And it’s getting closer. I was returning from work tonight to find my local shopping parade taped off and crawling with cops. A man was shot six times while sitting in his parked car.
This happened about 150 yards from my home.
|
|||||
|
That’s the headline. The story, in the Independent of yesterday (Thursday June 6), continues:
The conclusion they’ll draw is that gun-control (in fact weapons control generally – the courses also include stab wounds) isn’t tight enough, and the law-abiding civilian tendency will have to surrender even more of their weapons, such as, I don’t know, their Sunday carving knives. June 7th, 2002 | Comments are closed
 Four people have been gunned down in a drive-by shooting outside a nightclub in Bradford. Residents in Manchester have taken to the streets in protest at the rising level of gun violence. And (just on the TV so no link yet) a man has been shot dead in a pub in the East End of London. June 2nd, 2002 | Comments are closed
Perry’s internet connection has been on the blink all day, on account of it being cable-based. That little power cut (see my previous post below, end of) apparently deranged his cable company. (His cable TV was out also. I hate that. Always keep business and pleasure on separate kit, I say. That way, when one fails you can still do the other.) Anyway the upshot is I promised Perry I’d shove something onto Samizdata tonight. Which is now. Well the blog fairy has spoken, and I have my topic. It’s one of those mildly entertaining American movies (I’m combining blog pleasure with the pleasure of late night junk TV) about decorative but badly behaved people with nicer houses and swimming pools and weather than they deserve. It stars David Caruso and Marg Helgenberger and is called Elmore Leonard’s Gold Coast. And the David Caruso character has just said something calculated to annoy Samizdata and just about all its friends and readers everywhere:
That sounds like one of the big pro-gun-control mantras to me. Now most anti-anti-gun-controllers are no doubt familiar with all the wrongnesses of this mantra, but indulge me. It’s a somewhat new claim to me, and I want to explain (basically to myself) what’s wrong with it. Error One – that the only bad thing a person with a gun can ever do to you is shoot you. But of course there’s something else, in fact a lot else. He can threaten to shoot you, and then without actually shooting you he can do lots of other bad things to you, or that you would otherwise have stopped him doing. So even if owning a gun yourself might have got you into a gun fight, the risks of such a fight might easily have been preferable to what happens as a result of you not being able to even threaten such a fight. Not getting shot is not a guarantee of happiness. You may not get shot, but you may be raped, or robbed, or powerless while your family ditto. There are worse things than getting shot, even than being shot dead. Error Two – most of the above applies also to when you are attacked by someone physically stronger than you, but when neither you nor he has a gun. It all applies if, for example you are an averagely strong male who is not good at hand-to-hand combat, while he’s an above averagely strong male who is. In those circumstances you brandishing a gun makes all the difference (provided you’re willing to use it), even if you do take the risk that the physically stronger attacker does have a gun after all and waves it back at you in “self defence”. Error Three, and I think this is my biggest objection – the benefits of widespread gun ownership among non-criminals for the purpose of self-defence are dispersed throughout society. Even if it were true that “people who own guns don’t get shot as often as people who do”, and even if getting shot was the worst thing that could happen to you, and the risk of getting shot was the worst risk you could take, that still wouldn’t mean that non-criminals being forbidden to own guns (the real world effect of gun control laws) is a good public policy. The widespread existence of non-criminals willing to take the risks alluded to by the David Caruso character may not make life safer for each non-criminal gun-owner, but between them these people sure as hell make for a better world. And if enough non-criminals can be persuaded to accept these burdens, the criminals pretty much give up, and the guns need never be fired, just owned. Think of the non-criminal gun-owners as soldiers in the war against crime, a war which they and only they can win. And think of David Caruso as the guy who says, don’t be a soldier, you’ll only get yourself shot at. That may make sense, even if the “only” is overstating things. But pacifism as a public policy absolutely does not make sense merely for that reason. As for the claim that it’s the job of “experts” – like the good police – to do all the good gun-fighting against the bad criminals, and not the good civilians, well that seems to me like saying that you can win a land battle with the massed ranks of your own infantry stripped of all their weapons, but backed up by “expert” air power. Tell that to the Marines. That last little metaphor might actually have contributed something useful to the argument, in the form of an aphorism worth copying and pasting to other places. Keep writing for long enough, and eventually you find yourself being brief, and to the point. May 28th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Yesterday at Instapundit, just in case there are any Samizdata readers who read this but not that, there was a link to a story in the Boston Globe about the failure of anti-gun laws to control crime, in Britain. Depressing. The story. And the fact that the story seems only to be being told in America. May 27th, 2002 | Comments are closed
