We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The right to fight back Tory MP Patrick Mercer has tabled legislation to ‘rebalance’ the right to defend life, limb and property in favour of the victims of crime.
And how exactly will that make a lone 60 year old woman safer if someone breaks into her house? Please remember that it was a Tory government which decided she will have no right whatsoever to have effective means to defend herself by restricting firearms.
The Mercer Bill is welcome but all it does is make Britain a little bit safer for houses containing one or more adult males from their late teens to their late sixties who are actually capable of picking up a blunt instrument and taking on an intruder with a reasonable chance of success. The unpalatable truth is that most people are not able to effectively defend themselves against your typical house intruder (one or more young men between 16 and 35) unless they have an effective weapon. And that means a gun.
“God made man but Colonel Colt made them equal”
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Not to be an ass, but I know quite a number of walking deathmachines of the female variety.
Body strength or not, few women today are going to stand idly by whilst the friendly neighborhood burglar decides to help themselves to their valuables.
B.D.T. I must agree with you. Having lived in Latin America, I can remember quite a few older ex-pat women who had seen off the odd miscreant or two with aplomb.
Regardless of the ability of a few capable women, in reality most women do indeed have little chance against a young adult male criminal who wants to subdue them, all things being equal. I am a Judo brown belt and weigh 55 kilos, and I am under no illusions I can defend myself against a man twise my size unless I use some sort of weapon (and in that case, I most certainly can). But the British state has made sure that all things will indeed be ‘equal’ by denying women access to self-defence weapons.
A woman with a kitchen knife trumps a seven foot bruiser with an attitude, if the woman is actually prepared to use the knife, and can make a common-sense guess roughly what to stab. A moment’s dither and hesitation might be prevented by this improved law; lives will probably be saved.
Hmm, reading the telegraph’s quote, this sounds even better than I had thought; it seems to apply to all breaking-and-entry where people are at risk, not just in residential houses. Plus it improves on the advertised “not grossly disproportionate” by adding over and above it, that the disproportion must have been “apparent to the person using such force [at the time]”. In other words, you can’t cross that boundary accidentally. That’s a major improvement too.
The legislation may not be all you want, but it’s better than nothing. Perhaps the basic human right of self defense will be regained the way it was lost: one small step at a time.
OT, but what the hey …
How in the world did the term “table” come to mean completely opposite things in two countries with a historically related legal system?
Julian Morrison, thank you for yet one more deeply stupid post.
It wouldn’t matter if I had the sharpest ‘kitchen knife’ (I’m a woman, after all, and would naturally be in the kichen when assaulted and would effortlessly, in the panic, remember where the nearest knife was) : WOMEN DO NOT HAVE THE SAME ARM REACH AS MEN, YOU FUCKING MORON!
We also do not have anything close to the muscle power of a male arm.
What am I going to do? Jab at thin air while an angry and adrenalin-driven young man of 20 effortlessly holds off my knife attack? Are you bloody insane?
Women have no hope against an aggressive male, you stupid shit. Annette Croft has said it in less emotional language.
In the face of aggression, women are totally dependent on the protection of males. Or guns. We are dependent on men not to hurt us, and we are dependent on other men to help us if we are being attacked. Or our guns. End of story.
A woman ‘with attitude’ against a seven foot bruiser? Are you out of your mind on drugs? In your submissive dreams, sweetheart.
What Verity said.
Here’s the fact about knife-fighting, as opposed to wishful thinking:
Unless you know what you’re doing, brandishing a knife at someone is a sure way to be disarmed and stabbed.
This is especially true of women, who are quite easily disarmed by almost any man. Even a cleaver is of little use.
Remember the famous Samuel Colt line:
“Fear no man, whate’er his size. Just call on me: I’ll equalize.”
Kitchen knives? Good grief. Talk about clutching at straws.
The best self-defense weapon for a woman is a damn gun, full stop end of story end of statement.
That men are disarmed in Britain is a disgrace. That women are disarmed, is criminal.
Thank you, Kim du Toit! All this talk of ‘a woman with attitude’ being able to disarm a 7′ man, magically overcoming her vast physical disadvantages with a spunky attitude only diffuses in fantasy the real danger that an unarmed woman is in.
Thank you, Kim!
