Gun Culture

Self Defence

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Home Invasion?  Just call the police.

We all know the old story don’t we? 
Burglars are:
Just kids
Will run away if confronted
Blah blah

However if you push the collectivist ‘society will protect you’ arsehole ‘liberal’ wankers they will conceed that there are times when the householder needs a little help.  Not from a tool of self-defence such as a gun, a taser or a big bloody knife.  Oh no, you should call the police.  That’s what they’re there for, one shouldn’t ‘take the law into your own hands’.

From the Daily Mail and various rags:

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.

When the seconds count, you can rely on the police to be there in minutes as the old saying goes.
Or not.

Officers only turned up at the family’s home three hours later.

A disgrace?  Absolutely.  The real disgrace is that this is hardly an isolated incident.  A further disgrace is that this was relegated to News In Brief in the Telegraph.  This should have been front page headline news.  Why not so?  Is it because it is no novelty?  Or could it perhaps be that our left wing biased media, yes even the Mail and Telegraph are establishment (i.e. socialist) leaning.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Defensive Gun Usage by Nurse With A Gun

You rarely hear reports of a gun used defensively where no shots are fired in the US press, yet they happen and never appear on the stats.
Here’s a story via Kim of a guy who’s CCW saved him and his daughter from at least a mugging and who knows what.
Too long to reproduce it all but a few snippets:

I became vaguely aware of two scruffy young men behind us as I stopped to look for traffic in preparation of entering the parking lot. They stayed behind us, rather than coming alongside.

I handed Little Darling her bag and took her hand as we began to negotiate the maze of parked automobiles. I glanced back and saw that the two young men had spread apart, one on either side of us and to the rear. That is when I felt it. They had matched my stride and were circling me. Like an antelope, I knew I was being stalked by jackals, only I did not know why. Time was accelerating at head pounding speed, and Little Darling, blissfully unaware, was along for the ride.

I saw our vehicle and began to approach it, but I wanted to be certain. I walked past, and cut between two unoccupied SUVs, grabbing a shopping cart to block the path from my front. The man on my right turned towards me and cursed as he saw his path was blocked by the cart jammed between the two vehicles sideways. I spun and drew my pistol from it’s holster, keeping it at low ready, facing off the other young man who was quickly approaching me from behind. My thumb had already snicked off the safety and Little Darling, confused, peered from behind me.

It seemed an eternity looking into the menacing, sneering face of the hoodlum who had began his approach from my rear. He sized up the man with the gun, a little girl behind him. I heard nothing to my rear. Not a word was spoken. Then “God damned mother fucker.......” he snarled as he sauntered away.

I shuddered as I told the officer my story. I did not know why I was being herded and stalked, but I explained that I knew what was happening and felt it deep in my bones. I had been prey. I told him I had drawn my weapon. He asked if I was still armed, and I said yes. “Good,” he replied.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Tony Singh - No Charges

Good news is that Tony Singh has no charges to answer following his succesful self-defence against know scum bag Liam Kilroe’s attack.

The Director of Public Prosecutions is determined to ensure that those who use reasonable force in defending themselves will enjoy the full protection of the law - they will not be prosecuted.

The trouble is, John Dilworth, assistant district Crown prosecutor for South West Lancashire, we don’t believe you.  Mr Singh will not face charges, but we are not at all reassured that this will be the case in other areas of the country.  Or what if Mr Singh had been carrying a 3in folding knife (as he is perfectly entitled to do) and had killed chummy with that?  The burden of proof would then have been that his reason for carrying the blade was ‘cutting stuff’ and not self-defence (a knife is a particularly shitty self defence tool).  What if chummy hadn’t got a knife and Mr Singh killed him with something that came to hand (so called instant arming)?  Mr Singh’s case was especially clear cut, life is not always so black and white.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Scumbag 0 Tony Singh 1

Widely covered in the blogosphere, but not many of my contemperaries have The Scum version of the story and I wanted to mention it - so no apologies for running it here.