One of the reasons for my absence on the blog was grieving for my motorbike that was stolen several weeks ago.  For some time now, my mood have been alternating between a profound sense of loss and anger with a burning desire to have my bike back preferably covered with puréed remnants of those who deprived me of it. I decided to replace it as soon as possible and managed to do so earlier this week. The world seems a happier place, however, not as happy as it ought to be given that I am on two wheels again. This is because I had to switch to a different type of motorbike, which would not necessarily be my first choice.  For the uninitiated, my previous motorbike, Suzuki GSX-R600, is a pure sportsbike designed for a racetrack. It is a highly desirable motorbike both for joy riders but more importantly for thieves who sell them as parts for race bikes. This was certainly the reason my bike was stolen since the various security devices that I had installed would make it impossible to ride by anyone else. My new bike, a Ducati Monster Dark 900, is a very different affair – bigger engine, stylish and urban. It is still desirable but to a different group of thieving criminals who I hope will be deterred by the bike’s security. Both are top of the range in their category, so why am I not completely satisfied? The point is that I have been forced to change my preferences because there is a ‘market’ for the bikes I really like and their parts. Short of putting my dream bike in a bomb shelter and/or booby-trapping it with Semtex or some other owner-friendly material, there is nothing I can do to stop those thieving bastards from continuing to steal my sportsbikes. There is a point to the stolen bike saga and it’s to do with property rights and their protection. My lovely Suzuki was the second sportsbike that I have had stolen in the last two years, so naturally, I have been wondering what to do about this – it is a problem that obviously will not go away, in fact, is getting worse. The local police have admitted that they can’t do anything to stop it and gave me a friendly advice, bordering on counselling, to treat the constant infringement on my property rights as the price one has to pay for living in Central London. Perhaps, if my local council (a local government body in London) installed secure parking for motorbikes, it might make it more difficult for the thieves who would look for a more convenient bounty… Or perhaps if my street had CCTV cameras, the thieves would avoid it (or more likely find some clever ways of disabling them or simply ignore them)…. Or if the local residents decided to hire private security that would constantly patrol the area, the thieves might be permanently deterred… I like the third option. Residents in three streets in Kensington (a desirable residential area in Central London) decided to do just that and the crime rate has been reduced to almost zero in the year the secret pilot scheme has been running. As expected, the reactions have been mixed. The Sunday Telegraph reported this with a generally positive take:
However, the scheme has not left everyone happy. It was criticised by the Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers. The chairman of the constables’ branch of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said it was “denigrating the role of the policeman”:
Hmm, £1,000 a year doesn’t seem so cheap, constable. Or perhaps your understanding of the cost is skewed by the knowledge of how much of taxpayer’s money is spent on ineffective policing… The final twist on the story, which worried me more than finding the extra money on top of the local tax, was a throwaway line by the same policeman:
I am not sure whom I detest more now – those who steal my property or those who take my money to protect me and my property, fail and then prevent me from doing so myself and from blowing up the criminals to the kingdom come. Let me think about that while getting used to riding my Ducati Monster Dark… May 24th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Roger Dorrington, the father about whom I reported on Wednesday following his conviction for beating up the drug dealer who was divvying up heroin with Dorrington’s children in their family home, has been told by Judge David Griffiths that he will not have to pay the drug dealer £250 after all. However the conviction still stands and he will have to do 100 hours of ‘community service’ for the crime of defending his children against a predatory heroin dealing trespasser. If Judge Griffiths wants him to actually serve his community, I can think of no better way of him spending that 100 hours than for Dorrington to explain, slowly and graphically, to the idiot on the bench what the reality of trying to prevent two teenage children from destroying themselves with heroin is actually like in the real world outside Southampton Crown Court. Judge Griffiths is just doing what the state expects him to do by demanding that all British subjects be prostrate in the face of any actual threat in which the state does not choose to intermediate itself. Justice for Roger Dorrington and the very survival of his two children does not even enter into that equation. The state is NOT your friend. May 17th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Roger Dorrington is a builder with two teenage sons, called Nick and Joseph, who have a problem with heroin. There is another man called James White who provides them with that heroin since they were 14 and 15 respectively, in return for money. As most people would correctly surmise, the British state says it is illegal to sell heroin to children like Nick and Joseph. Now as a libertarian, I think that blanket prohibitions are not the way to deal with the problems caused by addictive drugs like heroin. But I also think that addictive drugs are a problem and that this is best dealt with via social mechanisms like families and in particular ‘robustly engaged’ fathers like Roger Dorrington. However in the here and now of Britain 2002, heroin is a Prohibited Class A drug and the state would have us believe that this makes dealing such drugs A Serious Matter which should be left to the state’s blue clad enforcers. Now Roger Dorrington is by all accounts a fine caring father to his children and thus does not want drug dealer James White giving Nick and Joseph heroin. As a result he warned the man to stay the hell out of his family house. So when Dorrington came home unexpectedly and