How the British maximize crime

TownHall.com ^ | 8/01/02 | Paul Craig Roberts

[kattracks]

Note: The following is the second of a two-part series

Did you know that a person's chances of being mugged in London are six times higher than in New York City?

Did you know that assault, robbery and burglary rates are far higher in England than in the United States?

Did you know that in England self-defense of person or property is regarded as an anti-social act, and that a victim who injures or kills an assailant is likely to be treated with more severity than the assailant?

Joyce Lee Malcolm blames the rocketing rates of violent and armed crimes in England on "government policies that have gone badly wrong." Her careful research in "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," just released by Harvard University Press, leads to this conclusion: "Government created a hapless, passive citizenry, then took upon itself the impossible task of protecting it. Its failure could not be more flagrant."

Malcolm begins her study of English crime rates, weapons ownership and attitudes toward self-defense in the Middle Ages. She continues the story through the Tudor-Stuart centuries, the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. She finds that five centuries of growing civility, low crime rates and declining firearm homicide rates ended in the 20th century.

Malcolm shows that an unprotected public at the mercy of criminals is the result of (1) the 1967 revision of criminal law, which altered the common-law standard for self-defense and began the process of criminalizing self-defense, and (2) increasing restrictions on handguns and other firearms, culminating in the 1997 ban of handgun ownership (and most other firearms).

In England, the penalty for possessing a handgun is 10 years in prison. The result is the one predicted by the National Rifle Association: "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns." During the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent. During seven months of 2001, armed robberies in London rose by 53 percent.

These shocking crime rates are understatements, because "the English police still grossly underreport crimes. ... The 1998 British Crime Survey found four times as many crimes occurred as police records indicated."

A disarmed public now faces outlaws armed with machine-guns. People in London residential neighborhoods have been machine-gunned to death. Gunmen have even burst into court and freed defendants.

The British government forbids citizens to carry any article that might be used for self-defense. Even knitting needles and walking sticks have been judged to be "offensive weapons." In 1994, an English homeowner used a toy gun to detain two burglars who had broken into his home. The police arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten and intimidate.

A British Petroleum executive was wounded in an assault on his life in a London Underground train carriage. In desperation, he fought off his attackers by using an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick. He was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

A youth fearful of being attacked by a gang was arrested for carrying a cycle chain. After police disarmed him, he was set upon and hospitalized as a result of a brutal beating. The prosecutor nevertheless insisted on prosecuting the victim for "carrying a weapon."

Seventy percent of rural villages in Britain entirely lack police presence. But self-defense must be "reasonable," as determined after the fact by a prosecutor. What is reasonable to a victim being attacked or confronted with home intruders at night can be quite different from how a prosecutor sees it. A woman who uses a weapon to fight off an unarmed rapist could be convicted of using unreasonable force.

In 1999, Tony Martin, a farmer, turned his shotgun on two professional thieves when they broke into his home at night to rob him a seventh time. Martin received a life sentence for killing one criminal, 10 years for wounding the second and 12 months for having an illegal shotgun. The wounded burglar has already been released from prison.

American prosecutors now follow British ones in restricting self-defense to reasonable force as defined by prosecutors. Be forewarned that Americans can no longer use deadly force against home intruders unless the intruder is also armed and the homeowner can establish that he could not hide from the intruder and had reason to believe his life was in danger.

The assault on England's version of the Second Amendment was conducted by unsavory characters in the British Home Office. Long before guns were banned, the Home Office secretly instructed the police not to issue licenses for weapons intended to protect home and property.

In the British welfare state, crimes against property are not taken seriously. Malcolm reports that criminals face minimal chances of arrest and punishment, but a person who uses force to defend himself or his property is in serious trouble with the law. A recent British law textbook says that the right to self-defense is so mitigated "as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law."

An Englishman's home is no longer his castle. Thanks to gun-control zealots, England has become the land of choice for criminals.

