Quote of the Day - "That'll Get You Killed On the Street" Edition

Wise words from Tam K.:

The best contribution Gamer culture makes to shooting is the lack of fear of people finding out how much you suck.

Read it all.

Quick! Before it Disappears!

Got another live one over at Quora.  If you don't want to read the entire thread (it's epic), just skip down to the last two comments in the thread started by "Iwan Doherty."

Wow.  Just...wow.

Kids, Guns and "Safe Storage"

Well, here we have another case of where a 12 year old got her hands on an loaded, unsecured firearm:


Sorry about the video quality.

UPDATE: 911 recording and Interview with the pre-teen and here mother here. The weapon in question was her mother's .40 caliber Glock.

I Wish I'd Had This Image...

...back when I wrote Those Without Swords...

From Oleg Volk:

Principle #7, Mr. Cosby

Well, Bill Cosby has opined on the Trayvon Martin incident:

"We've got to get the gun out of the hands of people who are supposed to be on neighborhood watch," said Mr. Cosby, whose remarks were the first he has made publicly about the case.

"Without a gun, I don't see Mr. Zimmerman approaching Trayvon by himself," Mr. Cosby explained. "The power-of-the-gun mentality had him unafraid to confront someone. Even police call for backup in similar situations.

"When you carry a gun, you mean to harm somebody, kill somebody," he said.

Yes, that's why the police carry them.

Let me refer once again to Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Modern Policing - specifically Principle #7:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Mr. Zimmerman was doing his duty as he saw it. And he couldn't carry an entire cop around with him. IIRC, he did "call for backup." There's audio of the call, in fact.

Tam had it exactly correct:

An honest assessment would say that this is what we know:

1. Zimmerman was out doing his neighborhood watch thing and saw Martin.
2. He called 911 and followed Martin in his vehicle.
3. When Martin walked someplace that Zimmerman couldn't follow in his vehicle, he got out of his vehicle and followed on foot.
4. ???
5. In the process of getting his ass beaten, Zimmerman busts a cap in Martin.

The entire case turns on what happened in the ???, but don't tell that to the media, the folks playing poker with a deck full of race cards, the victim disarmament crowd, or apparently the frickin' President of the United States of America.

Or Bill Cosby.

UPDATE: On a related note, whom did you mean to harm, to kill, Mr. Cosby?

Quote of the Day - Sean Sorrentino

I like to watch the Bravo series Inside the Actor's Studio. Near the end of each show, host James Lipton asks his guests a list of 10 questions, the last of which is always "If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?"

Sean Sorrentino just gave me the perfect answer:

When I reach the Pearly Gates, I want the first thing I will hear to be "Unload and show clear."

Quote of the Day - Vanderleun Edition

...I went and signed up for gun training. After the training I felt I would be qualified to get a gun.  I would get it because it was my right to get it. I would get it because I could. I would get it because Washington, no matter how deeply mired in denial and dementia Seattle may become, Washington itself is still a "must issue" state. And how long that would last in the demented rush to disarm and make all citizens effective wards of the state for their "protection" was anybody's guess.

Tracking the killings of over 30 unarmed, effectively disarmed and therefore helpless students, at Virginia Tech [in 2007] confirmed me in my decision. It took many bullets for this tragedy to unfold. It would have taken just one going the other way to stop it. That and the training to know what the situation was and how to react.

Unless you are morally, spiritually, and politically blind to human reality, you know that this is the truth. -- American Digest, The Gun School

As the saying goes, RTWT™. It's from 2007, but still fresh as a daisy!

Just Lay Back and Think of England

The fallout of Weer'd's "Do More Than Just Light a Candle" counterprotest is still pattering down all around. One piece I ran across today comes from the Florida Progressive Coalition Blog, Gun Free Zone Blog Celebrates Gun Violence.

No, I don't think so.

I left a comment there, but it hasn't been approved, nor do I expect it to be, but I do want to comment publicly on one point made by the author, Kenneth Quinnell. He is attempting to fisk the post I Lit My Candle For... from the blog Gun Free Zone. Here's the particular portion I want to highlight from the whole thing:

Quote of the Day by Brigid: "but tomorrow is the day the Brady Bunch plan a light a candle to stop gun violence (that’s what I'm going to pull out when some potential gangbanger rapist confronts me in a parking lot, a f'ing candle.")

First off, the chances of a "gangbanger rapist" attacking Brigid are almost nonexistent. Second off, pulling out the gun might help her, but statistically it's more likely to increase her chances of dying.

Now the comment I attempted to leave was along the lines of '...pulling out the gun might help her, but statistically it's more likely to increase her chances of dying." Really? Got a citation to back that up? With a URL? Because I do and it disagrees with your assertion.

