The Times reports:
Online stalker who flew round the world shot by girl’s mother
A 25-year-old man who flew 9,000 miles from New Zealand to see an American teenager he had met online was shot by her mother as he was breaking into their house.
Troy Skinner was armed with a pocket knife, pepper spray and duct tape when he began battering doors and smashed a window at the family’s home, detectives in Virginia said. He was taken by air ambulance to hospital in a critical condition after being shot twice, once in the neck, but was expected to survive.
Sheriff James Agnew, of Goochland County, said: “The manner in which he attempted to enter that home in the face of a firearm pointed at him and the implements we recovered from him, the only inference is that he had very bad intent. He was not invited here, he was not expected here. He had been told the daughter no longer wished to communicate with him.”
Mr Skinner had struck up a relationship with the 14-year-old girl on a video gamers’ chat app called Discord about four months ago, the sheriff said. The app says that it is a place for people who “love playing games” to share “relationships, memories, and laughs”.
Mr Skinner decided to travel halfway across the world to see her when she tried to break things off. He had taken three flights and a long interstate bus trip to get to her house. “This was not random. This was not spontaneous. This was something very planned,” the sheriff said.
And
The mother told police that she was at home painting with her two teenage daughters when Mr Skinner came to the door. She refused to open it, but he then went around the back and tried to break down a rear door with a concrete block from their garden.
The girl’s mother warned him several times that she was armed with a handgun and she opened fire when he smashed a glass panel and started reaching inside to try to open it by the latch.
My apologies to readers from New Zealand. The sarcasm of my title was just a rhetorical device to make a particular point. Of course I am aware that this type of madman can arise in any country. The roles could easily be reversed, with an American obsessive armed with knife, pepper spray and duct tape trying to break into the house of a fourteen year old New Zealand girl.
Of course given that in New Zealand, as in the UK,
Gun licenses are issued at the discretion of the police in New Zealand provided the police consider the person to be of good standing and without criminal, psychiatric or drug issues as well as meeting other conditions such as having suitable storage facilities. To be issued, they must be issued for a valid reason, which may not include self defense.
…if this had taken place in New Zealand or the UK the mother would have had no gun and the girl would have been raped and murdered.
My own idea is that only females should be issued with guns and pistols. Men can have rifles. Women need protection from would-be rapists, and when did you ever hear of an all-female gang robbing a bank?
“…if this had taken place in New Zealand or the UK the mother would have had no gun and the girl would have been raped and murdered.”
As she would have been in Canada or Australia.
if this story were posted on Breitbart, most comments would be delighted but bemoaning the mother’s need for a bit more range time to get her aim that little bit more concentrated on stopping the threat in an irrevocable manner.
To think that New Zealand gave the world, amongst many other great men, Charles Upham and Sir Keith Park, as well as Lord Rutherford. Some of them are good people.
I whole heartedly support the restoration of our right to bear arms. I just wish there was one political party or even political movement that was championing this issue. I might not even obtain a gun but it’s not for the state to decide whether I am allowed to own a gun or not. Servants don’t tell their masters what they can and can’t do.
(and her mother murdered as well).
Were we to follow PC example, we would now scream at any passing PC authority figure, “Why did you want that girl to be murdered.” If the PCer-in-office dared to offer an explanation, or even an apology that was insufficiently cringing, we would throw them out of restaurants, confront them aggressively in the streets, demand the laws be reinterpreted to fit our wishes, and express intense desire that their families suffer a like fate unto the tenth generation.
Oh wait: if we followed the PC example, we’d already have done that over some events in Rotherham and elsewhere.
While our superior sanity, to say nothing of more moral issues, is part of the reason why this has not been observed, it is only honest to note a contributing factor: we are not the faction that controls the media, still less the one that feels no shame at arranging which stories get much spun coverage while others get little and that little spun against them.
That murder and assault must be discussed in a nuanced fashion, but separating the families of illegals must be screamed about, says much about why we have the problems we do.
A girl being raped and murdered is no threat to the state. Armed voters on the other hand, are.
True, but only to a certain kind of state. IIUC, Steve Scalise has not stopped supporting the 2nd amendment, though he has more cause than most to know that an armed voter can indeed be a threat to him.
As in 30s and 40s China, where you you knew you were in an area Mao controlled if you heard the wolves howling (and so knew the peasants had been disarmed), so today, it is a litmus test of politics whether a power of resistance in the people is seen as a threat. (And, as the use of that word reminds me, the public domain and reality are, as ever, far apart; #TheResistance hates our having the power to resist.)
So self defence is “not a valid reason”.
When a would-be rapist and murderer is breaking into your home you have seconds – and the police (if they turn up at all) will turn up much too late to save you or to save your family.
