Author: Kevin

Well, in their quixotic effort to reduce halt the increase in violent crime involving guns in England through gun banning regulation, they’ve now made “the manufacture, sale and purchase of hi-tech air weapons using a self-contained gas cartridge” illegal and “owners without a licence will be prosecuted.” The sentence is five years.

But of course the gun-grabbers still aren’t happy. There’s still “loopholes” that “need to be tightened”:

Lucy Cope launched Mothers Against Guns after her 22-year-old son Damian was killed by a converted replica in 2002 (Yes, the gun magically converted itself, loaded itself, and levitated itself until it found her son, then it pulled its own trigger and killed him.) and is calling for a total ban on the sale of replica weapons – whether or not they can be modified to fire bullets.

“Replica weapons are toys that kill, they are weapons of mass destruction,” she said. “Anything that resembles a gun should be banned.

“Even cap guns can cause problems – police units have to make difficult snap judgements about whether they’re real or fake.”

Got that? CAP GUNS need to be banned. Replica guns are “WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.’

Let’s look at some more idiocy:

Paul Kelly, chairman of the Police Federation in Greater Manchester, remains unconvinced by the new legislation.

“The Home Office is making the right noises,” he said, “but we think it’s time to see some real substance.

“Anything designed to be an absolute replica should need a licence in exactly the same way as a real firearm.

Um, that would be the real firearms that were licensed, registered, and stored safely under the previous law. The law that was found to be ineffective at stopping firearm crime. The law that permitted the government to know where every single legally owned firearm was kept and who owned it. The law that allowed the government to tell those legal owners to hand in all semi-automatic long guns in 1988 (which didn’t slow the increase in violent crime) and all handguns in 1996 (which didn’t even slow down the increase in violent crime involving HANDGUNS.) You mean that kind of license?

Just because the horse is beaten bloody dead doesn’t mean we shouldn’t beat it some more! The philosophy CANNOT BE WRONG! The policy just wasn’t implemented correctly! LET’S TURN UP THE POWER!

But look! Down here at paragraph 28!

Mr Kelly feels the law will change little for the bobby on the street and added: “Officers will still be expected to spot the real guns and the replicas – even when it’s a dark, wet night and late on in their shift.

It will change nothing at all for either the bobby nor the general English subject. And here’s a bit of (typical) wishful thinking:

“If we take the things off the market, the problem will be solved.”

Uh, no. You keep neglecting the first law of economics: Demand WILL BE MET by supply. As illustrated in the very next paragraph:

Increasingly, criminals are sourcing weapons abroad, as modern technology helps them avoid government and police safeguards.

The mantra from many gun controllers regarding why Chicago and Washington D.C. have such high homicide rates despite their draconian gun control laws is that guns are brought into the cities from areas with “lax gun laws,” and if the gun laws were uniform across the nation, this wouldn’t happen. Yet the UK has uniform gun laws, IT’S A FREAKING ISLAND and guns still flow across its borders.

No, now the Internet is at fault (if one scapegoat dies, find another):

Police are working to stop the flow of convertible guns into Britain, but growing sales on uncontrolled internet sites are worrying.

It took me just 10 minutes to access one selling all manner of firearms from central Europe, boasting delivery anywhere in the world.

Demand will generate a supply, baby. That’s economics 101.

And efforts like this:

The new legislation makes it illegal to manufacture, sell, purchase, transfer or acquire any air weapon that uses a self-contained gas cartridge system.

Anyone who already owns one will be able to keep it only by obtaining a £50 firearm certificate from the police.

are destined to abject failure.

But the philosophy cannot be WRONG! And the indoctrination of the populace has had decades to do its job, and do it well:

It’s about time firearms of all types were banned in this country. Airguns can seriously injure or even kill. Do we really want to become like the US and have over 40 shootings a day in each state? All guns shout (sic) be banned.
T. Hawkins, Swinton, Gtr. Manchester

You’ve pretty much tried that, T. Hawkins. Hasn’t worked, or haven’t you noticed?

And I’d bet you’d love to have our levels of burglary, robbery, assault, home invasion, and general thuggery.

Nightline

Robert Arial of South Carolina’s The State:

In case you weren’t aware, I get my cartoons from Slate’s Political Cartoons page. Go read through it some time and see the “liberal slant” of the media. For every “right-wing” or “moderate” cartoonist, there must be ten leftists, and some of them are foul.

(Since this site is non-profit – no tipjar, no blogads – and I do political commentary, I hold that use of these cartoons falls under “fair use” standards.)

But…All Cultures are EQUAL and We Have No Right to Impose OUR Values…

Somebody needs to.

I don’t think this has been reported ANYWHERE in the U.S. media. It’s apparently not as important as reporting each and every death of an American soldier who is – like it or not – fighting for the freedoms of Iraqi and Afghani women every bit as much as they are fighting to stop terrorism. Via Dodd of Ipse Dixit, under the heading of Why They Hate Us comes this bit of news from Norway:

Norwegian-built schools in Afghanistan destroyed

The largest girls’ school in Kandahar, Northern Afghanistan, financed by Norwegian funds, was destroyed by fire on Thursday.

This is only one of several Norwegian-built girls’ schools which have been burned down in Afghanistan during the last six months, NRK reports.

In Kandahar, a group of men tied up the guard and set fire to the school, which had just been rebuilt, a city official reported.

-We look at the torching of these schools as an organized campaign aimed at preventing girls from receiving education, says Astrid Everine Sletten, head of the Afghanistan Committee’s office in the country.

He view is shared by other international organizations in Afghanistan

Afghan authorities, however, view the incidents as “random terror”.

-We disagree. Over the past year altogether 600 girls’ schools around the country have been wholly or partly destroyed by terrorists, while none of the boys’ schools have been touced, Sletten says.

