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]
|
We will find any means we can to further restrict them because I hate guns. I don’t think people should have guns unless they’re police or in the military or in the security industry. There is no earthly reason for people to have… ordinary citizens should not have weapons. We do not want the American disease imported into Australia
So said re-elected Australian Prime Minister John Howard, in an interview on April 17 this year. (Audio here). While Howard is certainly America’s friend in the war against Islamic fundamentalism, you should actually be careful before assuming that he shares your position on much else. This is after all a man who once introduced a hypothecated income tax specifically for the compulsory purchase of people’s firearms.
(Link via Tim Lambert.)
When capital punishment was abolished in Britain in the 1960’s, the resulting public disquiet was mollified by assurances that convicted murderers would spend the rest of their lives in prison.
That assurance proved worthless. Over subsequent years, and by gradual degree, the span of ‘life sentences’ was whittled down to the point where a convicted murderer is now confined, on average, for between 10-12 years.
Apparently, even that is now far too draconian:
Some murderers could serve less than 10 years in prison under guidelines unveiled by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Woolf.
But it would only be in extraordinary circumstances – for example, if they had given themselves up before their crime had even been detected, he said.
The caveat of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ is a promise which will prove to be as valueless as the last one. Step-by-step and case-by-case, the defintion of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ will be widened to the point where convicted killers are routinely sentenced to spend a few hours exploring their inner child with a Court-appointed Outreach Counsellor.
Towards the end of the 19th Century the British State made a contract with its citizens the material terms of which required the individual citizen to surrender up their right to self-defence in return for the protection of the state which, by its agents, would both defend the citizen from harm and pursue and prosecute those who did (or attempted to do) the harm.
Gradually, but inexorably, the state has walked away from its side of that bargain. However, this would be no bad thing were the citizen likewise released from his or her obligations. If the entire contract was simply put in the shredder, it would, at least, leave us free to make our own arrangements for our self-defence and security. But this is not so. The citizen’s promises to relinquish the right and means of self-defence remain not only extant but zealoulsy enforced by the state which has decided that it does, indeed, take only one to tango.
The poor, willing, plodding, dutifully contracting citizen has now been placed in the worst possible situation: forbidden from defending their own life and limb and unable to call on anyone else to do so for them.
The perfect scenario for the perfectly predatory society.
Sometimes it takes a stark juxtaposition to shine the spotlight on the vacuity and moral cowardice of our Fourth Estate.
I was watching the early evening ‘news’ yesterday on ITV1, the more popular terrestrial, commercial station. This is something I can bring myself to do only very occasionally as commercial TV “news” presenters are such unwavering amplifiers of fatuous Nulabour propoganda that they make the average BBC reporter look like Rush Limbaugh in comparison.
Yesterday evening’s first (and, by scheduling implication, most urgent) item was a piece of political agitprop by some organisation calling itself ‘Mothers Against Guns’, barely dressed up a ‘news’ feature.
Not content with the strictest anti-gun laws in the Western world, these people are upset because (wait for it) replica guns are still commercially available. Rooted to the spot, I squirmed through the next five minutes of shockingly blatant manipulation mixed in with junk statistics that were so obviously and ridiculously fraudulent as to be beyond parody. “Nine Tenths of all deaths in this country are caused by replica firearms which are converted to fire real ammunition”. Yes, the Mothers Against Gun frontwoman actually said that and got clean away with it. → Continue reading: How about ‘Mothers Against Victimhood’?
It seems that the same idea has indeed gone out like a clarion call from many watchtowers and mountain tops and it must be a great time to be in the gun store business in the good ol’ U.S. of A.
Heh 
(joyous tip of the hat to Freedom Sight for the link)
…well, arms shops actually.
The absurd ‘assault weapon’ ban which prohibited certain weapons on the basis of largely aesthetic criteria, has expired in the USA as of today. However as Dubya made it clear that if there had been enough support for extending the ban in Congress, he would have signed it into law rather than try and veto it, please resist the urge to feel much gratitude for his lukewarm support for the Second Amendment.
However it was passed before and could certainly happen again.
And so I urge all the redoubtable gun owning men and women of the USA to run, not walk, to their nearest gun shop and purchase nice Kalashnikov or AR-15 or Ruger Mini-14 or FAL or M-14 or whatever, plus a goodly selection of flash suppressors and high capacity magazines, thus ensuring that there are soooooo many of the damn things in circulation that any future ban will simply have no effect.
Use the power of the Buycott, have fun at the range, arm yourself to the teeth and, best of all, absolutely enrage advocates of gun control in the process.
I mean, how good it that?
Good stance and correct breathing: now that is what I call gun control
On the very first occasion that I saw the advert on my TV, I knew, I just knew that is was going to set the fur flying. I was right.
Scenario: a man picks up his car keys and leaves the house to get into his brand, spanking, new Land Rover Freelander Sport motor vehicle. A woman (presumably his wife) spots him leaving. She rushes up to the bedroom, opens the dresser drawer and pulls out a starting pistol. She rushes downstairs again and runs outside just as her husband is getting into the car. She points the gun up to the sky and fires a single shot, thus giving him signal to get started.