But the point I want to make here is a bit stronger.

Mr. Qusling, er, Quinnell blithely asserts that Brigid - and by extension, any woman - is statistically more likely to die if she attempts to defend herself from a rapist with a firearm.

The inference being that she should instead "lay back and think of England," and she might not get killed.

A more textbook example of 

"Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound."

could not be found.

Let's let Oleg Volk have a say:

And finally:

To quote AGirlandHerGun from Monday:

You, you who hate guns, you gave me nothing.

No hope.

No tools.

All that was offered me was a life of fear, of resentment, of bitterness, of dependance...

The gun community has offered me hope and strength, and courage.

They have taught me to have belief in myself.

Lie back and think of England?

Fuck THAT!

Guns and the "Alternative Media," Part I

Say Uncle linked today to a piece at TheAlternatePress.com, Women and Guns by one Kristen Houghton, a self-described hoplophobe:

I am afraid of guns; they scare me to death. Even in movies or on TV, the sight and sound of the gun being fired makes me tense up.

Not an auspicious place to start.

She's also self-admittedly, not too tightly tethered to reality:

Regardless of the statement put out by gun owners that "Guns don't kill people, people do", I still feel that if criminals were unable to get their hands on guns no one would get killed.

(My emphasis.) As if guns are the only way people get killed criminally. About a third of homicide victims here would object to that, if they could. And in what world could criminals not get guns? Hell, our own government has been supplying them to drug cartels in Mexico!

But she is paying some attention:

To me, guns equal damage or death but I may be one of the few women who feels that way. More women than ever are buying handguns. Sales have increased steadily, nearly doubling in the last decade. Almost five million more women now own guns than was the case less than ten years ago.

Tell that to the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. They think it's propaganda.

While a whistle, a can of mace, or even a Taser are all items that are recommended by mainstream media as ways for women to protect themselves, they don't always work. Nor does acting passively when confronted by a rapist. If your attacker is bigger, stronger and playing on your fear, none of these are going to be of much help. Guns eliminate the strength difference between the attacker and the potential victim. This makes it much harder for the strong to prey upon the weak.

Perhaps she's not so disconnected from reality after all.

It doesn't take much common sense to figure out that nothing makes a criminal run away faster than seeing a determined woman holding a loaded gun pointing right at him.

She's beginning to sound like one of us.

I may not like it but society has very likely made women and guns a necessity. Even I see the reasoning behind knowing how to protect yourself with a firearm.

Here I'm going to object a bit. I've pointed this out before, but overall, violent crime is at historic lows in this country. It began declining in 1992 and has kept declining even through last year. Society hasn't "made women and guns a necessity," women have finally begun to recognize that individuals are responsible for their own safety, and this is a good thing. She needs to get together with AGirlandHerGun and compare notes.

She says she's going to take a self-protection class and learn to shoot.  I hope she does, but without a paradigm shift like AGirlandHerGun has gone through, I don't think it will help her.  She's going in with too much fear and too many prejudices.  I'd also suggest some correspondence with Abigale Kohn and Emily Yoffe.

Light a Candle,

but carry your gun.  It's a lighter burden than regret, as Breda says.

Weerd suggested the idea, and it's a fine one.  Here's my CCW piece when the weather's cool enough that I can cover it up:

A "Chilling Effect"

In my long discussion with Australian computer science professor Tim Lambert on the topic of self-defense in the UK, I finally got him to admit that the laws there had a "chilling effect" on the willingness of residents of that polity to defend themselves against attack. Of course, that was our fault for pointing out the vagaries of the Crown Court's prosecution policies.

Using UK newspaper stories.

Well, here's another illustration of that chilling effect:

Before Monday (August 8) evening's events there were warnings that Turkish shopkeepers in Tottenham were forming "protection units" to stop their businesses being looted, while retailers in nearby Wood Green were said to have equipped themselves with crowbars and other weapons after holding emergency meetings.

When the trouble came, hairdressers, sales assistants and butchers were among the scores of Turkish and Kurdish workers who stood outside their businesses in Green Lanes, Haringey, from 8pm having been warned by police to expect trouble.

The Guardian filmed others – some armed with baseball bats – on guard outside shops and restaurants in Kingsland Road, only a mile away from Hackney's burning high street. Three workers from Re-Style Hairdressers were among those out in Green Lanes, after word spread that an attack was imminent at about 4pm.

"I was here with my brother and my boss waiting for them until about midnight," said 16-year-old Huseyin Beytar. "If some guy ever breaks a window in this street, all the Turkish Kurdish people come down to protect the shops. We're like a family."