Amen to Kim and Verity. Guns do two things that knives don’t: they give you stand-off capability, and knock-down power. In fact, if you have a gun, you shouldn’t let your target get within six feet of you. If he breaks that boundary, you aim at centre of mass and start shooting. Otherwise you risk having your gun taken away. The only place that kitchen knives have in this situation is to be put in the hand of the erstwhile burglar after you’ve flensed him with a load of double-ought buck. Keeps the filth happy.
Why should a gun be any less a legal weapon of defense than a kitchen knife?
knife fighting is a learned skill that takes much practice and instruction…
A knife – unless you have a lot of force behind a stab, will be unlikely to generate enough vital organ damage to stop an attack on drugs.
a blunt object, a bat, etc. will not be much use against multiple people.
an 80-yr-old will not be able to use either.
Your government has decided that “guns are bad” of course they haven’t kept them out of criminals’ hands. A gun is just a tool I can use to defend myself.
Thank you all for the recognition that it is very easy to disarm a woman and, if she manages not to lose her grip on the knife despite having her wrist squeezed by a much stronger male wrist, the attacker can simply turn her hand against herself. Rather that stab herself in the face, she will drop the knife.
This notion that women have nothing to fear just as long as they are feisty enough is beyond stupid and takes no account of the realities of physiology. A male has a longer reach – end of story, right there. He also has more body mass. He also has infinitely more muscle mass in his arms – even a fairly weedy man is stronger than most women. A seventeen year old boy is stronger than most women.
Women’s self defence classes are not about fighting an intruder and winning! They are all about – taking reality into account – getting away.
The only way most women can defend their lives against a male attacker is with a gun.
cj – Tony Blair’s government is in the midst of banning knives, including penknifes.
I do, however, apologise for my intemperate language above. But Brother Dave Thompson’s facile statement that he knows several female walking death machines is – unless they’re armed with a gun – garbage. As is Julian Morrison’s: “A woman with a kitchen knife trumps a seven foot bruiser with an attitude, if the woman is actually prepared to use the knife, and can make a common-sense guess roughly what to stab.” Such stupid feelgood statements deflect attention from the reality. Women, young, middle aged and old, get murdered by male intruders because of the lack of a gun to hand.
Just couldn’y resist it…in reply to the first comment. –
“Oh! Brother!”
I think this “girl power” rubbish has a lot to answer for. And certain self defence courses where no men are present nor allowed (on principle).
In the new Charlie’s Angels movies, for example, they shun firearms. Of course, they can all dodge bullets, rendering guns magically ineffective. The original series had no such qualms.
While a woman can indeed defeat the 7 foot brute variety of predator, it’s much more likely she’ll lose badly.
PS – Hey, there’s an idea! Tarantino should make the next Charlie’s Angels movie! Call it “Charlie’s Dogs” or “Pulp Angels” or something….
What is not taken into consideration is that many intruders are high on drugs,they could break an arm and it would not stop them,similary many hardcases can take pain a kick in the nuts may only infuriate them.I believe in the US,Mr Du Toit will correct me if I am wrong,law enforcement upgunned to more stopping power for this reason.
The only sure way to stop someone is to put two rounds into the chest wrecking the central nervous system,professionals would finish of with a shot to the medulla oblongata,but the police might look askance at this.Aiming to wound is not an option,the third shot should always be a warning shot..
Knives have only one target area where there is any certainty of deterrence,the eyes.
All this may seem gruesome but it is some of the reality of self defence.
If you feel up to it,on the other hand you can always wait in hospital for the police to bring you your crime number for the insurance, or they can give it to your next of kin.
What happened to the Labour MP Stephen Pound’s promise to Radio 4 listeners to lobby for their massive support for a new law permitting home-owners to use “any means” to defend their homes?
That was in January. He sounded somewhat reluctant, having made the promise before the poll, maybe expecting something like a ban on religious hate speech.
In fact, he said (quoting) “The people have soken, the bastards.”
From The Week, 24/12/04, page 12
Peter – thanks for an excellent post. But let’s face it, a woman trying to wield any weapon except a firearm is going to have her wrist grabbed by her attacker and that is that.