found White cutting up heroin in his own house, he beat the drug dealer up and ejected him from his property. White complained to the police and Dorrington was arrested for assault. White was not arrested at all in spite of the fact he brought a class A drug into Dorrington’s house to give to Dorrington’s children. People must not ‘take the law into their own hands’ says the state and yesterday a judge ordered Roger Dorrington to pay £250 (US $360) to the injured drug dealer and do 100 hours of ‘community service’. Dorrington says he will refuse to comply with either order and will no doubt suffer more later as a result. So what exactly is going on here? Well it is not about justice, but then nothing whatsoever any state does is in reality about justice. It is not even about The Law, which is certainly what states say they are about in their tenuous claim to be legitimate expressions of a society rather than a vast engine of criminality. No, it is about what is the true priority of nation states. It is about power. 9 times out of 10, if a person sells (highly illegal) a class A drug (possession of which is illegal) on private property from which they have been explicitly excluded (illegal trespass), this will not rouse the state to do anything at all… yet when a private individual himself uses force to prohibit three illegal acts on his own property the state arrests the enforcer of its own laws and does not arrest the violator of several of its other laws. This is the true face of the modern British state and yet more proof of what both Frédéric Bastiat and Thomas Paine said about State and Society being two fundamentally different things. States only provide justice incidentally en-passant to enforcing their laws. It seems now even that pretence is fading. The only illegal acts that truly stirs Leviathan from its theft bloated torpor is a challenge to its own monopoly of violence backed enforcement. The state not only wants you helpless, it takes concrete measures to make you helpless. No wonder they took our guns away. May 15th, 2002 | Comments are closed
The following news item appeared on the Reuters website this morning. It certainly proves the point that martial arts can be useful as a form of self defence for women. One wonders how long it will be before a victim-disarmament twit tries to ban it. May 15th, 2002 | Comments are closed
Professor Reynolds weighs in to the ongoing debate in the USA about arming airline pilots
I am only too well aware of the number of calls for allowing passengers to arm themselves following 9/11. I was one of those voices. However, on second thought and third thought, I’m wondering if it may not be a bit of a ‘Naomi Klein’ (i.e. a ‘No-Brainer’). Now before anyone starts calling me a ‘gun-grabber’, let me categorically confirm that my unambiguous support for RKBA remains undiminshed but having your sidearm on an aircraft does not, sadly, make you any less of a sitting target. If we agree to armed passengers then surely it must be all passengers or none and if all passengers can carry guns then what is there to stop, say, three or four terrorists carrying their ‘toolbag’ onto the flight as well? The answer is, nothing. This gives us a very thorny problem when it comes to the kind of slime who crash passenger jets into buildings: it is not just that they are murderous, they are suicidal as well. That makes them very difficult, nay impossible, to deter. The world of heavily armed passengers is a gilt-edged invitation to Islamofascists whose only desire is to kill as many Westerners as possible. Just how breathtakingly easy would it be to arrange for a team of these nuts to board a 747 with all their automatic weapons and, following take-off, at an appointed moment they all get up, take their catches off and let rip? I realise that the Islamofascists would themselves get cut down by return fire but two points to note: a) they will not mind in the least. Indeed they will expect it and b) just how many sleepy/drunken/canoodling/reading/slow-witted/elderly/very young innocent people will be slaughtered in a surprise attack, trapped in a steel capsule where they have they nowhere to run and nowhere to hide?Also, whilst one or two bullets piercing a fuselage may not cause the plane to crash, we’re talking about a serious fire-fight here and surely that could. Some may suggest that strict racial profiling would plug this gap but I rather fear not. Even supposing the killers match the profile (which they may not) many Egyptians, Saudis, Iraqis could easily pass for Greek, Portuguese, Spanish, Brazilian or Italian (with fake passport to match). No, I regret to say that the idea of arming passengers would work as a very effective deterrent to your average dorky white European terrorist who is happy to see other people die for the ’cause’ but is rather more precious about his own worthless hide. Nihilistic Islamofascists with a death wish are a different order of animal who might gleefully see a measure like this as a golden opportunity to unleash carnage at 30,000 feet. May 1st, 2002 | Comments are closed
Police in Manchester will be patrolling the streets armed with machine-guns in response to a massive upsurge in gun-related crime
You see, gun control really does work! April 30th, 2002 | Comments are closed
You know those “what I’ve always said” things, which actually thousands of others have been saying for even longer. Well I’ve always said that we, the forces of enlightenment, the good guys, need to get our hands on more stories where the gun hasn’t been in evil hands and done harm, but in good hands and done good. And when we do get our hands on such stories we should spread them in all directions. So here is just such a story (“Woman shoots, kills armed intruder in West Seattle”) from the Seattle Times, picked up by a very promising blogger fellow named Glenn Reynolds, on a little thing he calls Instapundit. This Reynolds chappie has a definite future as a blogger. The Instapundit hit rate will now explode … April 28th, 2002 | Comments are closed
|
   |
||||
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. |
|||||