Life w/o self-defense, castle doctrine, guns, pointy things.

[ELB]

Here's the type of society that Nanny-in-Chief Bloomberg, the VPC, the Joyce Foundation, the Feinsteins, and the rest of their fellow-travelers would create for us... This is a long post, so refill your drink before proceeding, but I ran across these four articles in the same day, and was struck by the picture they paint.

Father confronted by axe-wielding burglars - but police are too busy to turn up for THREE hours
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770
(edited for length - go the url to RTWT)

By DAVID WILKES - Last updated at 00:49am on 29th April 2008

Cowering upstairs with his partner and their two children as a gang of burglars wielding an axe emptied his living room, Mathew Sims wasted no time in calling 999. But instead of the immediate response he expected, the police told him: "We're too busy to help." Within minutes, the burglars drove off with a haul of stolen property.
...
The burglary happened shortly after 11pm last Tuesday. Mr Sims, 24, heard his dog barking then noticed the kitchen light flicker on downstairs. He pushed open the door and was confronted by eight intruders, wearing balaclavas. One had an axe. He slammed the door shut - and was hit by flying glass as one raider swung the weapon at him, smashing the pane.
Mr Sims ran upstairs to Sarah Barham and their children Lewis, six, and Macey, five. They barricaded themselves in a bedroom and held the door shut.

"Thankfully, the men didn't come upstairs, but I was worried about my children's safety," said Mr Sims. "The minute we knew these people were in the house we rang the police, but they said it would be at least half an hour before they could come out."

The burglars' haul included a PlayStation 3, a sat-nav device, a wireless internet router, mobile phones and 24- year- old Miss Barham's bag, keys and bank cards.

Mr Sims, who lives in Arnold, near Nottingham, added: "Nobody from the police had turned up half an hour later, and when we rang again they said there was no one they could send. "They said officers around the area were looking for the cars we had described and anyone suspicious, but we didn't see one police car come past.

"Then we had a call to say no one could come out to see us that night and we should get our heads down and someone would be there in the morning. "We were kicking up a fuss, asking why no one could come when we had had people in our house. I ended up putting the phone down in frustration."

At 2.30am, officers arrived at the house to take statements.

Yesterday, Chief Inspector Andy Burton of Nottinghamshire Police said in a statement: "On this occasion the way control-room staff dealt with this incident fell way short of the standard I expect. "The force has apologised to the family by way of letter and I personally have contacted the family this morning. "An investigation is being carried to find out why there was not an immediate response and any findings will be shared with the family."
...
Nottingham was recently named Britain's burglary capital. House burglary levels in the city are 63 per cent above the national average, according to a league table which is compiled from insurance records of areas where a homeowner is most likely to experience a break-in.

And...

WPC kicked unconscious by 30-strong gang of teenage drunks after she asked them not to throw popcorn on a tram
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

By JAYA NARAIN - Last updated at 10:05am on 29th April 2008

As an ex-policewoman, Julie Pickford thought she knew how to deal with rowdy teenagers. So when she politely asked a boy to stop throwing popcorn at other passengers on a tram she was confident he and the rest of his gang would behave.

Nothing could have prepared her for the shocking and violent attack that followed. Without warning, one girl stood up and punched her in the face and then a mob of up to 30 teenagers joined in, punching her and stamping on her.
...
Mrs Pickford, 47, a mother-of-two who has a judo black belt, was powerless to stop the attack and briefly blacked out. With blood streaming from her injuries and £50 stolen from her handbag, she was thrown off the tram at the next stop in Sale, Greater Manchester.

She was taken to hospital with a suspected fracture to her eye socket, a badly-cut mouth and severe bruising and grazes. Mrs Pickford, who runs a commercial property firm, was discharged the next day but went back to hospital after she began passing blood because of suspected kidney damage.

The attack has chilling similarities to the murder of Garry Newlove, 47, who was kicked to death last year when he challenged a gang of drunken youths who he believed had vandalised a car outside his home in Warrington.
...
It is believed the gang may have been attending an illegal rave in Sale on Friday night. Mrs Pickford, from Northwich, Cheshire, was making her way home after an evening out with colleagues. The former constable, who was sitting on tram heading from Manchester to Altrincham, said: "A young girl came flying forwards towards me."