I am not so sure about all these drugs claims, though. I do not believe that most intruders are on drugs. I think this is what the police and the government are telling people in order to frighten them, and to innuend (if that’s not a word, it should be) that the problem is alien and thus overwhelming, which is why they are failing to control it.
I think most intruders know exactly what they are doing. They’re in the house because it’s five minutes’ of high adrenalin, then down the pub. And if there’s a woman alone in the home, well that’s one of the bennies of being a burglar, innit?
And if a woman blows their brains across the room, well, that’s one of the bennies of being armed, innit?
Verity,Many burglars are on drugs and many steal to feed their habits,we have a few of the little shits round here.But you don’t want to be tackling someone on speed,angel dust and booze, alone.
One measure that should be taken,is instead of leniency towards crimes taken under the influence of drugs,they should be treated with the same severity shown to drink drivers.
One solution is to own a vicious but devoted dog that one is not particularly fond of
Peter – figures, please. I just believe the ‘they’re stealing to feed their habit and so they’re more than normally dangerous’ line of the police is a crock. I can believe that muggers are feeding a habit, but burglarly takes a clear, even if stupid, head.
Don’t say dog or Llamas will come and bite you! Actually, we’ve done this before, with several posters saying a dog will warn you and try to protect you, but a grown man can break a dog’s forelegs (I know! It doesn’t bear thinking about; but it’s the reality). I realise you said ‘that you’re not particularly fond of’. I would rather have Mr Colt at my side, thanks.
Verity,A large number of criminals have criminal habits,drugs are are their main recreational stimulant along with alcohol.
I should imagine that most hot burglaries are committed by those hyped up on drugs, killing somebody or working them over for, what is often pocket change,takes an abnormal ammount of aggression.
Burglary requires no clarity of thought or any intelligence,that is why the bent little bastards do it,it is easy.
There may be big time antiques art and jewelry specialists,but most are petty thieves grabbing someting saleable.
Most times items of value change hands for ten or twenty quid either in a pub or to a fence
Peter, please forgive me as I don’t want to pick nits just for the sake of it – but I am not persuaded that half the United Kingdom is on drugs. Alcohol, yes. But I think the drugs thing is an urban myth encouraged by an incompetent and unwilling police force and Home Office.
I’m not saying no burglaries are committed by people on angel dust or whatever, and I concede that muggings are probably done by people on drugs because they’re instantaneous and the perps can melt into a crowd stat, but breaking into a house, getting through a burglar alarm system, having the discipline to creep around, alert, while the people sleep, and taking their valuables – by drug addicts? Drug addicts aren’t noted for their discipline.
It strikes me that this is what the police want the public to believe to excuse their miserable clear-up record.
Peter’s right. Contrary to some libertarian nostrums, drug abuse is not a good or even neutral thing & the people who take the stuff need to get the money for it somehow. Since many of them are completely unable to hold down a job, and since welfare isn’t enough to feed their habits, crime is the inevitable result.
Most crime against property is petty – people nicking VCRs, cameras, car stereos, computers and so on, rather than the Van Gogh on the drawing room wall. It is also opportunistic, and the unlocked car or the house with the open windows is a sitting target. Many people do not have burglar alarms on their houses, and car alarms are routinely ignored by most people & are little more than a minor inconvenience to many criminals.
Decriminalising drugs won’t fix the problem either, because the addict still needs to get money for his drugs and still will be unable to hold down a job. It is the effect of the drug, not the fact that taking it is criminal, that makes him unable to hold down a job. He will still turn to crime.
EG
Okay, okay.
In that case, return to the days when addicts got prescriptions for their hits. It would surely cost a lot less to keep them on their drug of choice free of charge than what the burglary industry costs the British GNP per year?
Any improvement in the law is better than nothing. But in terms of practical politics, one approach might be to lobby for a legalisation of certain types of weapons for people who obviously can’t defend themselves effectively – e.g. legalising mace and tazers for the over-65s. A campaign like that could easily get widespread support amongst the public and tabloid newspapers because it wouldn’t be seen as frighteningly radical.
But if successful it would establish the principle that those who need defensive weapons can possess them, with certain restrictions, and once the principle was accepted it would just be a matter of gradually extending the definition of who has need of a weapon, and what specific weapons are allowed. The initial legislation would therefore be the thin end of the wedge, an approach that has been extremely successful in promoting everything from the growth of the welfare state to gay rights.