A related story, from the Pakistani PakTribune:

SCA condemns recent attacks on girls’ schools

KABUL: In the past month, three girls’ schools supported by the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan (SCA) have been attacked and completely or partially destroyed by unknown assailants.

On 19 February, at night, Jar-e-Shah Baba girls’ school in Keshem, Badakshan, was attacked and burnt to the ground. On 10 March Sangana school in Rokha, Kapisa province, was bombed and three classrooms were completely destroyed. In the latest attack on 17 March, Harmal Girls school in Laghman was targeted by armed men who tied up three guards and set fire to doors, windows, school books and official documents. No person was injured in the attacks.

“We are deeply concerned and angered by this recent wave of attacks on schools. The fact that such attacks are taking place in provinces in the north where there has traditionally been less resistance to girls’ education is also very worrying”, says Jesper Jensen, Country Director of SCA.

Reports by SCA’s education staff in the field give conflicting accounts of the reasons behind the attacks.

In the case of Jar-e-Shah Baba school in Keshem, where SCA supports almost 600 students in classes 1-6, armed men wearing black masks explicitly condemned education for females as they tied the two peons of the school and set fire to the building. Most reports indicate, however, that the attack was an expression of the on-going power struggle between a local commander and government authorities rather than actual resistance to girls’ education. To show their support, villagers have guaranteed the safety of staff and hired armed guards to protect the school at night. The school also has roughly 600 girls in secondary education, supported by the Norwegian Committee (NAC).

In the case of the bombed Sangana school in Panjshir, some witnesses claim there was a note indicating that the attack was directed against “female activities” carried out by HABITAT, who were using school premises for meetings related to NSP (National Solidarity Programme). Other sources insist that it is more likely the result of political infighting between different factions. In the most recent attack in Laghman, no specific threats were issued.

“Whatever the reasons are it is clear that girls’ schools are an easy target for anti-government forces. They are used as symbolic pawns in various power struggles, partly because they are high on the agenda of donors and the International aid community and are likely to draw attention, partly because education for girls has traditionally not been considered a priority in Afghanistan”, says Dr Attaullah, acting Education Coordinator for SCA.

SCA is committed to rebuilding the schools and has so far pledged approximately 1000,000 Afghani (19,000 Euro) to cover costs. Some other organisations have also offered their support. The school year started on 22 March and while repairs are being carried out many students are being taught outdoors.

“We condemn these attacks and urge authorities on a local and central level to secure the future of girls’ education in Afghanistan and to bring the culprits to justice”, says Jesper Jensen.

According to information from the Ministry of Education approximately 40 attacks on girls’ schools were reported in Afghanistan in 2003. Over the past years a number of SCA-supported schools have been targeted, mainly in the south-eastern provinces.

The SCA Education Programme has been in operation for almost twenty years and currently supports approximately 450 schools with 250,000 students and 6400 teachers in Afghanistan. Approximately 30% of students in SCA supported schools are girls.

I expect the National Organization for Women to issue a harshly worded criticism of this terrorism, to be printed page A-1 above the fold in the New York Times.

Not.

I did some research on the NOW website. Here’s a typical piece from 1999:

TAKE ACTION TO STOP THE ABUSE OF WOMEN AND GIRLS IN AFGHANISTAN!

Women and girls are under attack:

The extremist Taliban government in Afghanistan is denying women and girls even the most basic human rights.

Prohibited from going to work or school and forbidden from leaving their homes without a male relative, women and girls in Afghanistan are under house arrest.

Women and girls are prevented from getting adequate health care since male doctors may not care for female patients.

You can help!

Demand that the U.S. take action to stop the abuse of women and girls in Afghanistan. Call upon the U.S. and the U.N. to continue to refuse to recognize the Taliban government!

I’d say our invasion of Afghanistan was “taking action” against the Taliban – a major step above merely “refusing to recognize” it, and a major plus in stopping the abuse of women and girls there. The fact that all those girl’s schools were built – by international groups – being just one indication. After the invasion of Afghanistan, NOW had this to say:

NO OUTRAGE OF THE WEEK: 11/19/2001



Moment of Tentative Joy Inside Afghanistan

Women’s Enews: Driving the Taliban out of Kabul and other Afghan cities has ended the fiats that prohibited women from working outside the home, attending school, leaving home without a male relative or showing their face in public.

While droves of men are rushing to the barber to cut their long, Taliban-mandated beards, some women have burned their veils in public and some are walking abroad in the daylight for the first time in years. Many women are still wary of being seen in public without their veils and, in cities, towns and areas where the harsh fundamentalist rule has been lifted, equal rights for women have by no means arrived.

That’s it. Two paragraphs. No mention of Bush, just a snarky comment that “equal rights for women have by no means arrived.” Apparently NOW was NOT happy. Their 2002 National NOW Conference Resolutions read thus:

WHEREAS, the advancement of the feminist agenda through electoral activity is of paramount importance in an election year when the executive branch is controlled by the radical right, the conservative Dennis Hastert serves as Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Democrats retain control of the Senate by one vote; and

WHEREAS, the Bush administration has pushed its anti-woman reproductive rights agenda through a multi-pronged strategy of executive orders, congressional action, and the nomination of the right-wing judges to the federal bench; and

WHEREAS, if Republicans retain control of the House and take back the Senate we can expect more radical legislation eroding our rights in addition to the loss of the 5 to 4 majority preserving basic abortion rights in the Supreme Court; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that NOW recommend to the NOW PACs that they support our incumbent friends who are being relentlessly targeted by the right wing and work to protect their seats even as they also work to elect the wonderful new feminist candidates challenging our political enemies throughout the country or running for open seats, as well as the record number of feminist candidates running for governor.