"I wasn't quick enough and she punched me in the mouth. All of them started kicking me around the floor of the tram. The doors opened and I was kicked on to the platform. They were like a pack of animals, screaming and hammering on the windows. I can still see the face of the girl who punched me. She must have been on drink or drugs."
...
Police have arrested a girl, 15, on suspicion of assault. She has been released on bail pending further inquiries.

Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority has ordered an inquiry into the attack.

More:

KNIFINGS AND SHOOTINGS UP AS MURDER RATE SOARS
SMITH: Defended Labour's stance on weapons
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/426 ... ate-soars-

Monday April 28,2008
By Gabriel Milland Political Correspondent

THERE has been a huge increase in being people shot, stabbed and even kicked to death since Labour came to power.
Shocking statistics released last night show a 14 per cent increase in murder and manslaughter in England and Wales between 1998 and 2007. There was also a 28 per cent increase in deaths from bladed weapons. Those killed by shootings increased by the same figure. Most shockingly, there was a 57 per cent increase in deaths caused by punching and kicking.

The figures, supplied in Parliamentary answers by Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker, emerged just days after Home Secretary Jacqui Smith claimed the Government was winning the battle against violent crime.

Figures show 608 homicides in England and Wales in 1997-98, compared to 734 for 2006-07 – the latest year for which complete information is available. The most common violent deaths last year came from use of sharp instruments – up from 201 in 1998-99 to 258 in 2006-07. Second was hitting or kicking, with 140 deaths.
...
Separate figures out last week showed there were 9,967 gun-related crimes, a rise of 373 on 2006, although gun deaths fell from 56 to 49. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: “We have made it clear that anyone who considers carrying a firearm or other offensive weapon will be subject to swift, severe punishment.�

A Home Office spokesperson said: “The British Crime Survey shows violent crime has fallen by a third over the past 10 years.
“Gun crime remains rare and we will continue to do whatever we can to keep weapons off our streets.�

The Labor government has been caught before massively cooking the statistical books on crime. I would not give two cents for the British Crime Survey.

But then there is this...The author can't quite get over his snobbery about the colonials and their guns and of course everyone knows that's why its "proper" to associate the US with violence... and yet... and yet... it feels so much safer than the UK....

America's 'safety catch'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/f ... 359513.stm

By Justin Webb
BBC North America editor, Missouri

Despite the fact there are more than 200 million guns in circulation, there is a certain tranquility and civility about American life.

Deepwater, Missouri has a motto: "A great lil' town nestled in the heartland." Deepwater considers itself to be an exemplar of the best of American life. A place where outsiders - if they ever penetrated this far - would find home-cooked apple pie and friendly, warm, hard-working folk.

Among those folk, I have no doubt, is Ronald Long. Last month Mr Long decided to install a satellite television system in his Deepwater home. His efforts to make a hole in the outside wall came to nothing because Mr Long did not possess a drill. But he did have a .22 calibre gun. He fired two shots from the inside of the bedroom. The second killed his wife who was standing outside. He will face no charges. The police accept it was an accident.

Gun control

To many foreigners - and to some Americans - the tolerance of guns in everyday American life is simply inexplicable.
As a New York Times columnist put it recently: "The nation is saturated with violence. Thousands upon thousands of murders are committed each year. There are more than 200 million guns in circulation."

Someone suggested a few days ago that the Democrats' presidential candidates might like to take up the issue of gun control. Forget about it. They were warned off - in colourful style - by a fellow Democrat, the Governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer.

"In Montana, we like our guns", he said. "Most of us own two or three guns. 'Gun control' is hitting what you shoot at. So I'd be a little careful about blowing smoke up our skirts."

Democrats would like to win in the Mountain West this November. Enough said.

Washington weapons ban

On the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting, all this will feel to some like a rather depressing, if predictable, American story. A story of an inability to get to grips with violence.

At the moment, there is an effort being made to overturn a ban on some types of weapon in Washington DC.

Among those dead against this plan - those who claim it would turn the nation's capital into the Wild West - is a lanky black man (he looks like a basketball player) called Anwan Glover. Anwan peeled off articles of clothing for our cameras and revealed that he had been shot nine times. One bullet is still lodged in an elbow. His younger brother was shot and killed a few months ago. Anwan was speaking to us in a back alley in north-east Washington. If you heard a gun shot in this neighbourhood you would not feel surprised.