Pretty innocuous stuff. But still far too traumatic and disturbing for some people:
A television advert for Land Rover featuring a woman firing a gun has been banned by watchdogs for glamourising gun culture….
The agency behind the advert said it was intended to promote the message “that the Freelander Sport triggered sporting behaviour”.
But 348 viewers complained to media regulator Ofcom, meaning that the advert is in the top 10 of the most complained about commercials.
Most viewers were concerned that the commercial glamourised or normalised gun culture despite the fact handguns are illegal in Britain. Many also pointed out that the gun was stored irresponsibly.
Yes, you are reading that right. People might be encouraged to store the guns which they do not possess irresponsibly. Priceless!
The right to keep and bear arms is not a debate in this country. Nor is it an issue or an idea or an argument. It has all been subsumed into a deep national psychosis for which I see no prospect of any cure.
What would make you think we are trying to provoke?
Well, slap me on the arse and call me Betty!! You spend half a century deliberately fostering and ruthlessly enforcing a culture of civil passivity in the face of crime and malevolence and guess what happens?
[Note: link to UK Times article may not work for readers outside of UK]
NEIGHBOURS have been urged to band together to fight back against yobs making life a misery for many communities in Britain.
Louise Casey, head of the Government’s antisocial behaviour unit, said yesterday that she feared people were becoming too tolerant and afraid to intervene because of traditional British reserve.
Let me take a wild leap into the dark here. Could this ‘tolerance’ and ‘reserve’ have anything to do with the fact that private citizens are forbidden to possess so much as a toothpick and even raising their eyebrows in defence of their homes, families or communities will result in their being dragged off to prison by the very people that are supposed to be protecting them?
“Leave it to the professionals” said the professionals. And so everyone did. And look at where it has got them.
Critics will seize on her call as an admission of government failure to stem a rising tide of social disorder. But Ms Casey said that the answer to the yobs was not more legislation, but greater community spirit and co-operation.
Meaning what, Ms Casy, meaning what? The swapping of tales of woe? Bouts of collective cowering? Group hugs? Yes, I am sure that will turn the tide.
Alas, the burdensome and time-devouring task of keeping a humble roof over my head prevents me from exploring the blogosphere as much as I would ideally like to do. As a result, I suspect that there are stacks of interesting views and ideas that are simply passing me by.
So, praise be for the occasional lazy, hazy Sunday afternoon that affords me the opportunity to saunter through the Samizdata blogroll in search of tasty tidbits. Today, I stumbled across a very tasty morsel at ‘A Policeman’s Blog’ which (as the name indicates) is written by a serving British police officer.
Given the candour of his opinions it is easy to understand why he choses anonymity. Particularly when he says things like this:
As an NRA member (see link on sidebar) I’m in favour of liberal gun laws and I think it’s irresponsible of the state to take away an innocent person’s right to self-defence. As a Police Officer, I get tired of having to investigate crime that is unsolvable, yet has only occurred because the victim is weak and the perpetrator is a bully and knows he will get away with it.
To American readers, the British attitude to guns must seem very strange. On the one hand we want to ban law-abiding people from having guns, on the other hand it has never been easier for a criminal to obtain an illegal handgun. We worry about thugs and crime on our Council estates and at the same time refuse to give ordinary people the means to defend themselves and their property.
The Police have long since given up the traditional role of “law-enforcement” and have now become professional “evidence gatherers”. That’s not a problem for the Police, but it does pose a difficulty if you live in an area where you have a lot of crime. So who does the “law enforcement” nowadays?
Nobody.
That’s where widespread ownership of guns comes in. Together with sensible laws on self defence, guns have a habit of cutting through all kinds of complex arguments about the causes of crime. If I try and burgle your home, you might shoot me: that concentrates the mind. It also reduces reliance on the state and it makes people responsible for their own actions. Best of all though, it gives victims a chance against offenders, something they’ll never get if they involve the Police. All we do is “gather the evidence.”
Given the messianic zeal with which his superiors and their political masters have pursued (and continue to pursue) their policy of civilian disarmerment and compulsory passivity, it is uplifting to hear that at least one of their agents has managed to retain some common sense and a capacity for rational analysis.
But then this is a man who actually has to go in and mop up (quite literally in many cases I should think) the pitiful results of their boneheaded obduracy. Nonetheless it is still a testament to his strength of character that he has drawn the correct conclusions despite every fashionable injunction to the contrary.
We need more public servants like him.
Further to Antoine’s posting yesterday, about why that old couple got killed, Alice Bachini, now that she lives in Texas, is able to make a comparison:
English person was asking me how come Austin is so crime-free and safe for kids compared to the UK?
“Well, over there,” said I, “if someone breaks into your house in the night and tries to burgle you, you can shoot him. You can even kill him, and you won’t get arrested. If someone mugs you, you can shoot them too. So that must put quite a few criminals off.”