But wait! There’s more!

WHEREAS, the women and girls of Afghanistan have suffered from years of gender apartheid and oppression under the totalitarian regime of the Taliban and, before them, the Mujahideen; and

WHEREAS, the United States, in a CIA covert-operation, trained and funded the Mujahideen (“Soldiers of God”) to fight the Soviets in the last battle of the Cold War; and

WHEREAS, the Taliban was a faction of the Mujahideen that was initially supported by the United States; and

WHEREAS, the Afghan Ministry for Women’s Affairs and the Afghan-women-led non- governmental organizations (NGOs) desperately need funding to rebuild women’s lives and the Afghan nation; and

WHEREAS, the United States has a moral obligation to help restore Afghanistan; and

WHEREAS, the United States has a global interest to end the conditions that breed terrorism; and

WHEREAS, U.S. foreign policy must support human and women’s rights as well as democracy;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the United States should support an expansion in the number and the jurisdiction of international peacekeeping forces throughout Afghanistan; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the United States should increase its funding for women-led Afghan NGOs; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the United States should actively promote the full restoration of women’s and girls’ rights in Afghanistan and throughout the world.

Let me see if I read this accurately: It’s our fault women are oppressed in Afghanistan. It’s our responsibility to fund “Afghan-women-led non-governmental organizations” (I suppose in penance for our support of the Mujahideen against the Russians – who would have protected the rights of Afghani women). It’s our responsibility to make sure international peacekeeping (read UN) forces should have jurisdiction in Afghanistan. And since Bush is so blatantly anti-women, we’ve got to get rid of him.

Even though the Bush-led unilateral invasion of Afghanistan is what has given Afghani women the opportunity for more freedom than they’ve had since 1996 when the Taliban took over. Hell, more freedom than they’ve ever had.

Here’s some more NOW bitching (and I use that word intentionally) about Bush and the WoT not doing enough fast enough, incompetently, and for all the wrong reasons from 2003.

I’m disgusted.

More Good News

This time provided by Ravenwood. Let me quote:

Well if you look at national crime statistics, they show that none of these proposals would do any good. Here are some tidbits from the U.S. Department of Justice web site.

Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993.

Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2002.

Incidents involving a firearm represented 7% of the 4.9 million violent crime of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault.

The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.

So not only has crime fallen, but “gun crime” has also fallen. And we haven’t even gotten to the most telling statistics. Keep in mind that the gun grabber crowd is constantly shrieking about sales from “unlicensed dealers” at gun shows, and the use of “assault weapons” on our streets. Both issues are a top priority among the gun ban crowd, and both were used as gun control amendments to torpedo the gunmaker liability bill.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from

– a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%

– a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%

– family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.

The gun banners claim that most crime guns are gotten from gun shows using the so called “gun show loophole”, but the Department of Justice says that figure is actually only 2%. The gun banners would also have you believe that so-called “assault weapons” are the “weapon of choice” for criminals. But once again the Department of Justice says the figure is actually only 2%.

And if you want a perfect example of gun banner claims lies, just look below where reporter Alison Soltau of the San Francisco Examiner quotes Coalition to Stop Gun Violence member Eric Gorovitz saying:

The most common way criminals obtain guns is from shows in nearby states with less stringent laws, such as Nevada.

“So a felon can go to a gun show in Nevada … buy a trunk-load of assault weapons and drive them in to the Bayview and sell them on the street,” Gorovitz said.”

If that’s true then that felon would represent a big chunk of that “less than 2%” of “gun show or flea market” guns AND the 2% of “military style” firearms.

Do you think Mr. Gorovitz could pack any more lies in to a single sentence?

Also Via C&S comes this really excellent target practice simulator.

I shot a 275 out of 300 in my first try at the 15 meter Advanced Pistol range. Challenging.

Via Curmudgeonly & Skeptical comes this Imprimus piece on how the New Zealand government turned itself around. Excerpts:

New Zealand’s per capita income in the period prior to the late 1950s was right around number three in the world, behind the United States and Canada. But by 1984, its per capita income had sunk to 27th in the world, alongside Portugal and Turkey. Not only that, but our unemployment rate was 11.6 percent, we’d had 23 successive years of deficits (sometimes ranging as high as 40 percent of GDP), our debt had grown to 65 percent of GDP, and our credit ratings were continually being downgraded. Government spending was a full 44 percent of GDP, investment capital was exiting in huge quantities, and government controls and micromanagement were pervasive at every level of the economy. We had foreign exchange controls that meant I couldn’t buy a subscription to The Economist magazine without the permission of the Minister of Finance. I couldn’t buy shares in a foreign company without surrendering my citizenship. There were price controls on all goods and services, on all shops and on all service industries. There were wage controls and wage freezes. I couldn’t pay my employees more – or pay them bonuses – if I wanted to. There were import controls on the goods that I could bring into the country. There were massive levels of subsidies on industries in order to keep them viable. Young people were leaving in droves.

When a reform government was elected in 1984, it identified three problems: too much spending, too much taxing and too much government. The question was how to cut spending and taxes and diminish government’s role in the economy. Well, the first thing you have to do in this situation is to figure out what you’re getting for dollars spent. Towards this end, we implemented a new policy whereby money wouldn’t simply be allocated to government agencies; instead, there would be a purchase contract with the senior executives of those agencies that clearly delineated what was expected in return for the money. Those who headed up government agencies were now chosen on the basis of a worldwide search and received term contracts – five years with a possible extension of another three years. The only ground for their removal was non-performance, so a newly-elected government couldn’t simply throw them out as had happened with civil servants under the old system. And of course, with those kinds of incentives, agency heads – like CEOs in the private sector – made certain that the next tier of people had very clear objectives that they were expected to achieve as well.