'Gentler environment'

Why is it then that so many Americans - and foreigners who come here - feel that the place is so, well, safe?
I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place

A British man I met in Colorado recently told me he used to live in Kent but he moved to the American state of New Jersey and will not go home because it is, as he put it, "a gentler environment for bringing the kids up."

This is New Jersey. Home of the Sopranos.

Brits arriving in New York, hoping to avoid being slaughtered on day one of their shopping mission to Manhattan are, by day two, beginning to wonder what all the fuss was about. By day three they have had had the scales lifted from their eyes.

I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place, the lack of the violent undercurrent so ubiquitous in British cities, even British market towns. "It seems so nice here," they quaver. Well, it is!

Violent paradox

Ten or 20 years ago, it was a different story, but things have changed. And this is Manhattan.

Wait till you get to London Texas, or Glasgow Montana, or Oxford Mississippi or Virgin Utah, for that matter, where every household is required by local ordinance to possess a gun. Folks will have guns in all of these places and if you break into their homes they will probably kill you. They will occasionally kill each other in anger or by mistake, but you never feel as unsafe as you can feel in south London.

It is a paradox. [Editorial note: No, it ain't.] Along with the guns there is a tranquillity and civility about American life of which most British people can only dream.

Peace and serenity

What surprises the British tourists is that, in areas of the US that look and feel like suburban Britain, there is simply less crime and much less violent crime. Doors are left unlocked, public telephones unbroken.

One reason - perhaps the overriding reason - is that there is no public drunkenness in polite America, simply none. I have never seen a group of drunk young people in the entire six years I have lived here. I travel a lot and not always to the better parts of town. It is an odd fact that a nation we associate - quite properly - with violence is also so serene, so unscarred by petty crime, so innocent of brawling.

Virginia Tech had the headlines in the last few days and reminded us of the violence for which the US is well known. But most American lives were as peaceful on this anniversary as they are every day.

From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Saturday 19 April, 2008 at 1130 BST on BBC Radio 4. Please check the programme schedules for World Service transmission times.

[asleepatthereel]

I wonder how they are going to implement leg control to stop the kicking and stomping?

[frankie_the_yankee]

The Brits have made self defense virtually illegal. And they have made the tools of self defense illegal as well. To make things worse, jail terms for violent crimes tend to be much shorter there than here.

So it's no surprise that the criminal element is terrorizing the general population, that burglaries are common, and that street crime is rampant.

You would think that they might start getting ideas about changing some of the misguided social policies that have put them in that perdicament. But not yet, apparently.

Instead, they seem to be trending towards banning knives and putting cameras everywhere. (Fat lot of good that will do them if they don't bother to catch the BG's or lock them up.)

It will probably get worse there before it gets better.

[Glock 23]

I wonder how they are going to implement leg control to stop the kicking and stomping?

I think all legs need to be registered with the government. Then we can take pictures of everyones leg and have it in a database. Ya know, just in case.

[asleepatthereel]

Always thinkin, Glock. Thats what I like about you.

[tallmike]

700 murders a year for a population of 60mil is pretty good. I always assumed it was far worse than that.

[Liko81]

700 murders a year for a population of 60mil is pretty good. I always assumed it was far worse than that.

Yes, but the burglary, robbery and assault rates are far higher than in the States. It is quite simply harder to kill efficiently without guns, hence lower murder rates, but without guns you must be able to overpower your attackers, and one vs eight isn't a fair fight even if you're Jackie Chan, to say nothing of one vs 30. I do not have evidence to back up this claim, but it seems to me that gang violence and gun control are directly related; the tighter a government's grip on guns, the more prevalent gangs become, because it's a tactic that works extremely well in a "gun-free" environment.

[jimlongley]

I wonder how they are going to implement leg control to stop the kicking and stomping?

I think all legs need to be registered with the government. Then we can take pictures of everyones leg and have it in a database. Ya know, just in case.

With serial numbers in germanic appearing numbers tattooed on?

[Keith B]

Mr Sims, who lives in Arnold, near Nottingham, .....

Well, there's the problem; Didn't anyone ever read Robin Hood and see what a crook the sheriff is?? Probably his guys that were stealing the stuff!

[frankie_the_yankee]

700 murders a year for a population of 60mil is pretty good. I always assumed it was far worse than that.

Yes, but the burglary, robbery and assault rates are far higher than in the States. It is quite simply harder to kill efficiently without guns, hence lower murder rates, but without guns you must be able to overpower your attackers, and one vs eight isn't a fair fight even if you're Jackie Chan, to say nothing of one vs 30.

