How the British maximize crime

TownHall.com ^ | 8/01/02 | Paul Craig Roberts

[from occupied ga]

The problems we have in Britian are the same problems that plauge parts of America.

Well, maybe not. Except in Chicago, Baltimore, or New York City, all of which are corrupt Marxist abcesses on the nation, I daresay Tony Martin would not have been charged with a crime for shooting the two robbers. Here, even in occupied GA, if someone breaks into your house they're legally subject to termination. In GA, you are allowed to protect yourself from carjacking with lethal force, and you can carry a concealed handgun in your vehicle in designated places without a carry license.

About 7 years ago, an acquaintance of mine and a friend of his that I didn't know were accosted by a pair of armed crack heads while in a national forest. The result of the shootout was that one of the crackheads was DOA, and the other was critically wounded (but eventually recovered to face much reconstructive surgery on his lower parts in the prison hospital). My acquaintance was unharmed, but his friend took a couple of buckshot pellets to the leg. The net result was that the surviving crackhead is the one in jail (still as far as I know), and my friend walked - not even charged. Just what would have happened to him in Britain? We both know he'd be the one still in jail, so I would conclude that our problems are not the same. Both countries have drug problems, but only Britain and the most socialistic parts of the USA consider self defense to be a more serious crime than robbery.

[tonycavanagh]

re : I hate to agree with a wanker.

During past visits to the UK, well when are you coming to the UK again, we can discuss it.

Tony

[tonycavanagh]

It would be funny two middle aged men having a go at each other, I think though we will be evenly matched, both ex military an all that.

Tony

[elbucko]

Probably next May. See you in Southampton?

[tonycavanagh]

Drugs, especially crack is a real problem.

We have drug related shootings know, we had two down the road from me.

If we ever managed to overturn the British publics entrenched view towards guns I would be the first in the queue buying a gun.

Cheers Tony

[elbucko]

Ah, a challange! Okay. Horseback through the New Forest. Looser buys the Guinness.

[Billthedrill]

Howdy, Tony, long time...

The sudden "rise in crime" in Britain is at least partially an artifact of a push over the last two years to standardize the means of reporting crime across the country, rural to urban, and to change certain means of quantifying it. For example, London police would report a single individual bopping people over the head in four incidents as one assault, and now it's four, more after the pattern most (but not all) cities use in the U.S. So take the "sudden rise" with a grain of salt.

I am a bit concerned about the "don't fight back" attitude because I see it becoming more prevalent in the U.S., at least among our more liberal social theorists. Underlying it is the assumption that crime constitutes some sort of twisted social justice, a means of the underdog to get back at his oppressors. This is certainly the presentation within the "gangsta rap" culture, and if it were limited to that it wouldn't be that terrible, but when it takes on the formal sanction of the state in terms of prosecutorial policies it is very, very dangerous indeed.

But this statement - Be forewarned that Americans can no longer use deadly force against home intruders unless the intruder is also armed and the homeowner can establish that he could not hide from the intruder and had reason to believe his life was in danger. - is entirely incorrect. Such policies are made at the state governmental level, and it is incumbent on anyone contemplating deadly force in any situation to know what conditions are specified in the laws that apply to him or her. What I think alarms most posters here is the possibility that someone citing British policy in this regard may attempt to make this a federally-sanctioned policy in the U.S. - that would open a very nasty can of worms indeed.

[tonycavanagh]

LOL not horses Britain is not a horse riding nation either.

I will think of something, a run, or an assult course.

British Army Vs American Army (You and me).

Cheers Tony

[elephantlips]

Did you see the article, "A Fraying Alliance: Europe Asks Why U.S. Can't See Its 'Miracle'" on the posts for today? The attitude displayed in that article would help explain why the EU would be vehemently against the United Kingdom arming itself. I wish you the best in your quest, you have a lot working against your goal.

[palmer]

History of English gun control: click here

[elbucko]

Drugs, especially crack is a real problem.

Drugs are the problem, everywhere. There are few countries in the world that are not affected by this self-induced chemical madness. Gun violence is only a symptom of drugs in a society that is otherwise peaceful.

[tonycavanagh]

re : I am a bit concerned about the "don't fight back" attitude because I see it becoming more prevalent in the U.S.

Britain is very funny this way, its not so much as left or right, but more a police and court thing.

If anyone can remember back to the 1970s the Guardina Angels a New York anti Mugging group came to Britian, well the police opposed them.

The police see fighting crime as there sole preserve. And where self defence is concerned you are only allowed to used what is termed reasonable force. This has always been true.

That is why Tony Martin was jailed, because shooting a intruder in the back as he was running away was not seen as self defence but as taking the law into his own hands.

My advice is if you have to take the law into your own hand dont get caught.

Cheers Tony

[Boonie Rat]

Machiavelli said something to the effect that "the Swiss are the most armed, and most free, people of Europe."