—

We achieved an overall reduction of 66 percent in the size of government, measured by the number of employees. The government-s share of GDP dropped from 44 to 27 percent. We were now running surpluses, and we established a policy never to leave dollars on the table: We knew that if we didn’t get rid of this money, some clown would spend it. So we used most of the surplus to pay off debt, and debt went from 63 percent down to 17 percent of GDP. We used the remainder of the surplus each year for tax relief. We reduced income tax rates by half and eliminated incidental taxes. As a result of these policies, revenue increased by 20 percent. Yes, Ronald Reagan was right: lower tax rates do produce more revenue.

—

New Zealand had an education system that was failing as well. It was failing about 30 percent of its children – especially those in lower socio-economic areas. We had put more and more money into education for 20 years, and achieved worse and worse results.

It cost us twice as much to get a poorer result than we did 20 years previously with much less money. So we decided to rethink what we were doing here as well. The first thing we did was to identify where the dollars were going that we were pouring into education. We hired international consultants (because we didn’t trust our own departments to do it), and they reported that for every dollar we were spending on education, 70 cents was being swallowed up by administration. Once we heard this, we immediately eliminated all of the Boards of Education in the country. Every single school came under the control of a board of trustees elected by the parents of the children at that school, and by nobody else. We gave schools a block of money based on the number of students that went to them, with no strings attached. At the same time, we told the parents that they had an absolute right to choose where their children would go to school. It is absolutely obnoxious to me that anybody would tell parents that they must send their children to a bad school. We converted 4,500 schools to this new system all on the same day.

But we went even further: We made it possible for privately owned schools to be funded in exactly the same way as publicly owned schools, giving parents the ability to spend their education dollars wherever they chose. Again, everybody predicted that there would be a major exodus of students from the public to the private schools, because the private schools showed an academic advantage of 14 to 15 percent. It didn’t happen, however, because the differential between schools disappeared in about 18-24 months. Why? Because all of a sudden teachers realized that if they lost their students, they would lose their funding; and if they lost their funding, they would lose their jobs. Eighty-five percent of our students went to public schools at the beginning of this process. That fell to only about 84 percent over the first year or so of our reforms. But three years later, 87 percent of the students were going to public schools. More importantly, we moved from being about 14 or 15 percent below our international peers to being about 14 or 15 percent above our international peers in terms of educational attainment.

—

When we in New Zealand looked at our revenue gathering process, we found the system extremely complicated in a way that distorted business as well as private decisions. So we asked ourselves some questions: Was our tax system concerned with collecting revenue? Was it concerned with collecting revenue and also delivering social services? Or was it concerned with collecting revenue, delivering social services and changing behavior, all three? We decided that the social services and behavioral components didn’t have any place in a rational system of taxation.

Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the monthly journal of Hillsdale College (www.hillsdale.edu).

READ THE WHOLE THING.

How the hell did they manage to pull that off? Hey, Kiwi Pundit! Is this guy blowing smoke? It sounds too good to be true!

UPDATE 5/1: It IS too good to be true. I emailed Nigel of Kiwi Pundit. Here’s his response:

Hi,

The article is mostly correct as far as it goes, there were periods of free-market reform from 1984-88 and 1991-3. It was driven by two different Finance Ministers who had some support, but were eventually reined by their party leadership. We’ve regressed slowly but steadily since 1994.

The other point to note is that the situation in 1984 was truly atrocious, even centre-left governments of today advocate far less state intervention in the economy. The third paragraph talks about the state of NZ in 1984 so the word ‘reform’ is relative to that situation.

The claim to have eliminated employees in government departments is misleading because, in the areas mentioned, they created private monopoly companies owned by the state instead of government departments. Some of these companies were later sold, but either way, they regulated the hell out of them.

The education reforms have been almost completely rolled back by the current Labour government. Private schools have always been eligible for state funding, but the strings attached are now pulled tighter than ever. The best schools are the ones that refuse state funding completely, but obviously few people can afford them.

We also have higher taxes than ever now, around 40% of GDP, although the top tax rate is ‘only’ 39%, it was 66% in 1984.

New Zealand is no libertarian paradise, if that’s what you’re thinking.

Regards,

Damn. I KNEW the damned statist mutherfuckers politicians couldn’t let a good thing go. Individual freedom, low taxes, and limited government offends their sense of “rightness,” regardless of results.

ANOTHER case of cognitive dissonance.

Tim Lambert, professor of Computer Science and Engineering at the University of New South Wales, Australia, and author of the blog Deltoid and I have been having a rather drawn-out exchange over self-defense in England. That exchange began over this news story in which it was reported that a man had been attacked by three others, one having a handgun. The man resisted, using a short-sword, and killed one of his attackers. The man was sentenced to eight years in prison. That was the extent of the report.

That story drew a lot of attention from many of us in the blogosphere, and Tim compiled several of the responses in a post where he called us “Gullible Gunners” and chided us for leaping to the conclusion (or perpetuating the belief) that “self-defense in the UK is illegal.” In the comments to that original post I tried to make my point:

(T)here have been numerous cases of the British courts charging people for defending themselves. The law there seems to be one based on “proportional response” – e.g., stabbing someone who isn’t armed with a weapon is “excessive force.” So is bashing them over the head with a brick. There are many of these cases, and they’ve lead us to the conclusion that private citizens in Britain had best not resist attack, or face prosecution for usurping the authority of the State in its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. My primary objection to the news story was that it reinforces that conclusion. If you are a reader of that story, ignorant as to the details, in combination with all the other similar stories of people prosecuted after defending themselves, the message is “don’t resist, you’ll go to jail.”