Exactly right.

That's the thing that we need to recognize. When the antis make the agrument that if guns could be more or less completely banned, there would be fewer murders, we need to understand that there is a kernel of truth behind that argument.

Now of course it is also true that keeping guns from criminals, even with a complete ban, is a practical impossibility in the USA. (If they can't do it on a relatively small island, there's no way on Earth we could do it.) So we are right when we point out that a ban would only disarm the law-abiding.

But our best arguments for remnmaining an armed society are twofold. First is what I would call "the Founder's argument". That is that an armed citizenry is less likely to fall prey to government tyranny. And as we have seen both in the last century as well as the current one, government tyranny is frequently accompanied by genocide, and that the death toll from genocide tends to exceed that from ordinary crime by a factor of 10 or more.

But it is the second argument that I find most intriguing. I will call this one, "Snyder's argument" after Jeffery Snyder, the author of the piece titled, "A Nation of Cowards". Snyder explains the virtues of guns as equalizers. While acknowledging that there is a social cost to widespread gun availability and ownership - namely more homicides - he argues that the resulting society is still to be preferred because it avoids the worst moral and ethical dilemma of the unarmed society, the fact that it puts the weak at the direct physical mercy of the strong.

What kind of moral or ethical system would endorse the idea that a 25 year old 6'4" 250 pound athlete walking down the street should enjoy a greater level of physical security (i.e. freedom from criminal assault) than a 5'4" 140 pound 57 year old man with multiple health issues? What kind of a moral or ethical system is OK with the idea that one should have to live in fear of a gang smashing their way into one's home and wreaking havoc at any time that they choose - just because they can, because they possess the physical power to do so?

And the answer is that no moral or ethical system would allow for such things, as they represent nothing more than the law of the jungle.

The strong can protect themselves. The rich can hire others (presumably also strong) to help them do that. And the rest of us simply must be resigned to our fate as victims should we be so unfortunate as to become targets.

So here in the USA, we are much more secure in our homes and persons than almost anyone in the UK. And the smallest, oldest, and weakest among us retains the ability to effectively ward off an assault by almost any criminal or group of criminals.

But in return for that, we end up living with a substantially higher homicide rate. I would make an analogy to the 4th and 5th amendments. By following these amendments, sometimes criminals who are clearly guilty end up going free. And when they do, they usually commit more crimes. But we accept this social cost because we believe that on the balance, limiting government power to search and/or to compel self incrimination is a net benefit and a further buffer against tyranny.

Make no mistake, more homicides or not, I much prefer our system to theirs. I believe their system to be morally and ethically bankrupt. Under our system, every citizen is valued. No one is forced to be a helpless victim of evil. And our homes are a true refuge that we can retire to in confidence. As even one of the Brits noted in the last article, criminals here worry about getting shot, and this inhibits them from doing things like home invasions (so common in the UK), robberies, and assaults. Even the Brits notice that in spite of our national reputation as a violent place, our streets and neighborhoods are "strangely" peaceful.

That's why we own guns. That's why we carry guns. And that's why we bear the social costs of doing so.

[anygunanywhere]

As long as those who seek to equalize themselves with the strong obtain a second amendment permission card, right?

Anygunanywhere

[frankie_the_yankee]

As long as those who seek to equalize themselves with the strong obtain a second amendment permission card, right?

Anygunanywhere

Every pebble is not a slippery slope.

You need a "1st amendment permission slip" to run a parade down a public street. It's been that way for a long time. And I don't see people having problems organizing and conducting parades.

If convicted criminals, lunatics, and dope addicts want to run around carrying guns, I want them to be running the risk of getting busted and thrown back in prison. Given that increased risk, Human Nature 101 says that some of them will elect not to do it.

If Al Qaeda death squads want to board airliners carrying MP-5's and stage shootouts at 35000 feet, I want laws and procedures in place that prevent them from doing that.

You apparently don't care whether they do or not.

And I guess you would regard all of the distinguished experts in constitutional law and gun rights advocates who wrote all lof the Heller briefs as "sellouts", because not a single one of them supports an absolutist position on the 2A.

You are perfectly free to do so.

But recognize that it's not just me that rejects the absolutist view, due to the absurd consequences that it leads to. It is every court, every scholar of constitutional law, and every legislature.