A HERO shopkeeper who struggled with a robber was nicked on suspicion of murder after the thug was killed with his own knife.

Brave Tony Singh fought back when hooded Liam Kilroe, 25, ambushed him as he was about to drive home after a 13-hour day.

The career-villain pulled a knife on his petrified victim – but was impaled on it as he grappled with the terrified convenience store boss.

Kilroe, who has a history of violent armed robberies on shops, tried to flee the raid but collapsed and died in a pool of blood.

Police called to the scene in Skelmersdale, Lancs, found shocked Mr Singh, 34, nursing knife wounds to his back and neck.

But despite his injuries officers arrested the shaken have-a-go-hero and quizzed him on suspicion of murder.

After being freed on bail until February 29, he said: “I feel lucky to be alive. All I was doing was trying to stop myself getting hurt. If one of the wounds had gone an inch either way it could have been fatal.”

Lancashire Police have sent a file to Crown Prosecution Service lawyers who will decide whether murder or manslaughter charges should be brought.

Locals rallied around Mr Singh yesterday.

So should the Lancashire Police have investigated Mr Singh?  Sure, got to be sure of the facts.  However they should never lose sight of the fact that Mr Singh is the victim, Mr Singh never asked this scum to attack him with a knife.  Thankfully Mr Singh was able to get the better of this career criminal, it could easily have been a different story. 
As for this bollocks about the CPS making a decision about charges?  Why?  The only decision should be “Is charging Mr Singh in the public interest?”.  The answer is clearly no.  Even if Mr Singh had deliberately killed this bastard then the response was both measured and appropriate.  One dead hoody bastard, you won’t get any tears from me.

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Libertarian Party on Self Defence

“The Libertarian Party stands by the right of peaceful citizens to defend themselves against violent attackers and burglars within the law, and will make it a priority to bring the laws on self defence back into line with common sense.

As one of our first steps to reduce the violent crime rate, a Libertarian Government will immediately move to repeal the ban on the ownership and carrying of non-lethal defensive weaponry by law-abiding people. Muggers, rapists and racist thugs make a habit of carrying knives and other lethal weapons in order to prey on the innocent. For too long the law has prevented their intended victims from protecting themselves using the non-lethal technology which is available to the citizens of most civilised countries.

This long-overdue reform is not a charter for vigilantes, but will have the effect of shifting the balance of power on the streets back towards peaceful citizens, where it belongs.

We will amend the Firearms Acts to repeal the pistol ban, which has both completely failed to reduce armed crime and crippled our country’s ability to compete in the pistol shooting events in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games, while depriving law-abiding householders of the ability to defend their homes with one of the most suitable weapons available. We will also remove the legal anomaly that requires antique-patterned muzzle-loading firearms to be licensed and registered as if they were modern weapons, when the originals can be bought over the counter. Since the technology is long obsolete, we will follow the path of most European countries by removing this bureaucratic requirement.

We will amend the 1988 Criminal Justice Act to prevent law-abiding people from being prosecuted for the simple act of having sharp or pointed objects in their possession. This Act has led to perverse court rulings resulting in innocent people being convicted for carrying the tools of their trade and other non-weapons, and it has done nothing to reduce violent crime.

Throughout our first term in office we will work to further reduce and eliminate bureaucratic and legal barriers to lawful self-defence and peaceful participation in the shooting sports.”

A good start but really doesn’t go far enough.  The law abiding should be on equal footing with the criminals, not constrained to non-lethal defence methods.  One can understand why they are being a little cautious so as not to scare the horses though.

Friday, January 04, 2008

Government Reaffirms It’s Breach of the Bill of Rights

A while back I added my details to an epetition requesting that handguns be allowable for self defence.

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to take the war to criminals by permitting law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns.”

Details of Petition:

“In 33 States in the US, the relegalisation of handguns has caused crime rates to fall substantially. In the UK, it should be criminals rather than citizens who walk in fear. I call upon the Prime Minister to relegalise ownership and carrying of handguns, after passing a training qualification, by any adult with no history of violence or mental instability.”

