We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, March 22. 2013
How they disarmed our British cousins. It's the pitiful story of how Brits lost the right to self-defense.
Here in the USA, we hold with the Castle Doctrine even though we have never had castles. We have stories like this one in the news daily: Texas Sheriff: Homeowner’s Gun Key to Saving His and Wife’s Lives from Home Invaders.
Bad guys ignore gun laws. An unarmed home is just a target. And dead men don't talk...
Pic is a Taurus. That's the gun Marianne kept handy.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
The News Junkie: It's the pitiful story of how Brits lost the right to self-defense.
Perhaps, but the story isn't accurate. Martin shot the intruders as they tried to flee.
Taurus makes a carbine version of the judge. The longer barrel should get most of the energy out of the .410 and .45. And, the carbine is easier to control and aim.
For myself, I have a Marlin in .357.
Wings, Bird Dog, wings. But the answer to that question doesn't make the story more accurate.
Just pointing out that the story was inaccurate. A jury found Martin's actions weren't justified, which relates to the original post about "how Brits lost the right to self-defense".
FWIW: Whether the two individuals were shot as the prosecution alleged (and presented evidence in support of) or as the homeowner alleged in his defense, is irrelevant to the larger point of the article. The point being, the gradual constriction of the right to own a means of defense can result in the constriction of the right of defense with no real reduction in the amount of violence. Case study in point would be Jamaica. A small island nation with very strict gun laws, enforced by house to house searches and seizures, should after the laws have taken effect, find themselves with both a lack of guns and gun crime. That's not been the case and the regular, law abiding citizeny, find themselves the target of the latter without having personal resort to the former.
The real question is why are politicians and some others so opposed to honest citizens being armed. Guns are used over 2.5 million times by honest citizens in the U.S. every year to save lives and prevent crimes. Sure, some will respond that even with honest people accidents and mistakes happen that kill people. But yet the number of people who die by gunshot as a result of accidental or criminal actions by honest people is so much less then from other common causes like DUI, smoking, medical mistakes, etc. So why, then, do so many want to remove the ability for honest people to defend themselves even when the 2nd amendment guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms? There is only one reason; we must be disarmed first before we can be enslaved. There is no other possible or logical reason.
England and Australia will one day regret allowing their government to take their defensive weapons. Already violent crime in both countries has increased. I think Australia is particularly at risk. In a part of the world where they are nieghbors to countries heavily over populated and under-blessed with natural resources Australia looks tempting. At some point in the future (sooner if Obama has his way) the U.S. will become a 2nd rate world power and China will flex their muscles. While China has it's eye on many prizes Australia is at the top of their list. With a mere 22 million mostly unarmed citizens Australia is a tempting prize.
I smiled when I saw her name, and thought, "Another example of the wisdom of Ms. Marianne." Though my choice ended up being a S&W .38 Special w/Hornady Critical Defense ammo.
I never had the pleasure of meeting Marianne, though we corresponded. What a gracious and smart Lady she was.
As Joyce Lee Malcolm has written abut England:
In 1953 the government went beyond disarming the public of
firearms and with the Prevention of Crime Act forbade individuals carrying any article in a public place
“made, adapted, or intended” for an offensive purpose “without lawful authority or excuse.” Carrying
anything to protect oneself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense was defined as an
offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone and individuals found with
offensive items were guilty until proven innocent.
Journal on Firearms & Public Policy
In theory self-defense is still legal in the UK, in practice the means of defense is effectively illegal unless the attacker is unarmed and smaller, weaker, or less agile than you.
I do find it unfortunate that the article has to start by mis-characterizing the Martin case, I think it dies the pro-civil-rights side no favors if people can so easily point to errors of omission that change the story so substantively.
"The real question is why are politicians and some others so opposed to honest citizens being armed"?
Exactly. Even the hypocrite zachriel is armed.
The basic reason for the 2nd Amendment isn't hunting or target shooting; it is for defense against a despotic government.
Note that the recent school killings wwere done entirely with handguns — but the clear impression by the Media is that 'assault weapons' were used. Why? Because the government fears rifles, while criminals fear handguns, and the Media carries the government's water.
There is no better time to contact your Representatives and Senators than right now. Tell them that the 2nd Amendment is non-negotiable.
A longer and more detailed version of the story of British gun control is here:
Not quite. Our Second Amendment came from British Common Law. In the past in England being armed was encouraged, now it's not. The violent crime rate has risen pretty much with the strength of gun control laws. It's not necessary that the bad guy have a gun if the law discourages self defense.
It's my understanding that (whether the thugs were running away or not) the intruders had a record and that the shooter was broken into several times.
Is your position that a career criminal breaks into your house (an all too common occurrence) that someone who shoots the criminal should go to jail for longer than the criminal?
I'm with you, Ron. Marianne was a real class act.
.38 spcl Hornady Critical Defense is a good round - as is all the Hornady ammo. Let's hope you don't have to ever use it!