Contact Paul Craig Roberts | Read his biography

©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

[kattracks]

Part One:

Guns And Violence

[kattracks]

ping

[Paul Atreides]

One wonders why Rosie and Sarah Brady didn't move to such a paradise.

[Billy_bob_bob]

In a free society free men are allowed by law to carry weapons and to use them to defend themselves from being attacked or robbed. Slaves, on the other hand, are not allowed to carry weapons and are not allowed to use them to defend themselves against any attack whatsoever.

People are going to have to decide if they want to live as free men or if they would rather live like slaves. The right to keep and bear arms has little to do with hunting, it has a whole lot to do with the basic relationship of the individual to the state. I wish more people realized that fact.

[Texas_Jarhead]

Very interesting and scary

[lizma]

""the English police still grossly underreport crimes"

It was about 12 years ago that the Washington Times ran a story on comparing the amount of crime during the day in D.C. to London.

Yeah, gang murder was higher here, but daytime armed breakins were astronomical there. 6 x's higher.

I truly can't understand why the left thinks this a good thing.

[Travis McGee]

"the English police still grossly underreport crimes"

I think one ploy they have been using is to report multiple occurances of the same crime as one crime. That is ten break-ins in one apartment block = one crime.

BTW, what ever happened to those tough Tommies who chased Rommel out of Africa?

[supercat]

I truly can't understand why the left thinks this a good thing.

Because the elite live in gated communities with armed guards, and because crime is effective at keeping the 'little people' in their place.

[elephantlips]

Their resemblance to cheese-eating-surrender-monkies is remarkable! Must be the geography.

[VOA]

In a free society free men are allowed by law to carry weapons and to use them to
defend themselves from being attacked or robbed.

IIRC, Machiavelli said something to the effect that "the Swiss are the most armed,
and most free, people of Europe."

Sorry I don't have a citation for that. Even if it is a bogus quotation, it's still true.
Even today.

[pseudogratix]

In 1999, Tony Martin, a farmer, turned his shotgun on two professional thieves when they broke into his home at night to rob him a seventh time.

Holy cow! What did he have left to steal?

[pseudogratix]

From http://www.flinthills.com/~jalee/greatest.html we read:

ALMOST 500 years ago, Machiavelli wrote: "The Swiss are the most armed and the most free." His words are still relevant in Switzerland, which owes 400 years of neutrality to the traditional core role of the army, as well as its moutainous terrain. The Swiss military reaches deep into civilian life and arguably into the Swiss psyche. Gun fanatics such as Dino Bellasi are not unique.

[pseudogratix]

Also http://home.earthlink.net/~conserve/founder.htm reads:

Mahatma Gandhi: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." ("Gandhi, an Autobiography," M.K. Gandhi, 446)

Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis")

Cesare Beccaria: "Who would take fire from men because it sometimes burns, and water because one might drown in it? Laws that forbid carrying of arms are of this nature. They disarm only those who would not commit crime, and so do not prevent crime, but encourage it." ("On Crimes and Punishment," 1764. Note: This English translation was edited for clarity.)

Machiavelli: "The Swiss are the most armed and so they are the most free" (The Prince, Chapter 12)

[tonycavanagh]

With the amount of crime happening in America, I have to admit I am somewhat puzzled about the amount of FR time spent debateing crime in Britian.

I guess one way to ignore your own problems is to concentrate on other peoples.

Cheeers Tony

[tonycavanagh]

I have in fact used unreasable force against a street attacker, when the polioce questioned me I stated that it was he not I who had the iron bar and that I got it of him purley by luck, and when I whacked him with it, I didnt mean to I was only trying to frighten him away. If you beat someone up then tell then the police they will have to act, as I know they do in America

Cheers Tony

[tonycavanagh]

Hi Travis.

I intend to go to a FR convention sometime next year.

LOL I dont know if it will be friendly or I will be having a punch up with at least a few freepers who have annoyed me.

Ah well it would be good to see you and harpseal we could drag up a few sand bags and swing the oil lamp.