When did we leave them? People still get methadone on prescription. The effect of this, however, is that the methadone prescribee sells the stuff and uses the money to buy heroin – this really happens, unfortunately.
The only real answer is to (a) lock the buggers up and deprive them of the stuff, (b) lock up anyone flogging drugs to anyone else, and (c) lock up (or string up) anyone caught bringing the stuff into the country. Not terribly libertarian, but it works and it’s cheaper than tolerating the crime or subsidising the junkies.
I think this misses the point of self-defence in the home. Notwithstanding the fantasies of some, the home owner is not a soldier at war, with everyone else out to get him (although I concede that in a libertarian society this might be the end result), and so it is not necessary to become a domestic Rambo.
The point is that the potential burglar should be in sufficient doubt to be deterred. Yes, he could think, the owner of that house is indeed a 70 year old woman – but she might have a gun small enough for her to handle but big enough to seriously hurt me and even if I lived I couldn’t sue her. That’s the point – the “might” is the important word.
I understand that when firearms were generally legal in the UK, only something like 2 or 3% of the population actually owned them (not counting farmers, gamekeepers, etc., who need them for their jobs, or sportsmen). Most people patently don’t like or want guns, but this is fair enough – the burglar doesn’t know whether his potential victim is one of the 2% or the 98%. Most are somewhat cowardly, and tend not to risk a bullet for the sake of an easy few quid. The thin end of the wedge is enough to achieve this, no need to widen it.
Having said that, if the burglar takes the trouble to find out and still comes after you, it really wouldn’t matter one way or the other. In such a case, you have something he *really* wants and he’s coming for you anyway, however well armed or skilled you are.
EG
Andrew Zolotocky’s post is very astute. Could work.
Euan – If everyone were on free drugs, the druggie wouldn’t have anyone to sell his methadone to. Given the crashing failure of the war on drugs, I would rather contain drug-related robbery/burglary by dishing it out to them free.
I think too much has been made of “drug addiction”. I have heard doctors say that nicotine is a more addictive drug than heroin, and it is the harder habit to break. But I would give them free drugs just to keep them off the street. I wonder why phony Tony, ferrety Jack Straw, sodden-with-tears Blunkett and all the “New” Labour viragos haven’t pursued the elimination of drugs with the same hearty malice with which they have pursue smokers and drinkers.
“Not terribly libertarian” is understating the case somewhat. OTTOMH the only country that springs to mind where your specious remedies might ever have worked is Singapore, that very small yet perfectly formed island republic where the trains run on time. Given the enormous investment of effort & public treasure in the UK and USA toward preventing the importation of drugs, and the strikingly poor return on investment (IIRC HM Customs & Excise admitted to detecting around 3%…) I suggest your policy is wrong. To leap forward to Verity’s latest post, NuLab has not pursued serious drug-commerce precisely because it’s too hard a target compared with the shooting-fish-in-a-barrel booze & fags industries.
There’s a disturbing degree of prescriptiveness here about drugs, drug-crazed burglars, and self defence issues. Stuff these suggestions based on social utility, government initiatives, patronisingly flip remarks about “domestic Rambos”: what’s at issue is the right of the householder to choose to defend himself, family & property against violent invasion. If individuals choose to shorten their lives by ingesting hard drugs, so be it; I’d ease their way by legalisation (the stuff is inherently cheap) and by letting the losers wipe themselves out of the gene pool, preferably before reproducing. And if they choose to attempt violent crimes against their fellows, let them face the strong likelihood of being wiped out in the process…
Not sure what your final para means: is it a counsel of despair, meaning you’ve had it if a “serious” burglar gets you in his sights? You’ve agreed that they’re inclined to be cowards, so what’s the problem? I very much doubt if the average burglar has the discipline or intelligence to become proficient with firearms: even though in recent years I’ve been forced to become a little rusty through the benevolent policies of my government, I’d bet I’m more than a match for 99% of burglars with a handgun…
Tony H – Unless they were in the military, burglars will have had no opportunity to become proficient in the use of firearms in Britain. Target practice, even in Tower Hamlets and similiar thrilling venues, isn’t really practical, given the attention gunshots tend to attract. And there are no legal firing ranges in Britain.