Nice portable shot gun this is. I wonder how much they are?
I wonder what the kick would be with it?
More Guns, Less Crime was published in 1998 --the third edition is now out. Lott is a PhD economist and compiled stats as economists do.
Every politician in DC that can read MUST have read it by now (who can't read will have assigned a staffer to summarize).
The grabbers know that their 'public safety' grabbing premise is a huge, monstrously cynical lie.
Ergo, the senate debate coming right up (yes, it IS time to talk to a pol or three) will be a theatrical improvisation based on the premise that there is a fictional world where the Lott book could not have been written.
So, really, the question is as posed twice above (by GWTW and Dr Scott).
That's really the first question that pro-grabbers should have to face --framed as "why are you for more gun violence?"
Feinstein's feigned rebut that 'we have to start somewhere' implies that the gazillion guns out there now will wear out one by one (true, but it'll take thousands of years), and then, no more criminals!
No smugglers of foreign Saturday Nite Specials, freelancing and/or paying off the grabber taskforces, and no states west of the Cumberland Gap, or east of it for that matter, with citizens who have a garage to build their own guns in.
I think the Democrat Dons are just following orders from organized crime (ie, themselves) to get up another major contraband category (build on the Joe Kennedy model) --for a dual-profit 'war on drugs' ($ for mob, $ for pols) model.
And of course, hoping to start with guns and then contraband on down to the torches, pitchforks, tar and feathers, sticks & stones, pop-tarts & thoughts, before they get put in play where they ought to have been put in play the day after the Bullmoose Party lost.
note to Heltau, here's the worst you'll find against the Taurus --and reading between the lines, esp the late para re the 'double ought' .410 shell, the model you're after is among the six described, along with MSRP.
WTF? Per the AP: "Two suspects darted from behind the house and ran toward a field, firing at the home as they fled. The husband shot back and may have hit one of the suspects, Ellis County Sheriff Johnny Brown said. The woman called 911." That's a little different from the homeowner shooting as they "tried to flee." If they were trying to flee, they weren't doing it right: they were returning fire. Also, people who attempt armed home invasions need to be dead one way or another.
In England, the response depends on the government in power, generally exerting downward pressure on the police to push for certain prosecutions or otherwise. The judiciary have to interpret poorly written legislation written in a hurry to gain political advantage and in reaction to certain past events.
Rural communities under Blair and Brown felt incredibly persecuted in general as they launched a successful onslaught against traditional values. This includes the infamous Martin case.
Under this government, the situation is not so bad as that. There have been cases of armed home defence that have been dropped, although after some pretty horrible experiences for the defenders. Some of them emigrated altogether.
As a freeborn Englishman, I hope that the American situation now in combination with recent common-sense decisions may show that the anti-freedom tide in the UK is reversing. It has a LONG way to climb back to the glorious freedom of the pre-Edwardian era, though and my hopes are slight.
Lets get some facts!
Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop
England and Wales 0.07
Average firearms per 100 people
England and Wales 6.2
So USA has 14X more guns per person and 42 X greater rate of firearm homicide.
Gosh! All those guns in America are making me feel truly safe. Less talk. More data. Reference http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data
There's a million articles out there --there's even other articles from The Guardian citing violent crime as worse in England.GB than the USA. There's articles that lay 80%, articles that lay up to 97%, of USA gun violence as committed by urban gangsters --good luck on disarming the gangs.
ASsk a crime victim, or the bereaved, who might have deterred or fought off violence or death, if they've seen the statistics. Like a shark attack, it's a low probability/high consequence event.
The stat that is most important of all, given that all developed countries have about the same levels of violent crime* is the one that can't be assayed --how much crime is deterred before it makes and show at all, by the erstwhile criminal's avoiding potential defensive firepower? You'd have to canvass a sample of not just violent criminals but wanna-bes who demure because the victim may be armed?
(the one you want is by ''antiprise'', around 4th down from top, runtime 2:36)
I ran three Bing searches, and recommend all three for reams and reams of pro 2nd supporting factuals:
homicide rate england and usa
violent crime great britain and usa
how much gun crime is gang related?
But everybody trusts Thomas Sowell --let's read his short essay (bolding mine):
Gun control myths
November 26, 2002
Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of Bentley College deserves some sort of special prize for taking on the thankless task of talking sense on a subject where nonsense is deeply entrenched and fiercely dogmatic. In her recently published book, "Guns and Violence," Professor Malcolm examines the history of firearms, gun control laws and violent crime in England. What makes this more than an exercise in history is its relevance to current controversies over gun control in America.
Gun control zealots love to make highly selective international comparisons of gun ownership and murder rates. But Joyce Lee Malcolm points out some of the pitfalls in that approach. For example, the murder rate in New York City has been more than five times that of London for two centuries -- and during most of that time neither city had any gun control laws.