I stand by that statement, (though I’d word it just a bit differently) and I also believe it’s indicative of, and endemic to the basic philosophy of the UK government and many (but not all) of its people as pertains to violence.

When I wrote this piece I tried to explain what I see as the generalized UK philosophy concerning self-defense and weapons, and why I believe that mindset is in error. I attempted to illustrate the cognitive dissonance produced by the failure of that philosophy to reduce violent crime, to which Tim Lambert responded:

When you started talking about overall crime rates I pointed out that these were irrelevant to your claim you respond by substituting a different claim, a claim about how weapon restrictions allegedly caused crime increases. Well, I suppose we can discuss that as well, but first I need you to stop flitting about like a butterfly and retract or defend your original claim that “laws against weapons have essentially no effect on the access to weapons by criminals”.

As I said, the problem as I see it is that Tim and I have entirely different perspectives due to our entirely different philosophies. I’m obviously not succeeding in getting him to understand my position, or even recognize it.

However, the point of my writing these posts is not to convice Tim of his error, but to explain my philosophy, to draw Tim’s philosophy out for scrutiny, and to allow readers to see each and decide which of us has a better grip on reality.

Before I get started in earnest here, in deference to Tim, let’s get a couple of things out of the way.

Tim asked in his last post:

(Y)ou asserted that the statement ‘self defense in the UK is illegal’ is ‘practically true’. If you acknowledge that you can defend yourself without a weapon, then surely you must concede that your statement is false?

Yes, Tim. I acknowledge (and have acknowledged) that the subjects of the UK still have a legal right to self defense – without a weapon. I further acknowledge that subjects of the UK have a – severely limited and somewhat nebulous – legal right to defend themselves with a weapon. Point conceded. As I said in my last post, I thought I made my position perfectly clear, but apparently failed.

Let me give a couple of examples. I spent a considerable amount of time trying to do archive research through UK online newspapers for stories on self defense. I found four in which weapons were involved. First, there was this story in which a wheelchair bound man used teargas to fend off a knife-wielding attacker. The victim of the attack, 22 year-old Nicholas Ashworth, bought the teargas after being beaten and robbed of £100 three weeks prior. Instead of yielding to victimhood again, Mr. Ashworth defended himself, but was arrested – not for defending himself per se – but for having the teargas which is illegal to possess in England as it is considered an offensive weapon. (You’ll note that Mr. Ashworth’s attacker used a knife in the attack, which is also considered an offensive weapon, and is illegal to possess when out in public.)

Mr. Ashworth said:

“I knew it was wrong and against the law but in my view I was acting in self defence. I thought the man was going to kill me.

“It is a sad state of affairs that disabled people like me have to carry such things like CS sprays for protection.”

That statement begs for comment, but I’ll pass for the moment. (Mr. Ashworth was not, apparently, charged with using the teargas in his defense, but he was charged with possession of it. I have been unable to determine the outcome of the case against him. Perhaps some reasonable local barrister convinced the Crown that no jury would convict a man in a wheelchair.)

Then there was this report in which an 80 year-old woman, Jean Freke, defended herself successfully with a sword against two young attackers. Mrs. Freke described the attack and her response:

She said: “I was sitting in the drawing room doing some writing when I heard six or seven loud explosions.

“I went into the hall and two men came bursting in. They grabbed hold of me and pushed me backwards. It was pretty rough and tumble, I can tell you.”

One of the raiders ransacked the room, while Mrs Freke struggled with the other. “He gave me a violent shove and I landed on my back on the floor,” she said. “That made me a little nervous but I managed to get to my feet and carry on with the fight.

“Then I realised that in the corner of the room was my sword, which I do keep for self-defence. I manoeuvred him in that direction and was taking punches everywhere.

“But I managed to grab the sword and drew it from its scabbard and placed it in the middle of his chest and shouted, ‘Get out, get out’.

“Their attitude then changed and they suddenly became cowards and ran off at the sight of my sword.

“There was a moment when I thought, ‘This is it’ but you can’t take fright and you can’t panic. You just do what you have to do.”

Her attackers are believed to be 18 to 20 years old and responsible for as many as 15 other similar attacks against elderly victims in the area.

Bear in mind that if this brave and resourceful woman lived in Australia, she would very soon have to give up that sword as the Australian government has decided that citizens shouldn’t have access to swords unless they’re licensed collectors. After all, her attackers might steal it from her. Or something.

In this story a shop keeper – near where a jeweller was recently shot to death during a robbery – was held up by two men, one armed with a chisel. Mr. Webster, the shop keeper, pulled a baseball bat that he had put in his shop after the death of his neighbor, Mrs. Bates, and a struggle ensued. Mr. Webster explained:

“Since Mrs Bates was killed I’ve been on my guard against people who arrive on scooters and are wearing crash-helmets coming into the shop. The lad picked up a bottle of drink, came to the counter and gave me a pound. Then, as I went to the till, I saw him take a swing at me. I put my arm up to defend myself but he pulled out a chisel and told me to empty the till. So I grabbed hold of the bat.

“We started struggling. It was an intense fight that lasted a couple of minutes, and half the shop was wrecked in the process before he ran off.

“Obviously what happened to Mrs Bates went through my mind. But I’d do the same again in the same situation. I saw the chisel but, for all I knew, he could have had a gun.”

Mr Webster, who was recently targeted by a thief carrying a knife, has started a petition among shopkeepers calling for the police to do more to help them in the face of rising crime. “I don’t know what the world is coming to,” he said. “It’s happening too often.”

Now, I don’t believe possession of either a chisel or a baseball bat is specifically illegal, but I doubt that the assailant was planning to do some artistic sculpture with it in his free time. I suppose that he believed the presence of a nice, sharp chisel would cow most shopkeepers. I imagine that the baseball bat surprised him every bit as much as Mrs. Freke’s sword surprised her attackers.