"We have to do things for ourselves," said Huseyin. "We have to look after each other. If they come here tonight there will be a fight, a big fight."

"We were outside ready and expecting them," said the manager of Turkish Food Market, who asked not to be named.

"But I felt very panicky because we are not safe from either the rioters or police.

"We put all of our efforts into this shop. It took 20 years to get it like this. But we do not know about our rights.

"I'm scared that the police and the government will attack us if we defend our businesses.

"We are being squeezed between the two."

(My emphasis.)  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is not the fault of the people pointing out what the government does to its own citizens.

Quote of the Day - John Adams Edition

I must entreat you, to consider the words of this authority (Sir John Kelyng, Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, 1665-71); the injured person may repel force by force against any who endeavors to commit any kind of felony; if any of the persons made an attack on these soldiers, with an intention to rob them, if it was but to take their hats feloniously, they had a right to kill them on the spot, and had no business to retreat; if a robber meets me in the street and commands me to surrender my purse, I have a right to kill him without asking questions; if a person commits a bare assault on me, this will not justify killing, but if he assaults me in such a manner, as to discover an intention to kill me, I have a right to destroy him, that I may put it out of his power to kill me. -- John Adams, History of the Boston Massacre, March 5, 1770

(My emphasis.)  Adams' point was that the inherent right of self-defense was not denied to soldiers by dint of being soldiers.  They were entitled to the same rights as any man on the street when it came to defense of self and property.

It doesn't work that way in (formerly) Great Britain anymore.

Self-Defense in the UK

I left this in a comment at Say Uncle this morning in response to the assertion that "There is no right of self defense in the English law system. The use of force is solely the right of the Crown."  I thought it would make a pretty decent post of its own, especially with the hyperlinks included.

OK, I’ve argued this question extensively. Here’s the deal:

In the UK, under the law you are permitted to use “reasonable force” to defend yourself or others.

Here’s the rub: Other people after the fact determine what was "reasonable" at the time of the incident.

Possession of anything "with the intent to threaten to cause injury or fear" is verboten – so if you pick up a baseball bat and stand outside your property as a deterrent to rioters, your intent is to "threaten to cause injury or fear" and you're therefore guilty of being in possession of an "offensive weapon."

Apparently you're supposed to wait until you, personally are under physical attack before you can pick up anything with which to defend yourself, and then you are restricted in how you use that item to some "reasonable" level to be determined at some future time when the jurors can reflect calmly on the situation.

Further, as has been explained to the British public, the law does not require the intention to kill for a prosecution for murder to succeed. All that is required is an intention to cause serious bodily harm. That intention can be fleeting and momentary. But if it is there in any form at all for just a second – that is, if the blow struck was deliberate rather than accidental – you can be guilty of murder and spend the rest of your life in prison.

As a result, the Crown Prosecution Service can (and has) prosecuted people for merely possessing anything they consider to be an "offensive weapon" whether or not said "weapon" was ever displayed. They have prosecuted people, like the man who beat a burglar with a milk bottle, for "unreasonable" use of force. One man was acquitted not too long back of murdering a home invader with his shotgun when his defense was that the gun "accidentally discharged" as he was pointing it at the huge, steroid-enraged bodybuilder climbing through his second-floor window and verbally threatening to kill the homeowner. Since there was no intent, fleeting or momentary, he wasn't guilty of murder, apparently, even though he had to unlock the gun cabinet, retrieve his shotgun, unlock the ammo cabinet, retrieve his ammo, load the gun, aim the gun, and put his finger on the trigger. All of that was "reasonable," but pulling the trigger intentionally would have been an act not of self-defense, but of murder.

The result of these laws is that the act of defending yourself is legally risky. Even if you’re acquitted, it may cost you a fortune in legal fees, and you very well might go to jail. If you actively defend your property, the chances are very high that you will be prosecuted for – at a minimum – possession of an "offensive weapon" and "causing fear," and you will most probably lose in court.

All of this has what has been referred to as a "chilling effect" on the willingness of the British populace to actively defend themselves. You'll note in the stories coming out of the UK that the people doing the "vigilantism" are almost exclusively immigrants – mostly Turks and Sikhs. They haven't had their self-reliance beaten out of them yet.

Posted without Comment

Found at Walls of the City.  He found it at Gun Free Zone.  Somebody tell me the original source and I'll link to it.

