Gun Culture

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Destruction of liberty

The Government is hell bent on taking away our liberty in the name of protection against terrorism.
I am not one to pretend that such a threat does not exist, however I do doubt greatly the scale of the threat.  Those who perpertrated the outrage on September 11th 2001 did not really expect that their crazy plan would be so devastatingly successful, the threat on our own shores can surely be no higher than we faced at the peak of the PIRA atrocities.
Times such as these require vigilance, strong border controls and good policing and security force work, not outrageous laws which threaten the very fabric of the relationship between citizen (subject if you prefer) and state.  Labour would have been the first in the line to howl down these laws were they proposed under a Conservative Government and yet when the power is in their hands they are no different in wishing absolute power for themselves.
Surely unprecedented in modern times is the scale and ferocity of the attack on liberty by Government, Blair’s Enabling Act, ID Cards, detention without trial etc.
Those who looked at NAZI Germany and say such things could not happen here are not only blind but dangerous because they are the ones who’s comlicity allows Government to get away with this.

I notice Blair is trumpeting that safety is more important than liberty.  I disagree.  Liberty is everything, without liberty we do not have lives - we have existence as slaves to a government master.

A couple of quotes from deeper thinkers than I

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Benjamin Franklin

‘Necessity’ is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the
argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

William Pitt (The Younger I believe)

24 Hours to save the NHS

We all remember Nu Labour telling us about our “24 Hours to save the NHS”, “Things can only get better” and all that toss don’t we?
Yesterday my dental surgery kindly notified me that they were no longer to perform NHS treatment unless the patient was under 18 or on the welfare.
I can probably afford the private charges, but that is scarcely the point now is it.  I have already paid for the treatment in taxation and yet I am told I must pay again, there were already ‘top-up’ charges but now we must pay the full market rate.  I am quite content to pay the going rate, but not if the Government has already stolen with menaces the monies allegedly to pay for these services.

Will the Government now give me a refund?
Will they shite.

Thursday, February 10, 2005

B&Q

Following the success of Dame Ellen

To: B&Q Customer Services
From: John Roberts

Dear Sir/Madam,

My congratulations to you on getting a yacht to leave the UK
on 28th November 2004, sail 27,354 miles around the world and arrive back 72 days later.

Could you please let me know when the kitchen I ordered 96 days ago will be arriving from your warehouse 13 miles away?

Yours Sincerely,

John Roberts

Shamelessly stolen from Seatcupra.net

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Hook, line and Sun-ker

Isn’t it strange how gullible some people are

Licensed to kill a burglar
By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Deputy Political Editor

HOMEOWNERS were given the green light to attack and kill burglars in self-defence yesterday.

Householders are allowed to use any weapon - including a knife or a gun - to protect themselves.

And they can even lash out first if they feel their life is in danger.

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.”

But a row erupted after Britain’s top cop called for the law to be made watertight in favour of residents.

On his first day as Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, below, said people should be free to use any force short of “grossly disproportionate”. He went on to say: “I want the intruders to feel afraid.”

The law will protect a homeowner who launches an attack on someone he suspects of trying to break in even if he turns out to be mistaken.

Advice leaflets will be published. Rugby-tackling intruders or hitting them with any weapon to hand is OK.

But anyone who felled and knocked out an intruder would be charged if they then carried out further assaults.

Setting a trap is outlawed, as are killing or injuring a housebreaker to punish them.

PM Tony Blair had originally planned to tear up current laws because they were too confused.

But he and the new Home Secretary Charles Clarke backed down a fortnight ago and are now insisting that the current law is enough.

No prizes for guessing that this is from newspaper of record The Sun

If I were to make my gun more easily accessible I would be found in breach of my certificate conditions of storage.  If I were to say hide a gun under the bed would I be accused of ‘setting a trap’?  I have window locks, does that make my house a ‘rat trap’ a la Tony Martin?  If I were to shoot an intruder, killing him, I reckon it would be found to be “grossly disproportionate” quick smart.  If chummy were to receive a wound in the back no doubt newspapers would be full of how I had “shot him in the back whilst he was running away”.

No, this ‘clarification’ falls well short of what is required, we should not be placated with this condescending crap.

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Another one gone

Contrary to what you might be hearing in the media, UKIP are by no means split by infighting following the Tanned One’s defection to the Me Party.
We are mostly delighted that he has gone and seems to be taking some of the fifth columnists with him.  I am most especially delighted that Damian Hockney has gone.  Hockney was most likely the one dripping poison in RKS’s ear and promising him the leadership, he certainly has been a thorn in the foot of the party these past few years.
Have a shufty at Vanitas to see the new party website!

Grass roots gun culture

JohnJo has received a deep thinking missive from one of his readers.  First
go read it and then come back!
Frank and John both talk about the desirability of a kind of proficiency test for gun owners (and in this we are talking about ownership for self defence).  This is not really a huge step from the situation in many US states for CCW licence, the key thing being that CCW permits allow for carry in public where I think this is unlikely to win favour in the medium term where ownership in the home very well would.
Like the consulants like to say,

We need to eat the elephant one bite at a time

The gun grabbers want to remove all gun ownership, but they are very good at playing the long game.  We must learn from them and try to regain our rights one step at a time.  That said the first step necessary is the acceptance that firearms in the home for home defence is acceptable and desirable.  This is a large step for many, but any smaller step will not do.
Frank says

Moving forward I think the gun culture we need would develop from your stage one proposal. So I’m going to be cheeky and ask: “How do we get to stage one?”

My view is that in the first instance there is the need to set up a campaigning organisation that will need to develop a sensible detailed policy proposal (probably along the lines of your stage one) and go out and campaign for it. Whilst I accept that the likelihood of short-term success is remote, unless and until a group is putting out a sensible message on gun legislation it simply will not happen. I accept that any such organisation is unlikely to have funds to hire professional staff and advertising, but even if it could start to put the case it might succeed in raising public awareness. Obviously if it is something the public have no interest in then it’s never going to get anywhere anyway, but at least it might be able to get people thinking about the idea.

Cash is a fairly small issue, advertisers will not accept anything which either promotes gun ownership or ‘violence’.  Remember the Freelander Advert.
I would like to see a blog dedicated to self defence, I suggest that it should be a cooperative blog in the style of Samizdata.  I am prepared to either transform Gun Culture or bankroll a new site.

Clarification Not So Clear

Can this really be the clarification that Fungus though was all that was necessary for the debate on self defence to go away?

Does the law protect me? What is ‘reasonable force’?
Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in selfdefence. This is still the case if you use something to hand as a weapon.

This is clearly not the case.  Witness an Anthony Spray, retired businessman, woken up by the sound of his door being hammered down.  Mr Spray grabbed his air rifle (!) and went to investigate.  His door was now open and a figure in the hallway.  Spray challenged the intruder who did not leave and lunged towards him.  Spray fires and hits the intruder in the eye.  Unsurprisingly the shot is ineffective and Spray beats the intruder down with the butt.
In those circumstances I’d say his actions were reasonable.
In the cold light of day it seems that the intruder was paralytic and thought he was trying to get into his B&B.  The intruder lost his eye.
Spray was found guilty and made to pay compensation for the injuries to the intruder

The Home Office document is bullshit and the law very much an ass.