And indeed it does work. So less of the “specious” if you don’t mind. It is a good idea in Real Life ™ to try ideas which actually work, rather than theories of how people are supposed to (but don’t actually) work.
The problem of drugs may be overstated by the conservative, but it is also undoubtedly underestimated by the libertarian. The large scale use of drugs really does cause or worsen a whole slew of social problems, not least increased petty and violent crime. I suspect that those who call for liberalisation have no clue whatsoever about the real effects of the things. Perhaps a difference between recreation cocaine use amongst one’s friends and real-life heroin addiction is responsible?
Why don’t you spend a month in a housing estate surrounded by junkies and see what you think then, matey. By the way, try an keep your car, your modest possessions and your self control in such a case. I can almost guarantee you’ll change your mind.
True, but let’s not pretend that all householders automatically face the very real everyday threat of such. It simply isn’t like that. Nor is it the case that the only possible method of effective defence is a gun. Nor is it the case that household defence only works if the majority of householders are armed.
I support the right of householders to defend their property and life with a gun. However, I also recognise that there is more to law and order than armed householders. Perhaps you don’t.
The problem is that whilst most burglars are in fact cowards, not all are – especially not the professional who really seriously wants something you have. I’d have thought that my language was plain enough – but if you’re going to twist it to suit your preconceptions there’s nothing I can do about it.
EG
Well, I didn’t expect you to accept the example of Singapore at face value: it’s not a regime you admire in anything but a remote, economic sense, is it? You wouldn’t really accept that sort of regimentation in exchange for punctual trains and gum-free pavements..? So I’ll stick with “specious”.
But not by me – at least, I try hard not to. I freely admit I’ve worked hard to avoid personal experience of druggies on council estates – though I did tremble at the sight of some kids having a nasty time on bad acid at a rock festival, oh, 30+ years ago…
The trouble is that these alarming visions of druggie hell among the underclass always smack of nanny’s bedtime tales designed to keep us in line, and on this blog at least I assume most people have a robust desire to question such things. They might not entirely be chimeras fostered by the State, and since I have a school-age child I keep myself informed about the realities, thank you; but on principle, and through observing the expensive, illiberal, inept attempts by the State to control the “drug problem” I tend to the view that State interference has failed.
Perhaps you work in this field: why should legalisation of drugs, with a consequent fall in price and instant access to them for the inadequate, not have the beneficial effect I envisage? Losers nationwide could destroy themselves pronto, without having to bash others on the head to get the wherewithal…
Who’s pretending this? Not me – I simply draw attention to what I see as the fundamental right of anyone to arm him/herself against the eventuality, no matter how remote.
?? An unnecessary slur, frankly the sort of thing one gets from anti-libertarian types who constantly accuse us of merely being obsessed with gun ownership. But since home/personal defence is what we’re discussing here, guns necessarily come into it, as others (above) have pointed out, because anything less doesn’t count as an equaliser. I get the impression – correct me if I’m wrong, as I know you will – that you, er, don’t like guns very much, sort of… Among educated urban Brits of course, it can be social suicide to admit to going shooting, and to an interest in firearms. Perhaps this phenomenon partly explains your attitude? I note that you approve of people’s right to defend their homes with guns, but perhaps you’re not wholehearted about it. I mean, of course there’s
for God’s sake – please don’t insult me – but let’s stick to the point.
Firstly, let it be said that, although Kim du Toit and I have had our go-rounds in the past, I completely agree with every word of his 12/12 4.23am post. Well-said.
The proposed legislation is, at the very best, a pitiful half-measure, and it is a sad state of affairs indeed when such a fundamental natural right as the right to self-defense must apparently be clawed back a little at a time by such pitiful half-measures as this, built as they are (in this case) on the bodies and blood of innocent victims.