When the German Kaiser asked the Swiss what 500,000 Swiss would do if 1,000,000 Germans attacked the Swiss said "shoot twice and go home".

Boonie Rat

MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66

[tonycavanagh]

Thanks for that, first time I have seen it written down, as you can see I am mostly right although my history mainly goes back to the Communist threat of the 20s.

Cheers Tony

[tonycavanagh]

The problem is that there are always people who want to get high.

I have my own views on Prohabition, but that is for another thread.

If you are coming to SouthHampton in May next year give us a call on FR I have been on this site for tqo years know and will still be here in May.

Cheers Tony

[VOA]

"shoot twice and go home"

Thanks for posting that one...I had heard it a while back. But your post
jump-started my aging neurons!

[elbucko]

Britain is not a horse riding nation either.

I hate to shatter your self delusion about horses in Britain, but I can find one to ride from Landsend to John O' Groats and Anglesey, East to the Wash. Curious phenomenon about the Brits, they don't know what each other is doing. A shop can be building world class Grand Prix cars in the Dale, and the locals won't know a thing about it.

[SauronOfMordor]

With the amount of crime happening in America, I have to admit I am somewhat puzzled about the amount of FR time spent debating crime in Britian.

For many years, Americans had been subjected to screeds about how much lower is in England compared to "gun-crazy" US, accompanied by demands that the US disarm its civilians

We're now observing what happens to the crime rate when a country disarms its civilians, and makes it a crime to defend oneself. Part of what we're seeing is attributable to disarmament, another part to the changing racial and ethnic makeup of England (eg, influx of Muslims from Pakistan, and Jamaican "Yardie" drug gangs)

[Gunrunner2]

Tony, thanks for your reply.

>>Problem is you can not disarm that what was never armed in the first place.<,

While technically true, not true in any practical sense, as in Britain you are trying to disarm but only the nice good people are doing so, the criminals are not.

>>The Hand gun ban, affected sports shooters at most.<<

Perhaps in Britain, but you must agree that the total ban on ownership of arms is the ultimate aim--resulting in honest people being disarmed--the people that do not use firearms to commit crimes.

>>The rise of crime can not be due to something that never really happened, what it is due to is the influx of crack cocaine into Britain in the 1990s.<<

Really? According to a friend of mine that is a guard in a prison in Scotland, he tells me the inmates are just plain mean. . .he tells me drugs may be involved in nearly every criminal's life, but alcohol is even more involved. But really, those vices do not cause crime, they just lower the threshold for a dirt-bag to commit crime. I agree with my friend, no excuses, we are all responsible for our own behavior--drugs and alcohol be damned--and, like he also says, when you tell the people they must not resist being attacked beyond what some second-guessing prosecutor thinks is wise, well, my friend just shakes his head (I was visiting him about a month ago).

What confuses me, Tony, is the British used to be a pretty strong people. Now, however, you appear to put the criminal ahead of the innocent. For example, say I am at home and some dirt-bag and friends break down my front door and as they stumble in I whack them with a baseball/cricket bat, or shoot them, and kill them. Now, let's say the dirt-bags that broke in my home were drunk and didn't know they were at the wrong door. Why should that matter, as I was acting in a reasonable fashion to protect my life and the life of my family. What would happen to me in Britain versus the US?

In the US I would be justified, as you are not required to put your life at risk, or the life of your family at risk, just on the odd chance the dirt-bags are some unlucky drunks and not some gang of (crack-crazed) murdering maniacs.

In Britain I would be prosecuted if I hurt/killed the dirt-bags.

This almost happened to me when I lived in Felixstow, East Anglia, late 1980's. At night, around 11:30 pm, a guy and his friends started to beat on my front door, kicking it and slamming against it. I called the police and hollered at the guy to go away. They didn't, and eventually they started to splinter the front door. I had my son's baseball bat in hand was ready to defend myself and my family by killing the dirt-bags when they entered. Who KNEW what they were up to? With my wife and son upstairs, terrified, I was in a killing rage. Just as it seemed I might have to kill the dirt-bags (the door was about finished), the police arrived and got a couple of them--drunk on their ass. Seems the pub a half-a-bock away just let out and they thought they were at a bloke’s house they were feuding with. It was during the police interview (inquiry) that I was told I would have been arrested if I actually caused any of the dirt-bags bodily harm--and they took my son's baseball bat--it was an "offensive weapon." Terrific.

Back to the main point at hand: Criminals will be more likely to attack someone they know is unarmed and unable (unwilling) to defend themselves than they are against someone who is armed and willing to fight back. (School bullies are a case in point, as are the stark differences between hot and cold burglaries in the states versus Britain.)

In the situation above, a few well paced shots through the door would have sent those dirt-bags running, I can gar-an-damn-tee-ya.

Cheers, Bubba

[tonycavanagh]

True, but I am city born and Bred, I guess if I looked I could find a horse club, but it would be a very expensive hobby.

Cheers Tony