Of course there was no way on Earth that the Government was going to agree and the response was received thus:

The Government has no plans to legalise handguns. Firearms are not an acceptable means of protection in Great Britain and authority will not be granted to possess a firearm for this reason.

They should have added the words “In breach of the Constitution and contrary to the Bill of Rights”.  Not that the ruling elite recognise the Bill of Rights of course.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Teacher Fights For Right To Bear Arms

In the recent news we heard of the boy who, following suspension, returned to school armed and shot a number of staff and pupils.  Fortunately it seems he only managed to kill himself, shame he didn’t just get that done at home.
In this atmosphere it is no surprise to hear stories of gun grabbers bleating about keeping guns out of schools, as if legislation will magically prevent shootings.
So I was cheered to hear of this story from Oregon of a teacher challenging a schools ban on teachers having guns on campus.  Shirley Katz, a concealed carry permit holder, takes the pragmatic view that:

On any given day, we would be naive to not acknowledge there are guns in schools

The idea that having a gun-free zone makes a safe zone is a fallacious theory

Absolutely.
To us in the UK the idea that a teacher (and a female teacher at that) would argue that she should be allowed a gun in school is beyond unthinkable, not just because we kid ourselves that we are so superiour to our cousins across the pond that we don’t have violence in schools either.  You won’t find many teachers who aren’t raving Marxists and you certainly won’t find many female teachers that would support armed self defence.  In fact I can’t ever recall a teacher who wasn’t a Marxist of some shade, if there were any conservative teachers they were either careful to keep it to themselves or, more likely, they considered it inappropriate to promote their politics to impressionable youngsters.

Friday, September 28, 2007

Police Federation Defends It’s Monopoly

From an article in The Times

Jan Berry, chairman of the federation, expressed surprise at the latest review of self-defence law and said that nothing should be done that encourages vigilantism by the public.
“It is irresponsible for a government, either current or shadow, to use such a potentially dangerous subject to demonstrate a proactive stance on crime – not least the danger of raising public expectation when the reality is not achievable,” she said. “We need commonsense laws that protect the law-abiding public against a minority of offenders but we don’t want this to act as a green light to use excessive force nor to encourage people to take the law into their own hands.”

How tiresome.  That old saw “taking the law into their own hands”.
It’s our fucking law you bastards!
The police are merely the people we employ to help us out, the servants not the masters.  Although it seems that the Police have forgotten this somewhere along the line.
People using force to defend themselves, their property and their society from thieves and ruffians is not vigilantism - it is merely maintainance of the Queen’s Peace.  Our Common Law duty no less.  I’m sick and tired of these mouthpieces and their sanctimonious, patronising, lecturing bollocks.
Vigilantism?  How is protecting yourself vigilantism?  Where true vigilantism does occur it is mostly because the criminal justice system has let them down, where people know a wrong doer will not receive appropriate (or sometimes any) punishment.

Self Defence Review Sham

Jack Straw is trumpeting his proposed changes to the law concerning self defence and defence of property.  It is, as you might expect, a right load of old crap.
We are apparently to move from the current situation requiring any force used to be “reasonable” to a homeowner or person under threat to this:

He must show he feared immediate attack, had no escape and the response must be proportionate to the threat.