Kitchen Knives, and Get a Big Dog, and Wallop Him with a Bat, and Pepper Spray, and all the other hundred-and-one half-measures proposed – Pah! The fact is that a well-handled handgun is the single best, most-effective, safest, most cost-effective means of self-defence yet devised by the mind of man. And that goes cubed for women. I simply fail to understand why this simple fact is the elephant on the middle of the British living-room carpet, that noone dares to speak of. All we hear are these finely-honed calculi of what exact inequality of force might be fair to tolerate between a 250-pound muscle-bound teenager and a frail 70-year-old granny – all of which completely overlook the simple question of who’s in the right and who’s in the wrong. Apparently, no suggestion is too laughable, or too pitiful – to be seriously mooted, and yet noone has the stones to simply say – let law-abiding citizens own and carry handguns’. It boggles my mind.
Any – by-the-bye – where in the hell is it written that an innocent victim of a violent attack (or threat of same) needs an ‘equalizer’? This just cements the idea that a violent attack is some sort of sporting contest, with Marquess of Queensberry rules and some sort of idea of fair play – if he has a bat, no fair if you have a gun. Nonsense. Fair play is for people who play fair. I don’t want anyone I love to have an ‘equalizer’ in such a situation – I want them to have an ‘overwhelmer’, something that brings the confrontation to a swift and sure end with the bestest chance of success for the innocent.
llater,
llamas
Tony H – Don’t knock Singapore until you’ve lived there under what is probably the most civilised system in the world. Between you and your employer, you pay around 30% of your salary each month into the CPF. This money does not get spent on Traci who keeps getting knocked up, or Duwayne’s bad back so he can’t work. It stays in your personal account, accumulating modest interest, and you have a number you can dial, key in your pin any time of the day or night, and find out exactly how much is in your personal retirement account. You don’t have access to it until you’re 55, although the government will allow you to use a prescribed amount to buy Singapore blue chip stocks or to buy a home – a no-lose retirement proposition in tiny, land-poor Singapore. Meanwhile, as the government know the date on which you will turn 55, it borrows the money in the meantime at a modest rate of interest to finance its wonderful capital projects.
There are secretaries in Singapore retiring with a million dollars.
And that’s the point. The government doesn’t think its remit includes supporting you on other people’s tax money.
Drugs aren’t a problem because anyone caught with them goes to prison and gets the cane, a lesson few forget. Anyone caught selling them is hanged at dawn on Fridays. This happens rarely because, oddly enough, anyone with a yen to deal in drugs can figure out that the odds are way, way against him (or her; they hang women dealers as well).
There’s no eating or drinking allowed in the rapid express stations, with the result that the trains are shiny and spick and span clean.
The queues at the taxi stands move fast, and when you order a taxi by phone, the drivers bid by the minutes it will take them to get to you. The one with the shortest arrival time gets the job and you are given his taxi number. If he’s not there in the minutes he estimated he said he would be, you can call in and complain and he will have to answer why he mis-bid.
On the other hand, one is absolutely safe walking home at any hour of the day. I’ve walked around looking for a taxi at 3 a.m. and it never even occurred to me to look behind me or listen for footsteps. I just ambled along until a taxi hove into view.
It’s easily the food capital of the world. The people are some of the best dressed in the world. It is rich and sassy and absolutely everything works 25 hours a day 365 days a year.
I’d go along with that, llamas – “equaliser” is just a handy word with a lot of tradition behind it.
The problem I have with your glowing testimony, Verity, is that it’s what I would expect to hear from a conservative – not from a libertarian such as I presume you to be. I mean, your description is reminiscent of travellers’ reports pre-WW2 about Nazi Germany and the USSR. I do not suggest that Singapore is remotely like those regimes, but it’s nevertheless a disturbingly authoritarian country with a degree of regimentation & control that I’d expect most on this blog to find repellent.
I admit you are more up to date than me: I lived there for nearly three years, but that was in the ’50s, and while I remember it well the place was not yet independent, and in any case I was too young for political critiques…
Tony H – like many people on this blog, I am not 100% Libertarian, the way Perry, for example, is. I have largely Libertarian tendencies, but there are also shades of conservatism within my makeup.
Singapore has been through its very authoritarian phase, which LKY deemed essential for a third world country without a single natural resource – save its people (it even has to import its water from across the Straits of Malacca in giant pipes) – to leapfrog into First World status within two generations. Which it has done with a vengeance. I believe they were the first in the world to have swipecard passports – years ago.