In 1911, New York state instituted one of the most severe gun control laws in the United States, while serious gun control laws did not begin in England until nearly a decade later. But New York City still continued to have far higher murder rates than London.
If we are serious about the role of guns and gun control as factors in differing rates of violence between countries, then we need to do what history professor Joyce Lee Malcolm does -- examine the history of guns and violence. In England, as she points out, over the centuries "violent crime continued to decline markedly at the very time that guns were becoming increasingly available."
England's Bill of Rights in 1688 was quite unambiguous that the right of a private individual to be armed was an individual right, independently of any collective right of militias. Guns were as freely available to Englishmen as to Americans, on into the early 20th century.
Nor was gun control in England a response to any firearms murder crisis. Over a period of three years near the end of the 19th century, "there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people," according to Professor Malcolm. "Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides and only three were homicides -- an average of one a year."
The rise of the interventionist state in early 20th century England included efforts to restrict ownership of guns. After the First World War, gun control laws began restricting the possession of firearms. Then, after the Second World War, these restrictions grew more severe, eventually disarming the civilian population of England -- or at least the law-abiding part of it.
It was during this period of severe restrictions on owning firearms that crime rates in general, and the murder rate in particular, began to rise in England. "As the number of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen," Professor Malcolm points out.
In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s, there were more than a hundred times as many. In England, as in the United States, drastic crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens were accompanied by ever greater leniency to criminals. In both countries, this turned out to be a formula for disaster.
While England has not yet reached the American level of murders, it has already surpassed the United States in rates of robbery and burglary. Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up more criminals.
In both countries, facts have no effect whatever on the dogmas of gun control zealots. The fact that most guns used to murder people in England were not legally purchased has no effect on their faith in gun control laws there, any more than faith in such laws here is affected by the fact that the gun used by the recent Beltway snipers was not purchased legally either.
In England as in America, sensational gun crimes have been seized upon and used politically to promote crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing about criminals. American zealots for the Brady bill say nothing about the fact that the man who shot James Brady and tried to assassinate President Reagan has been out walking the streets on furlough.
You know how to tell is someone's from Oklahoma? Ask him if his mama takes the Marlboro out of her mouth when she's tellin' the Highway Patrolman to kiss her behind.
Statistics are fun. You can prove or disprove almost anything if you are sneaky enough. In the U.S. blacks commit about 75%-80% of all homicides. Hispanics commit about 13%-15%. Whites commit 5%-8%. So ask yourself why the government wants to take away all firearms from all American citizens? If they wanted to 'fix" the problem they should take them from blacks and hispanics!! But of course they don't want to "fix" the problem they want to disarm Americans. But as it relates to statistics it does indeed make more sense to take away the weapons of blacks and hispanics and yet I never NEVER see anyone who cites statistics on gun homicides suggest this obvious "fix". WHY??? If your statistics are real and you propose a statistical "fix" then why not the obvious "fix"???? Well putting aside the fact that no politicians or anyone else who wants to appear in public again would never suggest it because of the racial implications the simple fact is it won't "fix" it. We all know, the hawk knows that most of these homicides are committed by gang members who aren't going to obey the law. We could adopt England's strict gun controls and in fact homicides will increase and not decrease (as the did for England). But more importantly since we are talking about statistical lying, if England had 14% blacks and 14% hispanics their gun homicide rate would exceed ours!!! Your statistics are pure BS and I suspect you are clueless to it. We don't have a higher rate of homicides because we have private gun ownership. We have a higher rate of homicide because we have a high percentage of black and hispanic gangs. Now if the Hawk wants to work with me to pass a law that would give all our black and hispanic gangbangers to England when they are arrested then I do honestly believe we can get those stats to be equal...
You have assumed I am in favour of gun control in America.
ASSumption. No evidence for this in my comment. Re read it. The article suggests that the British, by being "degunned", are now somehow more vulnerable to firearm homicide compared to America. This is not true. I have presented simple facts - yes they are hardly difficult to understand yet I must agree once you thow in a "%" you have to call them stats. But, indulge me for a moment - you tell us that whites cause 5% of firearm murders in the USA - 2.97 * 5% =0.19 murders per 100000 population. That is double the firearm murder rate in England and Wales (all races). QED. Thank you. Good night.
I think you are rationalizing. England is considered one of the most dangerous countries in the first world because of violent crime. But their death rate from being gored by buffalo is well below that of the U.S. Therefore the people in the U.S. are stupid and should rush out and kill all the buffalo (or at least register them). Did I paraphrase you correctly. In fact the U.S. violent crime rate is lower then Canada and any European country when you ONLY look at the crimes committed by people of european descent. My point is simply that to compare England with the U.S. and ignore the gang problem and how it distorts the data is to ignore reality. We are not England and the comparison is meaningless. The problem with even bring up these inaccurate and trivial studies si they they seemingly support actions that will not work. To assume because of this study that somehow registering buffalo will reduce our level of buffalo injury to the same level as England is, well, stupid.