I often attack the late Thomas Hobbes – but even he recognised self defence as a right, it was just the moral duty to defend other people that he did not understand. The political position of the late Thomas Hobbes (bad though he was) is actually superior to the utterly depraved political position of the international “liberal” establishment elite – that denies the right of self defence.
Of course the definition of “law” of the late Thomas Hobbes (“law” to him meaning the commands of the ruler or rulers – any command, he rejected traditional ideas of Natural Law, Natural Justice) contradicts his belief in self defence (as, to him, the state has the right to disarm honest people – or to pass any other command as “law”), but at least in theory he recognises a right to self defence.
I remember when Myspace could have been described, thus.
In the next instalment of Star Wars?
“Of course given that in New Zealand, as in the UK”
Not really. It’s not hard to get a licence in NZ and you can then buy a very large range of weapons, right up to 50cals.
“Gun licenses are issued at the discretion of the police in New Zealand provided the police consider the person to be of good standing and without criminal, psychiatric or drug issues as well as meeting other conditions such as having suitable storage facilities. To be issued, they must be issued for a valid reason, which may not include self defense.”
The reality is much easier than this makes it sound. Fill out the paperwork, do a safety test and get an inspection for your gun safe and your done. In the UK, the police would make this process a living hell, thankfully NZ isn’t anywhere near that state of affairs.
Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray: “Women need protection from would-be rapists … ”
Hmmm! I offer this to rebut that assertion.
Some women, might need protection from would be rapists. But then, women probably shouldn’t be let out on their own, bless.
Plenty of men need some protection from women……
David Moore – that is good to hear. The requirements are, however, still at the discretion of government officials. They may remain reasonable, but I am skeptical as I expect the venality, corruption, stupidity, and pettiness of both elected officials and bureaucrats to tend to maximum, regardless of country of origin.
Interesting that someone would travel to the other side of the world to get shot.
Quite by coincidence, yesterday there was a link on Instapundit to an article about civilian small arms ownership.
After reading this post, i followed the 1st link in that article and found that, unsurprisingly, the USA is way ahead in firearm ownership per capita, but New Zealand is #17 globally, which is pretty good, although it is only an aggregate measure.
(See table 2 here.)
I also found data on firearm ownership by civilians and the military in lots of countries.
From that data, i computed the approximate ratios of civilian/military firearm ownership for a few countries:
USA: civ: 393M; mil: 4.5M; ratio: 87 (!)
New Zealand: civ: 1.2M; mil: 38K; ratio: 31.6
UK: this is difficult because civilian stats are given separately for England+Wales, Scotland, and N.Ireland.
Neglecting the latter, i came up with these figures:
civ: 2.7M + 0.3M; mil: 0.5M; ratio: 6.
It’s been a long time since my last smiting!
I didn’t miss it.
@Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray
My own idea is that only females should be issued with guns and pistols. Men can have rifles. Women need protection from would-be rapists
Now, every one in chorus … Good job guns were not involved …
http://thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/montana-machete-assault-295730
Psycho women. We’ve all had them.
There’s a joke in Astraya ‘How do you know when you’ve been burgled by a Kiwi? The cat’s been raped and your thongs are missing.’
David Moore,
The real problem there is “at the discretion of the police”, that means that the police do not need any reason to deny your permit.
David Moore – yes I have heard that in practice (although not in theory) the New Zealand police are more relaxed about private ownership of firearms (and about Freedom of Speech – or at least so I am told) than the authorities in either Britain or Australia
I am glad that you indicate that this is largely true – but I still would prefer (as I am sure you would) that things did not depend on the good will of the local police, because the culture of a police force can change.
Obviously, we in the USA have the more attractive women.
My working theory for some years now is that the Left and the Authorities consider self-defense to be a malum in se crime, and not any sort of human right at all – especially when it’s “pre-meditated” self-defense with a deadly weapon acquired for that purpose. In fact, they seem to consider it a crime so fundamental that not even the all-powerful State can legitimize it.
Thus the howls over legal firearm ownership, and especially over shall-issue licenses to carry, here in the US. “This will allow thousands of gun-armed criminals on the streets!” is not just hyperbole. They view each and every gun-carrying permit-holder as a criminal, with the CCW permit being a legal loophole that prevents those criminals from being arrested, convicted, and punished as they richly deserve. Thus the upset over police brutality – but only in cases where the excuse is self-defense (whether legitimate or not, under normal standards). If people are shot in raids were police are attempting to enforce the law, that’s a legitimate use of their guns. But if a cop shoots someone in self-defense – that’s a betrayal of the trust placed in him by issuing him a gun.
And not even the anointment of the All-Powerful State (Blessed Be Its Holy Name!) can legitimize such a heinous crime as self-defense.
In the United States, most of the people who oppose the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms also oppose increased penalties for gun crimes.