To me, that sounds even worse than the current situation.  Under the proposed situation one must show that you fear immediate attack, how are you to do this?  The wording makes it sound as though it is not enough to say that you feared attack, you must show (i.e. prove) that you feared immediate attack.  Further you are required to show you cannot escape.  How is this helpful?  Requiring the individual to flee rather than stand their ground and defend their property merely gives (another) green light to robbers.  Far from helping the Have-a-go-hero this would effectively make ‘having a go’ illegal.  Say you are walking down the street and you see a girl being robbed or sexually assaulted, you pitch in and help.  Stop right there guv’nor, clearly you were not under immediate threat of attack and clearly you could have escaped.  Pick up a stone and whack him over the head?  Not unreasonable you might think, but proportionate?  Lawyerly types will spend endless billable hours arguing that point.
What if you are in your home at dark o’thirty?  An intruder is downstairs.  Under this law you could not arm yourself and repel boarders, no siree Bob.  At best you must cower in your bedroom.  Is he coming up the stairs?  Keep cowering.  He’s coming in the room?  Get out of the window.  He’s coming towards you?  Can you show he was going to attack you?  Perhaps he might just be coming to shake your hand to congratulate you on such a nice home. 
Possibly the worst aspect is the word “proportionate”.  This will enshrine into law the biggest problem current with self defence.  The idea that you must play fair and by Queensbury rules, that you must not have an advantage over any robber or attacker.  An attacker has his bare hands and you use a stick - not proportionate mate.
Of course the usual crowd of sandal wearers have been wheeled out to condemn the idea of homeowners actually defending themselves, the usual bullshit about ‘escalating the violence’ and the business about burglars feeling the need to ‘tool up’ - what makes you believe that they don’t already?  So few are actually caught - who would ever know.

No, this proposal falls far short of what is required.  Which is quite simply that if you are in your home an intruder is fair game.  If you are in the street you should be able to stand your ground.  Self defence tools should be available to the law abiding.

Monday, September 24, 2007

OAP Beaten In Her Own Home

I make no apologies for repeating myself on this topic.
Liberal tossers will tell you that “most burglars are just kids” and that burglars “will just run away when confronted”.
Annie ‘Nancy’ Williams knows that this is just not true.  You simply don’t know an intruders intentions when he enters your home, all we can say is that the intruder does not respect the rule of law or the sanctity of your home.  We know that his intentions are most unlikely to be benevolent to say the least.
The scum who commited this atrocity did so safe in the knowledge that Nancy was defenceless.  Nancy would not have a pepper spray, a taser or a firearm tucked away - because if she had then the law would have come down on her nearly as hard as this scum did.  The scum knew that the criminal justice system was on his side.
It is no good the twats in Parliament bleating on about “reasonable force” when the scales are tipped so far in favour of the wrongdoer, what on Earth chance did Nancy have of applying “reasonable force” as the Guardianistas and their paramilitary wing aka the Police Service understand it?  Absolutely none whatsoever.
A reminder of Home Office policy as reported here?

12 January 2005

The ‘reasonable force’ law on defending the home is ‘sound’ and will not be amended, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has announced.

In a written Ministerial statement he accepted that the law on self defence needed greater explanation.

Information will be published soon which spells out what homeowners are allowed to do within the law to protect their homes.

Mr Clarke added:

“Concerns have been raised about the ability of householders to use reasonable force to defend themselves, their families, their homes and their property. After consultation I have concluded that the current law is sound but needs to be better explained to all concerned.

“I have come to the conclusion that this guidance and clarification will ensure that the current law is properly understood and implemented; and that therefore no change in the law is required.”

Remember this bollocks?

Last night Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald confirmed the law IS on the side of homeowners. Only those who carry out revenge attacks on burglars or set traps for them will face charges.

He said: “As long as someone hasn’t stepped over that line into retribution or revenge, it is difficult to perceive of a level of violence that would not be regarded as reasonable by a prosecutor.

“This is something the intruder brings on himself. I don’t think we need to be too squeamish about the situation.”

Weasel words, as worthless as the hot air from his lying gob.
If I were to store my gun in a means that it was easily accessible for home defence then I should be in breach of my conditions which require secure storage.  If the police thought that I were holding firearms with intention of using them against intruders then I would find my licence revoke as fast as you like.  If one were to apply for an FAC or SGC for home defence then you would be refused immediately.
Without the tools of self defence, any claims that self defence is permissable are just empty words.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Defenestration Home Owner - No Charges

As noted by Kevin of The Smallest Minority, the householder who was arrested after a burglar took a fatal dive from his window is to face no charges.  As also noted by Kevin, the commentary on this from the press is scant.
Why was this man ever arrested?  Was he considered a flight risk?  What ever happened to “helping the police with their enquiries”?
Det Insp Will Chatterton said, before the ‘no charges’ decision

“He has not only been disturbed in his flat by a burglar, which must have been an horrific event, but he has also had to experience being arrested and held in custody which must have added to his traumas.”

