilled and that is when lines are crossed that cannot be uncrossed. Once you shoot, you have to be willing and able to kill, because a load of bird shot won't dissuade everyone.

Dispersing the mob, restoring order, these are truly where the police have to do the work. All personal weapons are for is personal protection of life and property. I wouldn't want armed gangs roaming the streets dispensing "justice" any more than you. I would like to have families and shopkeepers snug in their secured premises with a weapon handy in case other options fail them.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

The thing is that there were how many actually involved in the riots? A few hundred , maybe?

Seriously, it took a relatively small percentage to stand up to them and they ran. We do not need to be everywhere at once, these people are out to loot and we just put people at the shops in main towns. Good civil defence starts with adequate locks on everyone's door, then a mobile phone and a well trained Local Volunteer Group.

The looter is looking for an easy target and we must avoid presenting one.

However, you don't ever want to actually fire the guns.
I fail to follow you here. You take a gun out on patrol, but you try to detain and hand over any miscreant to the Civil Power. It is for the courts to mete out justice.

However, the mob does not disperse, so what are you going to do then? I am all for giving fair waning , but if it gets ignored, well tough, we open fire.

One has to remember that a lad who was beaten up got robbed again by his ' helpers', and another woman was forced to jump from a first floor window to escape the flames.

As far as I am concerned, lines have been crossed already. If we have to shoot and kill every last rioter in England, it is a small price to pay for a decent and safe society.

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

Me and my bros practice regularly with nunchucks and blades. Hell, there's not much else to do around here except hunt and fish.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

That sounds like a cool place!