Cheers Tony

[backhoe]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/711949/posts

Do Guns Save Lives?

Newsmax | July 7, 2002 | Dr. Michael S. Brown
"an interesting pattern in how many people successfully defend themselves with tiny weapons, like .22, .25 and .32 caliber handguns that are often derided by the anti-gun lobby as "junk guns" and "Saturday night specials." "

 

-Empty-Barrel Gun Policies-A legacy of nonsense from Clinton, Blair, and the Left--

-A Problem With Guns (Long... but SOOOO good)--

Shooting More Holes in Gun Control

Gun Control Down Under

HCI Aussie Style (read it and weep-or laugh)

The Great Australian Gun Law CON!

British Gun Crime Soars

Gun Crimes Surge in London

Canadian Gun Control Has Little Impact on Crime (Home Gun Confiscation/Resisters)

Israel is Arming Its Civilians - Why Aren't We?
... and cyberjournalist. His latest book is The Seven Myths of Gun Control. Topics: News/Current
Events Keywords: GUN CONTROL, ISRAEL, SECOND AMENDMENT, TERRORISM ...
beta.freerepublic.com/focus/news/646679/posts - 39k - Cached

Through the Looking Glass and Back Again - From Anti-gunner to Firearms Instructor in Four Months

[Gunrunner2]

Howdy Tony. . .we look at Britain as an example on what happens when you disarm your free citizens and turn the world upside down when it comes to defending yourself and your property. It is instructive.

I would not consider you taking an iron bar away from your attacker and whacking him with it as unreasonable force. I can't possibly see how anyone else could either. Any reasonable person would know that if you didn't whack him with it he could just as likely take it back from you and continue his attack--with deadly results.

I, unlike you, would not be interested in "only trying to frighten him way," I would be more interested in ensuring I was safe and he did not attack me again--and if that means I whack him until he gives up. . .well, too bad for him, that's his dumb luck and he deserved it.

Finally, reference your statement, "If you beat someone up and then tell the police they will have to act." Yes, if you picked someone out of a crowd and unilaterally attacked them. That is quite different than is situations where you were acting in self-defense.

In the US each person is presumed to have the RIGHT of self defense of their life and property. And if you are "in fear for your life, or the life of another," you are permitted to kill the attacker(s). That said, a bad guy attacking you with an iron bar is attacking with deadly force. Therefore, if kill the attacker by turning his weapon against him or by shooting him, that would be fine by US standards. In fact, the police might give you a medal for saving all those court costs and overtime, and the newspapers would run a nice story about how Joe Average is a hero by stopping an obviously evil person.

Bottom line, as long as you were attacked and defended yourself, or another innocent, the police will not "act" (meaning take action against you).

[from occupied ga]

One wonders why Rosie and Sarah Brady didn't move to such a paradise.

No wonder at all. They want to see that sort of society here. Filth like the O'Donnel sow and the Brady hag hate to see anyone free anywhere.

[from occupied ga]

With the amount of crime happening in America, I have to admit I am somewhat puzzled about the amount of FR time spent debateing crime in Britian.

Your socialist island makes an excellent bad example. Because many of the neo national socialists in the Congress and the media envision the same sort of draconian controls here, it never hurts to show what a cock up the British have made of their society regarding guns, crime and self defense.

[dirtboy]

With the amount of crime happening in America, I have to admit I am somewhat puzzled about the amount of FR time spent debateing crime in Britian.

Uh, Tony, from the article:

Did you know that a person's chances of being mugged in London are six times higher than in New York City?

Did you know that assault, robbery and burglary rates are far higher in England than in the United States

Considering how low-crime Britain used to be, it's a good object lesson to see how criminalizing self-defense leads to significantly increased crime. That ol' Law of Unintended Consequences.

I guess one way to ignore your own problems is to concentrate on other peoples

I guess one way to dodge your own problems is try and make a moral equivalence with a far less significant problem. The Clintons were very adept at that.

[coloradan]

I truly can't understand why the left thinks this a good thing.