I found one last story involving a crime intervention by a citizen wielding a weapon. This one, in which blind 62 year-old Thomas O’Connor stabbed 23 year-old Lee Kelso, who died from his wounds. I spent a considerable amount of time searching for self-defense stories, but these were the only four I found. In none of these cases were the defenders charged with excessive use of force, and only one with possession of prohibited “offensive weapons,” but the case of Mr. O’Connor, there was a thorough seven week murder investigation after which the Crown determined “it would not be in the public interest for him to stand trial.” Or, as one barrister put it “no jury would convict the frail man.” Hardly a ringing endorsement of his act, wouldn’t you say?

During the stabbing investigation, the police found that the O’Connor’s front door, which was equipped with “a Yale lock, two bolts and a security chain,” had been “hit with such force it was off its hinges and the door frame had also become dislodged.” It seems that the O’Connor’s, who “had turned their home into a fortress because of previous trouble and break-ins,” equipped it with “a security camera linked to a video recorder fitted to the rear of the house, a security light at the front and an alarm.” This was before Mr. Kelso’s attack. I find it odd, though, that Mr. O’Connor, his wife, children, and grandchildren (who didn’t all live in the same home) had to move to away secretly to undisclosed locations after the incident. It seems The O’Connor home was “torched in a suspected revenge attack” shortly after the stabbing.

But Tim is correct. It is still legal for a UK subject to defend themselves with a weapon, apparently as long as the weapon is legal and the defense takes place inside the home or business of the crime victim. (Outside the home or place of business, you apparently have to take your chances.)

It just seems to be a very rare occurrence, and possibly fraught with danger from forces other than the government, too. Knowing that defending yourself might mean having your home firebombed would be off-putting to most people, I think. (There are numerous cases of witness intimidation in England by thugs who fear little from the law and less from their victims.

As to the more recent accusation, let me stop “flitting around like a butterfly” and address the “access to weapons” question. I wrote earlier:

(D)isarming the law abiding it leaves them essentially defenseless against violent criminals, armed or not. All the criminal need be is physically superior to his victim, or (should he desire) the criminal can be armed, knowing almost as a certainty that his victim won’t be. If criminals need not fear effective resistance then they will be emboldened. I pointed to England’s experience with violent crime over the course of the 20th Century, noting that the real upswing in violent crime began just shortly after passage of the law that made illlegal carry of any weapon for defense on the grounds that there are no “defensive” weapons for the general public, only “offensive” weapons by definition.

(I am quite aware of the fallacy of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument, but I have seen no other factor to explain the apparent coincidence.) In the case of Nicholas Ashworth, his assailant had a knife, Mr. Ashworth had (illegal) tear gas. In the case of Mrs. Freke, she had a (still legal) sword against two physically superior, but unarmed youths. In the case of Mr. Webster, he had a baseball bat against two assailants, one armed with a chisel. In the case of Mr. O’Connor, he had a knife of some kind against a younger, physically superior assailant. In each of these cases the victim was physically inferior to the attacker or attackers. In half the cases the attacker or attackers were also armed. It would seem that my assertion is correct. In any assault occurring outside of a home or business, the attacker is almost guaranteed that his victim will be unarmed. In most assaults occurring IN a home or business, the type of weapons available to the victim are severely limited.

I wrote in the comments to Tim’s original post:

In the context of resistance to crime, all a violent criminal need do in order to nearly guarantee himself success is to select a victim that is his physical inferior, or to overwhelm his victim with numbers. If he wants to make it even easier all he needs to do is have a weapon, since his victim will almost certainly not have one and weapons are readily available in spite of the laws against them.

Tim puts much stock in criminologist Gary Kleck’s “fallacy of the ‘overmotivated criminal'” when it comes to weapon use by criminals. Tim quotes Kleck from his 1997 book Targeting Guns:

Like noncriminals, however, criminals do many things that are casually or only weakly motivated. Indeed, much crime is impulsive or opportunistic, with criminals committing some crimes only if it requires little effort and entails little risk. Gun control is less likely to have much effect on crime committed by criminals with the strongest and most persistent motivation to commit crimes, such as drug dealers, emotionally disturbed mass murderers, professional hit men, terrorists, or political assassins. However, it is not all impossible for crime prevention efforts to be achieved among the more weakly or temporarily motivated criminals who make up the large part of the active offender population.

I have not read this work, so I don’t know the context from which this quote was taken, but bear in mind that Kleck is himself a gun-control skeptic. Quoted from a 1994 Tennessee Law Review article at Guncite:

Up until about 1976 or so, there was little reliable scholarly information on the link between violence and weaponry. Consequently, everyone, scholars included, was free to believe whatever they liked about guns and gun control. There was no scientific evidence to interfere with the free play of personal bias. It was easy to be a “true believer” in the advisability of gun control and the uniformly detrimental effects of gun availability (or the opposite positions) because there was so little relevant information to shake one’s faith. When I began my research on guns in 1976, like most academics, I was a believer in the “anti-gun” thesis, i.e. the idea that gun availability has a net positive effect on the frequency and/or seriousness of violent acts. It seemed then like self-evident common sense which hardly needed to be empirically tested. However, as a modest body of reliable evidence (and an enormous body of not-so-reliable evidence) accumulated, many of the most able specialists in this area shifted from the “anti-gun” position to a more skeptical stance, in which it was negatively argued that the best available evidence does not convincingly or consistently support the anti-gun position. This is not the same as saying we know the anti-gun position to be wrong, but rather that there is no strong case for it being correct. The most prominent representatives of the skeptic position would be James Wright and Peter Rossi, authors of the best scholarly review of the literature.

