Why does it have to come down to everyone wanting to shoot each other in a riot?
I definitely don't
want to shoot anyone in a riot. But I might be forced to if I feared for my safety and shooting the rioters were an effective measure. So that's what I'm trying to find out -- is it an effective measure, or is it likely to do more harm than good.
The London riots have shown that a full scale riots can take place without it turning into a mass casualty event.
It's certainly nice that so far there have been relatively few casualties; however, if my and my family's safety were at stake, I would prefer to have somewhat more solid guarantees. Somehow relying on the goodwill of people who are burning houses seems a little less that totally satisfactory to me.
Personal possessions and property can be replaced (that's why there are insurance companies)
That's not exactly true; many insurance companies have provisions that deny coverage in case of widespread disturbances (such as riots, war, etc.).
I really can't imagine what is going to happen when the same austerity measures take hold in the US and inevitable rioting breaks out across all the cities throughout the USA.
Actually, there have been riots in the US in the past, and I was hoping someone would be able to mention which strategies worked and how legal issues were settled.
Previous Topic
Index