Because a country rife with crime, and especially with a strong government and powerless people, is better than a strong and free country who citizens are armed - to leftists.

[FatherTorque]

Be forewarned that Americans can no longer use deadly force against home intruders unless the intruder is also armed and the homeowner can establish that he could not hide from the intruder and had reason to believe his life was in danger.

I can't speak for all states, but Mr. Roberts is way wrong on this where Texas is concerned. Texans are not only allowed to use deadly force to protect our homes, we may also use deadly force to protect any "tangible, moveable property. Meaning that if I see some pinhead trying to steal my Harley I can put a round in him.

[technochick99]

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,750354,00.html

Legal aid for burglar shot by Tony Martin

Clare Dyer, legal correspondent
Saturday July 6, 2002
The Guardian

One of the burglars shot by the Norfolk farmer Tony Martin during a break-in at his house has been granted legal aid to sue the farmer for the injuries he sustained. Brendon Fearon, 32, of Newark, Notts, was initially turned down for aid by the legal services commission, but suc ceeded after appealing to an area committee of independent solicitors and barristers.

A spokesman for the commission said: "The area committee allowed the appeal and their decision to allow legal aid was binding on us."

Legal aid will cover the costs of processing the case up to trial. A further application will have to be made for legal aid during the hearing if the case gets that far. The spokesman said: "We are reviewing the case every three months to ensure that it still meets the eligibility criteria. If at any time it becomes apparent that the criteria are no longer being met funding will cease."

Martin, who shot dead Fearon's accomplice, 16-year-old Fred Barras, is serving a five year sentence after his murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter by the court of appeal.

Malcolm Starr, a friend of Martin, said: "I think it's totally dreadful and I think it's time Tony Blair and the home secretary came out and gave a statement with their views."

Martin shot Fearon in the legs at Bleak House Farm, Emneth Hungate, Norfolk, in August 1999. Fearon, who has a string of convictions for theft, drugs and burglary, is thought to be hoping to win up to £50,000.

[JimRed]

With the amount of crime happening in America, I have to admit I am somewhat puzzled about the amount of FR time spent debateing crime in Britian.

We learn by example. "Coming to a city near you...."

[JimRed]

If you beat someone up then tell then the police they will have to act, as I know they do in America

For self preservation, one must lie like a liberal!

[FreedomPoster]

We are not ignoring our own crime; rather, we are pointing out a vivid example, England, that shows that less guns / self defense equals more crime. Our gun grabbers would have the sheeple believe that low-gun-ownership-rate Europe and, specifically, the UK, are a crime-free utopia. It's simply convenient to use recent statistics to show the fallacy in this argument. We also use the example of DC, Chicago, and California, but then the leftists claim that "gun smugglers" bring in enough guns from red zone areas to create a "gun crime" problem despite blue zone restrictions. The example of your islands really shows the bankruptcy of this line of argument.

BTW, welcome back. I don't always agree with what you post, but enjoy your perspective.

[Gunrunner2]

>>Be forewarned that Americans can no longer use deadly force against home intruders unless the intruder is also armed and the homeowner can establish that he could not hide from the intruder and had reason to believe his life was in danger.<<

BTW: Each state establishes their own theshold that must be crossed before citizens can use deadly force--though the SCOUS has established an inherent right to use deadly force to protect your life and the life of another. Therefore, a sweeping statement like the one quoted above does not apply and calls into question the credibility of the source. (Must have been written by someone who doesn't know a darned this about states' rights and the 10th Amendment.)

[maica]

When stupid actions and the consequences of them hit a critical mass, even the least politically-tuned-in become aware.

The consequences of disarming citizens, criminalizing self-defense, and tolerating marauding yout's have finally gotten the attention of enough American people that policies will change.

Your government was very effective in incrementally removing all firearms from households. We have a body of political activists who want that to happen here.

The idea of citizens abdicating their self-protection to "the government" is being realized as not possible by larger and larger groups of Americans.