[Subsequent research] has caused me to move beyond even the skeptic position. I now believe that the best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U[nited] S[tates]. This is not the same as saying gun availability has no effects on violence–it has many effects on the likelihood of attack, injury, death, and crime completion, but these effects work in both violence-increasing and violence-decreasing directions, with the effects largely canceling out. For example, when aggressors have guns, they are (1) less likely to physically attack their victims, (2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury. Further, when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery. At the aggregate level, in both the best available time series and cross-sectional studies, the overall net effect of gun availability on total rates of violence is not significantly different from zero. The positive associations often found between aggregate levels of violence and gun ownership appear to be primarily due to violence increasing gun ownership, rather than the reverse. Gun availability does affect the rates of gun violence (e.g. the gun homicide rate, gun suicide rate, gun robbery rate) and the fraction of violent acts which involve guns (e.g. the percent of homicides, suicides or robberies committed with guns); it just does not affect total rates of violence (total homicide rate, total suicide rate, total robbery rate, etc.).

This would seem to run counter to Tim’s interpretation.

However, Tim puts too much emphasis on gun armed criminals. He seems, in fact, fixated on firearms, and extends that fixation to me and other “gullible gunners.” He often makes reference to guns to the exclusion of all other weapons:

Kevin, you seem to be equating self defence with guns. This is doubly wrong. First, guns are far more frequently used for offensive purposes than for defensive ones. And second, guns are not the only means for self defence.

—

Even if there are some rare situations where a gun is the only possible means for defence, it does not make the statement that “self defense in the UK is illegal”, since that is a general statement describing all situations.

He also discusses the efficacy of weapon control legislation producing somehow a level playing field, but in the context of guns, not other weapons:

1. Using a weapon is not the only way to defend yourself.

2. If the law disarms attackers, then it can make self defence possible where it would have been impossible if the attacker was armed.

—

1. Attacker has a gun. Defender does not.

2. Attacker does not have a gun. Defender doesn’t either.

Self defence is possible in the second scenario while it isn’t in the first one. Is that clear now?

Actually, no, it’s not. Reality is a bit more complex than that. But here is where the difference in the two philosophies is most stark, and where the cracks in the philosophy he seems to support begin to become apparent.

The philosophy I originally attributed to Tim’s side of the argument (that he objected to) I originally phrased as follows:

That seemed to fit Tim’s position, but I’ve given the subject a considerable amount of thought in the last week or so, and have concluded that I was, in fact, in error on this point. The actual philosophy, I believe, is more accurately described thus:

Since firearms are the most effective personal weapons available, they must, of course, be eliminated first, and this is the path England took starting in 1920. As of now, all semi-automatic long guns are banned, there are severe legal restrictions on all other long guns, all handguns are banned, and there is strong evidence the “next step” involves strict licensing or banning of air weapons and even toy guns. There are severe restrictions on the ownership and possession of knives, but not yet swords. (Mrs. Freke may keep hers for the time being.) It is illegal to carry any weapon the State considers offensive (and the list is long), and has been since 1953. Use of a weapon in self-defense is restricted to a reasonable response level by a law passed in 1967.

This philosophy on violence is usually based on the belief that all human life is precious, and that – at least in the case of robbery – no amount of property is worth a human life. Sounds good, but the logic is specious. I will illustrate this in a moment.

The philosphy that I ascribe to does not put the onus on the weapon, but on the actor. It is best described thus:

(Bear in mind that my philosophy recognizes that sometimes the proper response is “cover your ass” because responding violently isn’t an option at the time.)

The logic of “no amount of property is worth a human life” is specious (defined having deceptive attraction or allure) because the person trying to take your property is threatening you with bodily harm in order to accomplish his goal. The implied exchange is “I won’t hurt you if you let me take your property.” Why is “I won’t inflict severe bodily harm or death if you cease and desist” an incorrect response? Criminals do not have the right to put their victims in fear of bodily harm or death – they’re the instigators. If stealing holds no risk to the thief, what incentive exists to inhibit the behavior? If those willing to break the social restrictions against threatening or inflicting violence are not opposed, why should we be surprised to see the level of violence rise? Criminals are generally stupid, but even the dim understand that elementary cost-benefit analysis.

England’s law seems to dimly recognize this philosophy, as the book excerpts provided by Tim indicate. The law allows for the use of (ill-defined “reasonable”) force not only in self defense but also in the prevention of crime. But the restrictions are byzantine. Read all four pages in Tim’s link and tell me that English law on this topic makes any sense whatsoever. It’s the worst of both worlds, sort of. The attacker has all the advantages, the victim all the restrictions.

It doesn’t matter to Tim that after general weapon restrictions were implemented in England, overall violent crime went up. The philosophy cannot be wrong. Results contrary to the theory merely indicate that the solution wasn’t implemented properly. Do it some more, only harder.

It doesn’t matter to Tim that handgun crime went up in England after the handgun ban. The philosophy cannot be wrong. Results contrary to the theory merely indicate that the solution wasn’t implemented properly. Do it some more, only harder.

It doesn’t matter to Tim that eighty years of ever-increasing restrictions on weapons and self-defense has not only not made England safer, it hasn’t prevented England from becoming the most criminally violent nation in the industrialized world. The philosophy cannot be wrong. Do it some more only HARDER.

It doesn’t matter to Tim that, while the stock of private firearms in the U.S. grows by three million a year, uncontrolled, unlicensed, and unregistered, violent crime has declined ten years running. The philosophy CANNOT BE WRONG.