Well why did you arrest him in the first place?  This is surely a presumption of guilt.  I’m sure that it is common practice to arrest everyone in sight in these occasions but that practice is wrong.  A decision should surely be made on a case by case basis.  In this case inviting the householder down to the station to make a statement and asking him to stay would surely have been more sensible, instead he was likely cuffed and put in the back of the van before having his DNA taken and stored on the sinister database.  Perhaps I have answered my own question right there.  If he hadn’t been arrested it wouldn’t have been possible to put another citizen on the list.

Thursday, August 09, 2007

A new Tony Martin?

From The Telegraph

A homeowner who confronted an intruder during an alleged burglary could be facing a murder charge after the man died in hospital.
The intruder, 43, fell up to 40ft from a fourth floor window after an altercation with the flat’s occupant.
The homeowner was arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm after police found a man’s unconscious body outside the apartment block in Chorlton-cum-Hardy, Manchester.
Police confirmed today that he had died in hospital after suffering severe head injuries.
The 56-year-old homeowner had been released on bail, but could now face questioning on suspicion of murder.

No doubt we will see Rent-A-Quote bullshit about ‘taking the law into his own hands’.
I hope this chap doesn’t get charged but I fear the worst, even if he isn’t charged then there is a strong chance the family of the dead man may bring civil action.
Should this prove to be as it seems then the householder should be congratulated for getting a thieving scum bastard ‘off the streets’.  Nobody but the chattering class scum Guardian reading tosswanks will mourn the loss of a burglar. 

Saturday, June 16, 2007

I Like Dead Offenders

Me too Ted, me too.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Camerons “Revolution in civic responsibility”

What to make of Cameron’s speech on civic responsibility?

What he says is of course correct.  People need to be the guardians of society, responsible for upholding the Queen’s Peace according to our duty under Common Law. 

Cameron claims that it is the Blair government which has dismantled the compact which meant that the ordinary citizen would be the vanguard against petty yobbishness and ‘anti-social behaviour’.  This is of course only partly correct.  The Blair Goverment has continued the hatchet job on the framework of society but the assualt started many years ago with the rise of leftist thinking and the industrialisation of the welfare state.  Successive Governments have presided over the mantra that law and order is the privilige of the state, that people should not ‘take the law in to their own hands’.  I have spoken many times about how the law belongs to the people and not to the organisations we subcontract to administer it.  Hence we have a nation by and large afraid to look to themselves to stare down criminal and thuggish activity, knowing that the very best they can hope for is a torrent of abuse in return.  Should a confrontation escalate to violence, the civic minded citizen can be sure that should they come off best then they can look forward to a conviction.  More probably they will come off worst on account of the State’s disarmament of the law abiding.  Thugs and criminals will carry knives and guns with no fear of using them and yet our Government will not even allow us to possess irritant sprays.

Tom Grant was a civic minded young man who stepped up to the plate on behalf of a young woman being assaulted on a train, he was killed.  Hardly a great encouragement for the rest of us to follow suit.
Cameron offers no solutions or remedies other than not introducing knee-jerk legislation, sadly the so-called Conservative party don’t have a very good history on this topic.  Semi-auto rifle ban?  Dangerous Dogs Act?  Pistol ban?  I’m sure if we were to think back we could come up with any number of bullshit initiatives and legislation brought in by the last CONservative governement.  Talk is cheap.