Mentioned the Tony Martin case, and the fact that criminals are going to have guns even if they’re banned.
It has actually taken being extendedly in Texas for the last bit of Brit-bred gun-scepticism to fade from my lower cerebellum. It does feel safe in Austin. But people used to living in danger can forget what feeling safe is like. They think that danger is normal. That’s how evil ideas take control.
The trouble is that not very many people actually decide to stop living in one place and to start living in another, so these comparisons have not yet become part of the common stock of experience of mankind. And something like “safety” is not something you can see, the way you can see (or see on television) abundant goods in supermarkets or poets being politically contrary and not being arrested immediately.
The only other kind of comparison of this kind is when there is a sudden change of political regime, like the sudden change that occurred in Iraq just recently, or in Germany in 1945. One day, things are done one way, and then the next day, everything is different, even though it is the same place.
The circumstance that finally convinced me of the foolishness of English style gun control was a change of this sort that occurred in Jamaica, where, in the early nineteen seventies, they went, gunwise, from Texas to England, overnight. And so did their crime numbers.
I like to believe that if we all plug away on this issue we might eventually get somewhere.
It is particularly helpful when not obviously belligerent and sporty types like Alice and me become uncompromising supporters of the right to armed self defence. I hate guns, myself. If I lived in Texas, I would be a blatant gun free rider, being safe because others were armed. But that I should be allowed to arm myself, and that it benefits me hugely that other law-abiders are allowed to arm themselves, I have no doubt.
And it did not take a switch of continent, or even regular experience of two different countries such as Antoine possesses (of England and of France between which countries the gun rules differ substantially – see the comments below), to convince me of this. And if I can be convinced, so can others.
We can start with those who, because they are so attracted by pro-freedom ideas about other matters, want to believe that similar ideas apply to guns. And then we can work our way outwards from there, starting with the people who want to use guns for sport, and do not see any harm in that. The point is, for them to see the good in it and to start talking about that too.
“Why would someone attack this lovely elderly couple?” asks the front page headline in the Daily Telegraph. James and Joan Briton, both in their 80s were stabbed to death attempting to defend their home from a man believed to be Mark Hobson. Hobson, aged 34, is on the run, suspected of sexually assaulting and murdering twin sisters (one of whom was his girlfriend).
The question may be rhetorical but the answer is not.
Mr and Mrs Briton, of Strensall near York, were murdered because their attacker knew he could get away with it. Armed with a knife there was no possibility that the intruder could face anything more threatening than a lawyer offering him compensation for injury if his victims used household implements to defend themselves with.
Police advice is to “not approach Hobson”. I am puzzled as to quite how this advice is relevant to an intruder who bursts into one’s home.
Meanwhile two carjackers who killed a man are sentenced to seven and a half years each. With ‘good behaviour’ they will no doubt be released in three years, minus any time spent on remand.
I note that Hobson and the carjackers are all whites, in case anyone is imagining that ‘criminal underclass scum’ has any ethnic minority connotations.
My friend Robert J Avrech, the Hollywood screenwriter behind such productions as Body Double and The Devil’s Arithmetic, lost his 22-year-old son Ariel to pulmonary fibrosis last July. Ariel, like the rest of his family, was a devout Orthodox Jew, and was also a rabbinical candidate and an incredibly learned Talmudic scholar.
Ariel was just a kid when his family found themselves trapped in a cinema besieged by thugs during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, and as he grew older and studied the Torah more closely, he turned his attention to the case made in Jewish texts for the right to private ownership of guns. He eventually grew too weak and ill to put the case down on paper, just as he never did have the chance to go to the shooting range with his father as he dreamed of doing. But Robert has written about the matter himself, and it makes for compelling reading whether you are Jewish or not. I reproduce his essay, in its entirety, with Robert’s kind permission. → Continue reading: Jews and guns
News of large scale arrests of criminals in Baghdad carried out by Iraqi police are welcome, provided there is due process and it is not simply a trawling operation. It does however demonstrate the differing priorities of an army of occupation versus a police force.
The International Herald Tribune article taken from the New York Times also mentions a drop in ‘spectacular’ terrorist attacks over the past three weeks. Those of us who consider that terrorist groups usually prosper in a climate of lawlessness will ponder the Iraqi situation and reflect on Northern Ireland.
There is little doubt that massive police activity will uncover some terrorist networks and disrupt potential attacks: for example raiding the home of a criminal can turn up equipment intended for terrorist actions.
In Northern Ireland all sorts of crimes, from welfare benefit fraud, fraudulent elections, fire insurance scams, drug dealing, protection rackets, unlicensed gambling and alcohol premises, contract killings and woundings, are tolerated on the grounds that the ‘peace process’ must be kept going.
For the first time in months, I get the sense that Iraq may be going in the right direction. I wish this were the case of Londonderry and Belfast. I have felt for a long time that the violence in Northern Ireland should be considered a law-enforcement problem, separate from politics.
|
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.
|