It doesn’t matter to Tim that taking firearms away from the law abiding makes them nearly powerless against those willing to use violence against them. Women, the elderly, the physically disabled are all at a disadvantage against the youthful, strong, and predatory. They don’t NEED a gun.

If the law disarms attackers, then it can make self defence possible where it would have been impossible if the attacker was armed.

But the law doesn’t disarm attackers. It disarms their victims. The attackers have the choice to be armed or not. The State denies that choice to the victims, and so doing makes their victimization easier.

Now, which philosophy makes more sense? And who sees the forest, and not just the trees?

UPDATE, 4/30: By coincidence, Ravenwood links to a Guardian story printed yesterday that reports:

Violent crime rose 11% in the final three months of 2003 compared with the same period in 2002, Home Office figures revealed today.
Latest figures show 271,500 incidents of violent crime were recorded by police in England and Wales from October to December 2003.

More serious violent crimes such as murder and serious wounding rose by 13%, while “less serious” violent crime such as assaults increased 21% period-on-period to 106,000 incidents. The number of sexual offences rose 6% to 12,600 while robberies fell 7% to 23,900.

I also found this piece in the Manchester News. Just read it, and ponder the philosophy behind the idea.

Oh hell, here’s another one:.

Teenager held over robberies

A 16-year-old boy has been remanded in custody following two robberies in Manchester.

The boy, from Levenshulme, is charged on two counts of robbery and two counts of kidnap.

It follows two incidents in Fallowfield where a 21-year-old student then a 32-year-old man were forced into an alleyway by a number of men and robbed of their wallets, cash cards and phones.

No mention of any weapons, but what is an unarmed man to do when confronted by “a number of men” who are threatening bodily harm if he doesn’t give up his valuables? What risk did these robbers face? They knew their victims couldn’t effectively resist.

Again I ask: How is a woman to exercise her presumed inherent right to lethal force against a rapist if she’s denied any means with which to do so? And how is a citizen to exercise his presumed right to resist crime if he is denied any means with which to do so? How does one effectively resist someone larger and stronger unarmed? How does one effectively resist multiple attackers unarmed?

Or, as commenter Sarah rephrased Tim: If the law disarms citizens, then it can make self defence impossible where it would have been possible if the citizen was armed.

UPDATE, 5/3: Tim responds. My response is the first comment to that post.

FURTHER UPDATE: I’ve slightly edited to the post to hopefully mollify Tim. I’ve stricken out some attributions that Tim holds are in error.

The Truth is Sometimes VERY Painful

Mike Ramirez of the L.A. Times again.

OUCH!

Well! First we have an admission by a sitting Supreme Court Justice that the Court is no longer “chained or bound by the text of the Constitution. All it takes is five hands.”

Now we have admission by a U.S. Senator that America is no longer a Republic:

The individuals are not so much at fault as the rotten and decaying foundation of what is no longer a republic. It is the system that stinks. And it’s only going to get worse because that perfect balance our brilliant Founding Fathers put in place in 1787 no longer exists.”

So says Georgia Senator Zell Miller. That’s pretty strong verification (like it was needed) of Randy Barnett’s thesis behind Restoring the Lost Constitution.

Sen. Miller said this in connection to a Senate resolution he introduced to repeal the 17th Amendment, something I’ve supported for quite a while.

But he and I agree on something else: we both know it’ll be a cold day in hell before the Senators and the special interests give up the power that popular election of Senators gives them.

There was, of course, backlash to Sen. Miller’s resolution:

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., suggested Miller and others were treating the Constitution as a “rough draft” by proposing a series of recent amendments to require a balanced federal budget, define marriage and criminalize flag burning.

“We are the example of representative self-government in this world that works,” Dorgan said. “It’s messy, the noise of democracy is annoying sometimes, but it works.”

The problem, Sen. Dorgan, is that Sen. Miller points out that the system has been so damaged over time the question is how much longer will it work? The structures that enabled it have been damaged or destroyed or altered out of all recognition. The mechanisms of tyranny have been constructed and simply wait for final assembly.

And more of us are waking to that fact.

Hat tip: Ravenwood
UPDATE 4/30: This should be a post all its own, but I want to leave Trees? Meet Forest up at the top for a while. When someone as obviously whacked out as Ted Rall states:
A: John Kerry “would be wise to break ranks with his party’s liberal base by declaring his enthusiastic support for the Second Amendment”
and
B: “(A)bolishing handguns is a lost cause. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, roughly 70 million Americans own more than 200 million guns–with four to five million new weapons manufactured annually. Even if Congress authorizes police to break down every door in the country to confiscate them–a task our military can’t carry out in occupied nations subject to martial law, like Afghanistan or Iraq, let alone in Wyoming and New Jersey–the gun genie is never going to get stuffed back into the bottle”
and
C: “For too long, both parties have treated the Constitution like a Chinese menu. Republicans whittle away at the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and smear opponents who exercise their First Amendment right to free speech. Democrats rail against the states rights expressed by the Tenth Amendment and absurdly argue that the placement of a comma reflects the founders’ original intent to limit gun ownership to members of 18th century militias. Aside from its fundamental intellectual dishonesty, our politicians’ take-some-leave-others attitude deviates from most citizens’ belief that every section of the Constitution holds equal weight”
one is forced to grab onto the nearest stable object to make sure the world hasn’t shifted under one’s feet.
Who are you, and what have you done to Ted Rall?
Oh, wait. We know Kerry would be lying, so Rall is recommending that Kerry lie to the electorate in order to trick them into voting for him. I don’t know how much of what Rall states in this piece reflect his actual beliefs and how much of it is a lie, but given Rall’s history…
But it’s damned disconcerting when someone as foul as Rall states opinions I agree with. I feel like I ought to take a shower and scrub with steel wool.
(Link via SayUncle.)