If our side had held to an absolutist view, we would never have gotten the CHL law here in TX.

If our side had attempted to argue the absolutist view, we would never have gotten the Heller case to the Supreme Court.

It's not hard to post clever references to "permission slips". Anyone can do it.

I'd be more impressed if people who didn't like "permission slips" would do something like explain how, if we implement their cherished absolutist policies, we could avoid the negative consequences of the absurd situations that they lead to.

That would be pretty clever in my book. But I don't think one can get there by quoting a few bumper stickers.

[anygunanywhere]

As long as those who seek to equalize themselves with the strong obtain a second amendment permission card, right?

Anygunanywhere

Every pebble is not a slippery slope.

You need a "1st amendment permission slip" to run a parade down a public street. It's been that way for a long time. And I don't see people having problems organizing and conducting parades.

If convicted criminals, lunatics, and dope addicts want to run around carrying guns, I want them to be running the risk of getting busted and thrown back in prison. Given that increased risk, Human Nature 101 says that some of them will elect not to do it.

If Al Qaeda death squads want to board airliners carrying MP-5's and stage shootouts at 35000 feet, I want laws and procedures in place that prevent them from doing that.

You apparently don't care whether they do or not.

And I guess you would regard all of the distinguished experts in constitutional law and gun rights advocates who wrote all lof the Heller briefs as "sellouts", because not a single one of them supports an absolutist position on the 2A.

You are perfectly free to do so.

But recognize that it's not just me that rejects the absolutist view, due to the absurd consequences that it leads to. It is every court, every scholar of constitutional law, and every legislature.

If our side had held to an absolutist view, we would never have gotten the CHL law here in TX.

If our side had attempted to argue the absolutist view, we would never have gotten the Heller case to the Supreme Court.

It's not hard to post clever references to "permission slips". Anyone can do it.

I'd be more impressed if people who didn't like "permission slips" would do something like explain how, if we implement their cherished absolutist policies, we could avoid the negative consequences of the absurd situations that they lead to.

That would be pretty clever in my book. But I don't think one can get there by quoting a few bumper stickers.

My comment in no way expresses an absolutist point of view.

Arming oneself for self defense and protection against government tyranny is what the second amendment is all about. You can argue your terrorist on planes argument all day long and use it to support your own extremist examples but someone else's point of view you consider extreme is absurd. You used the example quoted above, not me.

You insist that I have not explained myself adequately but you insist that here in Texas we are better off because we must have a permit to carry because "Texas is different". This is your opinion and expresses the typical Massachusetts Ted Kennedy elitist argument.

I do not quote bumper stickers, and I do not claim to be a second amendment supporter while insisting on degrees of infringement.

Anygunanywhere

[shaggydog]

I'd be more impressed if people who didn't like "permission slips" would do something like explain how, if we implement their cherished absolutist policies, we could avoid the negative consequences of the absurd situations that they lead to.

I would be more impressed if those that constently whimper about an abuse of their "rights" would show me what they are actually doing to change the status quo.

Incessant complaining usually results in little change.

[frankie_the_yankee]

My comment in no way expresses an absolutist point of view.

Arming oneself for self defense and protection against government tyranny is what the second amendment is all about. You can argue your terrorist on planes argument all day long and use it to support your own extremist examples but someone else's point of view you consider extreme is absurd. You used the example quoted above, not me.

You insist that I have not explained myself adequately but you insist that here in Texas we are better off because we must have a permit to carry because "Texas is different". This is your opinion and expresses the typical Massachusetts Ted Kennedy elitist argument.

I do not quote bumper stickers, and I do not claim to be a second amendment supporter while insisting on degrees of infringement.

Anygunanywhere

Why must you hijack every thread with this stuff?

It's not just my opinion that TX is "different". I listed numerous specific ways in which it is different. You know, facts.

Calling my argument "Massachussettes Ted Kennedy elitist" stuff is not an argument. It's just hanging a label on it.

As far as characterizing your argument as "extreme", I am not simply calling your argument a name. (In fact, I didn't use the term "extreme" in my post.) As usual, I backed up my point by citing the fact that no constitutional scholar, Heller brief author, court, or legislature supports an absolutist 2A position.

If you do not hold to an absolutist position, why not start another thread and list those deviations from the absolute that you believe to be reasonable - i.e. "reasonable restrictions" that you can support?