Self defence, wrote William Blackstone, the 18th-century jurist, is a “natural right that no government can deprive people of, since no government can protect the individual in his moment of need”. This Government insists upon having a monopoly on the use of force, but can only impose it upon law-abiding people. By practically eliminating self defence, it has removed the greatest deterrent to crime: a people able to defend themselves.
– Joyce Lee Malcolm
|
|||||
Samizdata quote of the dayDecember 23rd, 2004 |
 14 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
There is no moral difference between disarming the general population and depriving them of the right of self-defence, and declawing domestic cats and then shoving them back outside to face the dangers of the street. Yet, people who would never think of doing the latter mindlessly get on the bandwagon for the former. Holy cognitive dissonance, Batman!
That analogy is closer than many people may realise. De-clawing involves the removal of not just the claws but the ‘fingers’ down to the first knuckle. Similarly, this government has taken not just our guns and knives, but, effectively, our hands as well.
Does anyone have any figures for the number of people arrested for acts of self defence? Is it really that high?
I’m not even sure that knives are in that much danger of being made illegal. They so obviously useful for so many tasks, that it’s always possible to come up with a good excuse for having one around.
J wrote : “I’m not even sure that knives are in that much danger of being made illegal. They so obviously useful for so many tasks, that it’s always possible to come up with a good excuse for having one around.”
Tell that to Nicky Samengo-Turner.
llater,
llamas
Unfortunately, the events in London this morning (a nutter’s been on the rampage with a knife, in case anyone’s not heard) prove Blackstone’s point. We really do need a serious pro-self defence lobby in this country.
I did not know that. It looks pretty terrible from the news coverage.
So, let’s review. The last few days/weeks, we have heard repeated calls from the Government and others for strict new laws to combat ‘knife crime’, which is said to be reaching epidemic proportions. spiked.com had a good column about this a couple of days back.
Lowe and B. Hould, some unhinged man goes on a stabbing rampage in the suburbs.
Chicken, this is Egg. Egg, meet Chicken.
I already have a wager going with another contributor, which rather looks like it’s going my way. Anyone care to have another little flutter on how long it will be before draconian new laws come before the House to outlaw the sale, possession, carrying or thinking-about of knives in any and all ways, shapes or forms?
Or – in the alternative – what the impact of such laws will be on ‘knife crime’?
This rampage took place across a wide area and mostly in public spaces. In many parts of the US, the odds are very good that this man would have come up against a legally-armed citizen, and that he might have been despatched instead of being allowed to continue. Bear in mind, from police reports, that this man was only caught when he pulled up in front of his own home. Had he been minded to continue his ramp[age, who knows how many more might have been killed or wounded?
This is the cost of a citizenry which is denied the means to defend itself. This – a trail of blood and death. A cleraer case was seldom seen. But do you suppose that anyone, in any of the media or among any of the chattering classes, will position the matter that way?
Not Bloody Likely.
llater,
llamas
It’s people, not weapons. I have fun with the anti-gunners here, by asking them to name one person killed with a gun. No matter what name they dredge up (JFK and Lennon head the list), I point out that it was the Bullet that did the killing, not the gun. I know I have a brain dead victum when they answer, well the bullet came from a gun. I then pounce with, “Yes, and a Human caused the gun to discharge. So why are you blaming the messenger for the message?”
I know it’s cruel, but I enjoy watching their eyes glaze as a ‘thought’ bounces around inside their empty skull.
Ahhhh ever heard of the term “pistol whipped” as in bludgeoned to death?
“JFK and Lennon head the list”
Well what happened with RFK and MLK?
We are keeping an eye on this gun. We’ll let you know if it gets up unaided and kills someone
llama: Nicky Samengo-Turner is a pratt, and furthermore I’m not aware that he’s been found guilty of any crime. Many people are stopped unecessarily by the police. Many people are arrested for things that aren’t crimes – that’s why we have the presumption of innocence.
Nicky Samengo-Turner was innocent, has been arrested, is still innocent, and in the very unlikely event of his being tried, I’m sure he’ll be found innocent. It’s no big deal.
As others have said, Nicky Samengo-Turner is a journalist and pratt, and that’s the only reason we are hearing about any of it. Nothing to see here, move along.
Re the people killed by guns vs people killed by people. I take your point, but the argument you gave is just sophistry and point scoring. In every day language we talk of people being killed by cars, or by bombs or whatever. It’s perfectly sensible to say “JFK was killed by a gun” – the meaning is clear to everyone.
The gun argument is a simple one of personal freedom vs personal safety. There is a sliding scale between banning all metal objects, and legalising personal nuclear weapons. Whether you ban or legalise pistols / machine guns / knives etc is simple a point chosen along that scale. Personally, I’d go for something like the state of New York – legal ownership for semi-auto firearms, with restrictions on carrying etc. But that’s my view on what law makes me safe vs. how much I want to restrict others – I’ve no personal interest in ever owning a firearm for any reason.
So you don’t think we should ban all knives, then?
If you subtract out all the murders of Bad Guys by Bad Guys in the US, our murder rate is the same as Europe’s.
US murders are usually done with guns, Europe’s with knives.
So you guys as might as well have guns for self-protection as it does not affect the murder rate. But guns have a large effect in lowering all other types of crime.
The gun fearing wussies among you need to start reading Kim du Toit –
http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/weblog.php
– paying particular attention to his collection of “Righteous Shootings”. The dead goblin count is up to 88. The most recent feature elderly folk defending themselves.
Merry Christmas to all!
Let’s not forget that the English Bill of Rights 1689 gives us the right to arms for our defence. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 that is so often used to punish the law abiding that get caught with a weapon in public is IMO being mis-interpreted.
The original [according to Hansards] aim of the Act was to legislate against “thugs and ruffians on the fringes of society” from carrying weapons in public. Mr Samengo-Turner can no more be described as a thug or a ruffian operating on the fringes of society as he could be a terrorist. The Bills sponsors also put on record that there was no absolute prohibition on carrying weapons when on your daily rounds and that a woman could still carry a weapon iif she felt the need.
Futhermore the current establishment are also forgetting our Common Law Duty to prevent Beaches of the Peace which BTW is where Constables get their Lawful Authority from.
We have a God given right to self defence and an Act of Parliament in the Bill of Rights formally recognising and therefore protecting said right – why do we still see people being hurt for want of a defensive weapon in our civilised country?????
We have a ‘policy’ of disarmament in the UK but we do not have any Laws to back it up to the extent to which it is being taken.