Quote of the Day - English Riots Edition

The state is not your friend, so do what you have to do and if you drive off some thugs, do not call the police after it is all over as nothing good will come of that. -- Perry de Havilland, Samizdata - Defend yourself and be a vigilante

Taking the Law into Your Own Hands

I was fascinated to read England riots: When is it right to turn vigilante? at the BBC website. Excerpts:

Stories are emerging of Londoners forming vigilante groups to protect their homes and businesses, but police have warned this is making matters worse.

--

...little by little a picture is emerging of Londoners beginning to fight back against the wave of violence - in some cases by taking the law into their own hands.

--

But when is it right to take the law into your own hands?

--

But are those who take the law into their own hands to protect shops and homes more of a hindrance than a help?

--

He urged people not to take the law into their own hands.

I keep remembering Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles of Modern Policing, the seventh of which is:

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

But now, we are told, taking those duties seriously is "taking the law into our own hands."

Uh, that's where it's supposed to be. Principle No. 1 is

The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.

You'll note, they're not too good at that.

But "vigilantes" are.

I don't advocate chasing looters and arsonists down and beating 'em to a pulp - that's not the duty of citizens. Detaining them, however, for retrieval by authorities is. That's why there is such a thing as the power of citizen's arrest. This power traces back to "Anglo Saxon law in medieval England." I guess they've "Progressed" themselves right out of it.

Perry de Havilland at Samizdata has more on the subject. Tomorrow's Quote of the Day comes from that piece.

We'll see how many people get prosecuted for protecting their own property after the riots finally settle down. After all, according to UK law:

The term 'offensive weapon' is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use".

True,

The courts have been reluctant to find many weapons as falling within the first limb of the definition and reliance should usually be placed upon the second. On that basis, it must be shown that the defendant intended to use the article for causing injury

However, standing outside your property with a half-dozen friends or family members, all armed with baseball or cricket bats, axe handles or steel pipe in anticipation of rioters pretty much meets the definition of threatening or causing fear. That's the idea - make 'em sheer off somewhere else out of fear of seeing their own blood.

As I said in "(I)t's most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can",

Britain today represents a perfect example of the pacifist culture in control, because that culture doesn't really distinguish between violent and predatory and violent but protective - it sees only violent. Their worldview is divided between violent and non-violent, or passive. There is an exception, a logical disconnect if you will, that allows for legitimate violence - but only if that violence is committed by sanctioned officials of the State. And even there, there is ambivalence. If violence is committed by an individual there is another dichotomy: If the violence is committed by a predator, it is the fault of society in not meeting that predator's needs. The predator is the creation of the society, and is not responsible for the violence. He merely needs to be "cured" of his ailment. If violence is committed by a defender, it is a failure of the defender to adhere to the tenets of the pacifist society. It is the defender who is at fault because he has lived by the rules and has chosen to break them, and who must therefore be punished for his transgression.

Thus defending your own property is "vigilantism," not a duty "incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."

What Vapid Editorial Comments Tell Us About the UK

I ran across an editorial piece in the UK Telegraph today, What Teresa Lewis's last meal of fried chicken and apple pie tells us about America. It's really not worth reading, IMO.

But the comments are.

The author of the piece, Lucy Jones, makes her abhorrence for the death penalty apparent in the column, but in the comments, she goes one step farther:

I think it's morally, absolutely, categorically wrong to take another person's life. The details of the crime aren't going to make a difference.

So, Lucy, if someone makes an attempt on your life, you should just lie back and think of England?

Another Target-Rich Environment

I use as my homepage a text-only page resident on my hard drive that was authored by PC Magazine contributor John Dvorak. In it, there's a link to his blog, which is authored by a number of contributors. I check it from time to time because the writers there are uniformly Leftist and often amusing.

Well, I've been amusing myself over a recent post there. Seems one of the contributors picked up on the recent Politico piece about the hard Right giving the NRA grief for being the NRA.

I've left a few comments. We'll see if this leads anywhere.

Quote of the Day - Leviathan Edition

Quote of the Day - Leviathan Edition

The state is not your friend.
-- Perry de Havilland at Samizdata, commenting on this story of a young mother "warned" by police for "brandishing" a knife from inside her kitchen at a couple of thugs in her back yard. RTWT.

This is the same story that yesterday's QotD came from. Apparently Ms. Klass is a celebrity. Had she been just an ordinary Jane Doe, I don't doubt she'd have been more than warned.

Quote of the Day - Many Categories Edition

Quote of the Day - Many Categories Edition

When the representative of government tells you to do nothing when a criminal wants something, government is telling you that the action of the criminal is authorized and supported by the government. - Windy Wilson in a comment to the post From the Place Where Great Britain Used to Be at Irons in the Fire

Damned straight, Mr. Wilson. Good pick, Firehand. Thanks for the pointer.