Cameron doesn’t give any positive suggestions which may help turn the tide.  I’ll suggest a couple.
Firstly make it 100% clear to the CPS that the prosecution of homeowners attacking intruders is not in the public interest.  An Englishman’s home should once more become his castle, our final sanctuary.  We should not be required to second guess the intentions of intruders, gambling our lives on the outcome.
Similarly any police spokesman who utters the words “taking the law into their own hands” should be sacked instantly, police school 101 should include sections on the Common Law and the origins of police powers.  The concept that the police are just citizens employed to carry out the duties required of every citizen should be once more actual reality.  With this in mind the citizenry should be able to carry any instrument that the police do to carry out their task, specifically extending batons and irritant spray.  The police’s lawful authority derives from the same lawful authority of the citizen, even though this has been neutered by statute in recent years - unlawfully in my opinion.

Being as this is Gun Culture I should make mention of firearms.  Just as certain officers are tasked with carrying weapons, so should the citizen be allowed so to do.  Whilst I believe in the right to keep and bear arms as affirmed in our Bill of Rights I recognise that there are certain to be limits on this.  So we should have a system whereby a citizen may be certified to carry firearms for personal defence, this would involve a Firearms Certification and suitable training programme.  I don’t envisage the programme being as rigourous as the police firearms one as the citizen would not be expected to travel to the danger as our firearms response teams are, but merely to respond to incidents they become unwittingly involved in.  Self defence should also be an acceptable reason for aquiring a shotgun or firearm, without the need to prove specific danger.  What has been Home Office policy for fifty years is unlawful and should be reversed immediately.  Current, very rigourous, checks on applicants would remain.

Welfare should be removed from persistent offenders.  Why should polite society pay to be abused?  If you can’t behave yourself then you get no pocket money.  If that means you starve then tough shit, perhaps begging at soup kitchens might make you reassess your behaviour?

Community based punishment should be as high profile as possible and as demeaning as possible.  Pink jump suits and scrubbing pavements perhaps?  Reintroduce some kind of stocks, a day pegged out in the town square might knock the swagger out of some of the younger thugs.  I can’t see too many feral brats boasting about the time that a seagull shat on them when they were being laughed at by young girls in the same way that some seem to boast of their ASBO collection.

Finally prison.  Prison works.  Why so? Simply because when you are in jail then you are not on the streets intimidating your victims, commiting your crimes.  Lefties trot out statistics on reoffending rates as ‘proof’ that prison does not work.  They assume that scum are reformable, however by the time prison appears on the radar of the CJS by and large the die has been very much set.  You don’t get stir by nicking sweets from the corner shop, you get stir by committing a very serious crime or by being a persistent medium level crime offender.

What are our chances of any meaningful outcome from the fat faced wankers speech?  Bugger all.  All the solutions require taking the leftists head on, being a closet leftie and falling overhimself to appeal to the left (who aren’t going to vote for him anyway), Cameron is never going to do this.  So I have to agree with the opposing parties who claim that Cameron’s words are just fluff.

Monday, February 05, 2007

Bounce, bounce, bounce

Jeremy Vine: You see something happening in the street. Do you step in?

Tony McNulty: I think the general line must be to get in touch with the authorities straight and make sure that if things are as bad as you paint the police will be there as quickly as they can.

Jeremy: You see a young man looking aggressive, shouting at an old woman, what do you do? You retreat and ring the police?

Tony McNulty: I think you should in the first instance. It may well be the simply shouting at them, blowing your horn or whatever else deters them and they go away.

Jeremy: He’s now hitting her and the police haven’t come, what do you do then?

Tony McNulty: The same the same, you must always ...

Jeremy: Still wait?

Tony McNulty: Get back to the police, try some distractive activities whatever else.

Jeremy: What jump up and down?

Tony McNulty: But I would say you know sometimes that that may well work.

Amazingly, this is not an extract from a comedy show.  This is from Panorama and Tony McNumpty is Minister for Police and Security.
Unveiled soon are the new public safety Csars, Tigger and Zebedee.  How long before trampolines are banned as offensive weapons?