Singaporeans, who are a well travelled bunch, were well aware of the authoritarianism, although also understanding it, and laughed at it. There were lots of jokes about LKY making the rounds when I was living there. These people aren’t exactly browbeaten and cringing. A huge percentage of them took their degrees in Australia or Britain, yet they all choose to come back to their clean, green and safe island.
Twice I have stood behind LKY’s wife in a queue in the music store Beethoven. She got in the queue with her grandchildren, like everyone else. No one bothered her. People who have actually lived in Singapore either like it very much, or love it.
Government control has slacked off a little now that the initial surge is over. They have another brilliant prime minister in the person of BG Lee. Singaporeans just get richer and richer (with no natural resources save human brainpower and determination, I’ll say again).
And they hang murderers and drug dealers. And they whack drug users with the rotan. I’ve never talked to a single Singaporean who wishes it otherwise.
Unlike I suspect you, I actually live a few minutes walk from such places. So do many of my friends. They are not nanny’s bedtime tales, they are the sad reality of contemporary life in much of the UK.
For the reasons I have already given and am not about to repeat.
I said I supported the right of homeowners to own guns for protection of life and property. I’ve used guns, know what they do, know how to handle them properly and am not afraid of properly and safely used firearms. I have no objection to people owning guns. I would personally prefer to live in an environment where owning a gun was unnecessary, but if I had to have one I would.
The point exactly is that there is more to law and order than arming householders. Preventing burglary ALSO needs some attention paid to removing the perceived need for people to burgle, and removing the perception that they may do so with impunity. This requires better law enforcement, better and more equitable criminal procedure, harder sentences AS WELL AS allowing homeowners to defend themselves and their property – with guns if they choose, by other means if they choose. It’s more complex than just arming householders.
What rot. Like it or not, Singapore works – a blend of social authoritarianism and economic liberalism seems to work very well indeed, and not only in Singapore. Tough luck for libertarian theory, but there it is.
Unfortunately, however, one tends to find in practice that many people (i.e. the world outside Samizdata) often will accept a degree of regimentation in return for a stable, peaceful and orderly society. Indeed, some degree of regimentation is a necessary consequence of order, theory to the contrary notwithstanding. My own view is that libertarianism is unworkably Utopian outside economics (although excellent and practical within it), and this appears to be only one of many illustrations.
Bien-pensant Guardianistas and revolving-eyed libertarians excepted, I suspect the majority of people in Britain would think likewise, given the opportunity.
EG
How did you Brits get into this situation, doesn;t anyone read history. Hitler enacted gun control. Here in the states there will be a blood bath before our guns are taken up. We will not in my lifetime allow the (state) to be our only protector. Look at DC, they have gun control and the highest homicide rate in the US. Criminal love unarmed victims. Anyone for gun control should be taken out and shot, or better yet send them to Iraq to discuss it with al-Zawhari. LMFAO,
As I know you know full well, I am aware that drugs make life miserable for many people. You also know what I meant: regardless of the scale of the problem, the State feeds us horror stories to try and justify its repressive measures – which fail, of course.
Yes, yes, how many times do I have to say I KNOW there’s more to it than the freedom to arm oneself. But whereas you’ve made it clear many times on this blog that you’re a conservative rather than a libertarian, your nostrums begin to suggest you’re exactly the sort of “Guardianista” you excoriate… I am minded of Sweden, and its 40 year experiment based on exactly your beliefs: “removing the perceived need for people to burgle” forsooth! Jesus wept! What next – water into wine perhaps, or the abolition of sin? Talk about revolving-eyed, EG…
Ah hah: “rot” is it? You pretend not to know what I mean? Tut tut, these disingenuous games are silly: my analogy clearly meant that too many people were inclined to wax lyrical about the trains running on time, the cleanliness, the beneficent public works programmes etc, while turning a blind eye to the price paid in political liberties sacrificed – exactly like Singapore. Call me a romantic idealist, but I thought political liberty was central to just about everyone participating in this blog. And I’m sure I don’t need to quote fully Jefferson to you, “He who would sacrifice…” etc.
Yes, well, this is the problem, isn’t it – for me and a great many others here, but not it seems for you…
Happy Hogmanay.
Whilst this law is limited, it is a welcome step in the right direction. The rare cases of politicians doing common sense things to improve personal liberty should be applauded.
