(UK poster here - living away from the riots though, thankfully)
There was apparently a decently large group of Turkish business owners in London last night who got together with baseball bats to protect their businesses (which apparently worked).
After seeing Korean shopowners in action during the LA riots in 1991, I'd always been curious how this scenario would play out in a country with gun control laws.
On a possibly related note, there don't seem to have been any reports of deaths yet (apart from the original suspect shot by police that seems to have been the spark in the powderkeg).
I suspect many of these will be for home owners in these affected areas. Remember that whilst the shops are being targeted, that there are often many people cowering behind locked doors hoping that this will come to an end. This is a just a means of protection for them, should they need it. In the UK people are not allowed to own fire arms, but baseball bats are a different thing altogether.
"In the UK people are not allowed to own fire arms"
That isn't strictly true - just that the licensing schemes are very strict and licenses will only be given for certain types of guns (e.g. shotguns) for certain reasons (hunting or work).
I would guess that many, if not a majority of the rioters lack a credit card, and quite possibly a registered permanent address for deliveries. These are people on the farthest margins of society, often with very little to lose.
Yes, I read that earlier. What did you find insightful in it? The people involved aren't commenting on government policy. They're looting. I think some on the left are desperately trying to spin this as some sort of popular uprising but it's nothing of the sort.
Exactly, it's not (directly) political. These are poor people without jobs and opportunities, and gangsters and criminals. These guys sure aren't protesting any issues.
Therefore I'd agree with mortenjorck, the majority of the rioters probably don't have credit cards and probably aren't the kind of people who order stuff from amazon.
There are plenty of poor people in London, the vast majority of whom aren't looting shops. While I'd agree that the looters aren't likely ordering much from Amazon, I see no reason to think they lack homes or are 'on the farthest margins of society'.
If they are poor, without jobs and opportunities, I think they are, one way or another, protesting. We made the exact same mistake in France in 2005. If you prefer, these events are the manifestation of their condition which could be qualified of passive or unconscious protestation.
Everyone has to start from somewhere though, and stealing a bat from someone who's rioting doesn't seem like the best option when Amazon is perfectly willing to send one to you.
Surely rioters? I find it hard to believe a shop owner is seriously going to try and hold the line by themselves against a mob. Also, a baseball bat is a classic disguised weapon but a shopkeeper will have no justification in having one so it is probably an offensive weapon in UK law.
I've heard it said that D-cell Maglite torches are used by security guards not because they necessarily need a torch (a headtorch is generally more useful anyway), but because it can be carried and justified legally.
A rioter caught carrying a baseball bad would be in serious trouble. A bat is hard to conceal on a person. Anyone carrying one will become a target to the police, as they will know the rioter is a trouble maker.
I've also heard this about large maglites. In fact they are often carried by being held near the globe end with the body of the torch resting on the shoulder. This allows the torch to be swung down onto a victim's collarbone breaking it and disabling that arm. (Apologies for the gruesome detail.)