Which is baffling, until you think about the people who (legally) own most of the guns versus the people who commit a disproportionate amount of the gun crime. And how those blocks of people tend to vote.
Then it all becomes clear as a summer sky.
A girl being raped and murdered is of value to the state. Some ways:
The crime reinforces the public’s fear, and its perception that it needs to be protected by the State’s minions;
Investigating, prosecuting, and locking up the criminal requires the conversion of citizens’ productive time into wealth for the state;
Those things require more State minions…
I prosecute criminals for a living, and I’m proud to. It’s nice being the good guy and I believe what I do makes my town a better place. But I know that crime (in the West, these days) causes people to seek a solution in the State, and perversely the State as an organism benefits in significant practical ways from crime.
Especially high profile violent crime against innocent white voters.
T. S. A. Q. E. D.
Ferox- Scott Adams said that to Republicans, guns are things that they may need to defend themselves from young Democratic men.
To Democrats, guns are things that make it easy for their own young men to slaughter each other.
(My corollary to that is that each side fully agrees with the other, and that is a further reason for their respective positions. But they keep that to themselves.)
As you say, it makes the politics clear.
if this had taken place in New Zealand or the UK the mother would have had no gun and the girl would have been raped and murdered.
And the “thoughts and prayers of the local police would have been with the family at this difficult time”.
So it’s like carry licenses in California – you can get one if you’re connected?
From the very start of gun licensing, a requirement was that someone important sign off on you.
” bobby b
June 28, 2018 at 2:43 am
Obviously, we in the USA have the more attractive women.”
But with all those lovely sheep over there…..
Lord forgive me and feed the starving pygmies in New Guinea, amen.
Ha ha it’s a chick with a gun, what’s she gonna do , shoot me ? Damn right- if the only recourse a woman has to protect her family and herself is with a firearm, I’m glad at least she has that possibility at least here in the USA, cause you can’t always rely upon the cops being available when you need them….
Paul Marks
“I am glad that you indicate that this is largely true – but I still would prefer (as I am sure you would) that things did not depend on the good will of the local police, because the culture of a police force can change.”
Of course. There is always pressure on these laws despite there being very little evidence guns are a criminal problem in NZ. Plenty of people grandstand every time there is a major shooting in the US to restrict firearms even more in NZ, thankfully that makes little progress.
I do expect that at time point things will change for the worse. There is no bulwark against this outside the US and most people are profoundly ignorant on the topic of firearms.
bobby b
“Obviously, we in the USA have the more attractive women.”
Yes, this is correct.
David Moore missed a big point about firearm ownership in NZ. The numbers usually refer to long arms (Rifles and shotguns). Handguns are tightly regulated and usually limited to gun club members who compete in organised competitions.
The mother shot the guy with a handgun, so that would not have been avaliable to her easily or legally in most western countries.
As noted, it’s not particularly difficult to get a firearms licence for hunting in NZ. I have two brothers who hunt with rifles, and another who likes crossbow hunting (no licence needed). It’s harder to get a licence if you’re like me and have an anti gun Mrs who will object more than the police would ever.
Brian:
As you say, in NZ, the UK or Australia, one may own a rifle or shotgun, but it has to be locked in a cabinet when not in use. Thus, it is of no use for a sudden life or death situation. A twelve bore which is locked in a steel cabinet will not save you when you need it.
I must say I find it odd that in the UK, NZ and Oz it is legal to own guns for all reasons except self-defence, which is the most basic and obvious reason to own one. It was not always like this, but the 20th century saw the state getting bigger and bigger, and thus the citizen getting smaller and smaller.
The one part of the UK where ownership of a pistol for self-defence is still legal is Northern Ireland, but even that is for the convenience of the state. They found that builders, contracters and other suppliers of goods and services to the state were refusing to work for them any more, as they were targetted by the IRA. The only way the state could get its jobs done was to allow these people to own a pistol and a small amount of ammunition (25 rounds I believe). So there is no general right to be armed in self-defence even in NI, it is just something the state had to allow for its own survival.
The NI situation is something which is never talked about, however. About 10,000 people in a population of 1.5 million carry a pistol for self-defence. Carried across to the mainland, that would be 400,000 armed citizens. The powers that be don’t want the peons getting any ideas above their station.
The thing to remember is that weapons in general, guns most of all, democratize violence. It may be true (though the evidence does not yet clearly show) that the presence of weapons increases total violence. But, without weapons, violence is simply the purview of young, strong men. Simple weapons can shade this advantage a bit, but a gun makes even a relatively weak person the equivalent of any other armed person. The private use of firearms for defense thus disproportionately helps the old, infirm, female, and otherwise violence-marginalized groups. Those who oppose the use of firearms for self-defense long to return to a world in which we are controlled by the largest thug in eyesight.
Tarrou, there is an old adage about that:
God made man but Colonel Colt made them equal.