We live in hope that farmers living in remote areas, or anyone else, will not become easy pickings in the US

PS: The same yout's who look on the defenceless as nothing but their own personal piggy bank, shout the loudest and longest about police brutality if they do, by some freak accident, happen to get caught by "law enforcement officers."

[Vic3O3]

ping for my husband!

[Shooter 2.5]

I think the tommies that chased Rommel have gone to their reward.
The ones left behind decided on a new society that wouldn't include violence under any circumstances.
What they didn't understand was sometimes violence is a good thing.

[Basil Duke]

A central plank to the broader leftist platform is coaxing a clamor out of the masses for fool-proof police "protection" against criminals. This hue and cry will be used as a springboard to the complete abolition of privately held firearms of any kind. (Britain's close to it, as it is now.) Needless to say, police will never be an effective crime STOPPING entity. And the irony of the fact that the left largely created the criminal class now preying on the English sheep is never mentioned in polite circles. Look for a similar approach coming soon to an American city near you. It's no coincidence that the average American 'liberal' can be counted on to demand two things: gun seizure and the emptying of our prisons. Take your revolver from you and turn a mob of rapists and burglars loose to pry their prison-honed skills on the helpless public. Our Democratic pols WANT us to suffer a wave of crime similar to that raging through merry old England. Without a plague of mayhem, there will be little or no demand for government to come and 'help' us by watching us 24/7, seizing the contents of our gun cabinets and stopping us for interogation every time we venture onto a public street.

[Travis McGee]

Tony, we have no problem with you, you are certainly not one of the deballed Brits we so lament.

[Travis McGee]

I think the trend in the US is going in the way of holding the line at least in the gun rights area, but outrageous events (Columbine etc) can still overturn common sense.

[Travis McGee]

I wonder if the British backbone will re-emerge once again with the facts so clearly visible for all to see.

[Tribune7]

ping

[Tribune7]

It depends on where you are in America. Most of it is fairly crime free, more so today than 20 years ago.

[Tribune7]

Is the gist of the posted article accurate?

[junta]

True. We could lower our crime rate dramatically but it would take a complete rework of the social and political landscape and for now it cant be done because the criminal underclass and its sources are the Left's pets and the Right is fixated on the Middle East not Middle America.

[Mr. Bungle]

"What they didn't understand was sometimes violence is a good thing. "

Exactly.

Amazing how so may people cannot process or otherwise digest the simple truth that violence is morally neutral absent its results. If a citizen or police officer or soldier uses violence to protect the innocent or defend himself, there is absolutely no moral transgression. None whatsoever.

The left has been wildly successful in shaping discussion - and even bounding people's behaviors - by destroying the distnction between physical equivalence and moral equivalence.

[junta]

Thomas Fleming's latest "Hard Right" column at http:www.chroniclesmagazine.com deals with self defense and how Americans are losing the right as have the Brits.

[Shooter 2.5]

It will only happen when they realize that "Some people just need killing".
The British people will have to get angry. They didn't when George Harrison was attacked. They didn't when the farmer was jailed.
I suspect that as long as people aren't getting killed at America's rates, the Brit will live with what's happening.
When their murder rates start to climb as a next step, I think that's when the people will rise up.

[ladylib]

Kids in many public school systems who defend themselves against getting beat up are treated just as harshly as the bully who started the fight. It's here in America already thanks to the public schools. Just roll over and die.

[white trash redneck]

Great post.

[elephantlips]

I spent my time in two wars fighting for this country as far as your insults go which seem to be your way of conducting a discussion of the issue. My remarks addressed the obvious issue of gun control which was the point of the article. I admire PM Tony Blair's actions to be with the United States through all of our troubles since 9-11, that does not mean I admire the liberals in Britan for persecuting their own for defending their homes. Two separate issues. I also, am mostly British, you jerk!

[billbears]

bump for later

[wardaddy]

Most have died unfortunately. Britian seems to be suffering from a clear lapse of reality.

[Red Jones]

bump