I would however take issue with a lot of statements on this thread. Firstly, it is legal in the UK to possess a shotgun at home. With the passage of this law one will now be able to legally shoot burglars dead with an extremely powerful gun. It doesn’t matter if they are a determined 300lbs bodybuilder high on PCP, if they receive buckshot at 6 feet they won’t be doing much in a hurry. It is also legal and possible to use a shotgun on private property, both for target shooting and hunting, so you can train in the use of your weapon.
I agree with the comment on knives, even I wouldn’t want to use one unless I was sure my life was in danger. For a woman to use one would be suicidal IMO. Are there legal and effective alternatives apart from a shotgun? What about a chainsaw?
Finally, I can’t go without commenting on Singapore and drugs. I entirely agree that drugs can be harmful, and a harsh anti-drug regime can reduce their usage and societal side-effects. What I don’t see is how that in any way justifies restrictions on their use. If I use cannabis or cocaine personally, and/or sell some to a willing friend, this is harming no one except ourselves, with our consent. Where then is the moral justification for forcibly kidnapping and then imprisoning or murdering us? One is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and collective punishment is outlawed both by morality and the UN charter on human rights. It is therefore clearly immoral to punish drug users who do *not* steal or commit crimes to fund their habit or recreational usage, in order to punish those who do steal. In this case the crime is the theft, the violence etc by criminal drug users, not the drug usage by recreational users. It is outrageously immoral, disgustingly tyrannical, and uncivilised behaviour, to punish innocent people who mind their own business, purely for the crimes of the violent thieves and robbers who do not.
Finally, remember, the entire reason why guns are banned in the UK and many other places is for exactly the reasons that verity and Euan cite in favour of Singapore i.e. that it is believed to be socially useful. This totally ignores the sanctity of individual rights. If it were socially useful to murder an innocent person (e.g. to prevent social unrest, rioting etc), would this be morally legitimate? Once one accepts utilitarian arguments, liberty goes out the window. It is the ultimate irony that verity objects to utilitarian arguments against certain liberties (guns, tax, ID cards, and the targets various social-democratic policies), whilst at the same time supporting theft (the 30% forced saving out of income) and murder (executing someone who possesses cannabis for personal use) on utilitarian grounds. I find her sentiments not only morally repugnant, but also naive and self-contradictory. A utilitarian morality cannot ever be in favour of fundamental rights or liberty, it’s that simple – eventually at some point the benefits to society at large will outweight the needs of one individual, and they will be screwed over to benefit their fellows. The doctrine of utilitarianism is the morality of the collectivist, not the libertarian.
I doubt if anyone’s still looking at this thread, but I have to respond to Cobden Bright:
On drugs:
The social (please don’t use the non-word ‘societal’) effects of drug use can be considerable, and an open tolerance of the practice is generally unpleasant – witness the current Dutch inclination to start clamping down on it a bit to deal with the no-go areas full of junkies, the used syringes & needles lying around, the associated crime, etc. It is NOT a matter of a few intelligent people taking a recreational drug now and then for a quick thrill, it is a matter of a large enough number of people making themselves unemployable and hence inclined to criminality through abuse of addictive chemicals. Real world, Cobden, not drawing room theory. That’s what “justifies restrictions on their use.”
Also, please understand there is a difference in most western nations between “possession” of drugs and “possession with intent to supply.” The police tend not to get too exercised about someone with a few grams of cannabis for his own use, but will get more worked up about someone with 5kg of the stuff in his backpack. The idea of “executing someone who possesses cannabis for personal use” is daft and not acceptable in most nations, so please try to keep it in proportion.
On guns:
This stuff about individual rights is fine, and they are important. They are NOT the most important thing because we are not hermitic solitary animals, and account must be taken of the wishes of society at large. A purely libertarian society where there were only individual rights would not only permit widespread gun ownership, it would require it because the resulting chaos of no meaningful law enforcement would inevitably (out in the real world again) result in widespread violence as people toughed it out with one another. Like it or not, this is how people work, and rules are made to rein in their excesses. Too many rules are a problem, but no rules is also a problem.
I really wish people would understand that, just as a denial of individual rights in favour of the collective is a screw-up, so too is a denial of the existence of society in favour of selfish individualism.
EG