Depending On the Government for Your Protection

Reader Doug Sundseth sent the links this charming gun control success story:

Police accused of waiting too long over barbecue shootings

A police force was accused yesterday of waiting too long to act after a shooting at a family barbecue left two sisters dead. One witness claimed that their lives could have been saved.

Roy Gibson, 70, said he spent an hour waiting for help to arrive as he tried to save one of the women. Paramedics were prevented from entering until Thames Valley Police had completed a one-hour assessment of any further risk to life.

By the time police decided it was safe for armed officers and ambulance crews to go in, Vicky Horgan, 27, a mother-of-two, had died. Her sister, Emma Walton, 25, died a short while later from her wounds. Their mother, Jacqueline Bailey, 55, who was also shot, was in a serious condition in hospital last night.

The incident was witnessed by Mrs Horgan's daughters Bobbie Jayne, five, and seven-year-old Jade.

Mr Gibson, a neighbour who, with his wife Georgina, 58, tried to treat the wounded, said there was a chance both women could have been saved had they received medical attention earlier.

It's called the "golden hour" - the hour immediately after a serious injury, when caring for the injury is critical to the victim's survival.

Is the English government so terrified of armed assailants that it can no longer determine when a risk of life and limb is justified? Here's the BBC's version of the story. Money quote:

South Oxfordshire Area Commander Superintendent Jill Simpson said that police had to hold back ambulance crews for one hour in order to assess the "level of danger".

She said: "Firearms operations demand a calculated response in order to safeguard any members of the public who could be at risk as well as the officers and other emergency service personnel who could be at the scene."

Apparently the answer is "yes."

What the hell happened to the dry, understated "spot of bother," the "stiff upper lip?" "Mad dogs and Englishmen?" They appear more and more to be whipped curs with cold sweat-beaded lips aquiver.

Would FDNY paramedics hold back for an hour? Would NYPD officers hold them back? Or would they sweep in and guard the paramedics?

What happened to the country that produced Churchill? Are the only "civil servants" with a spine in that country in the military? Or is it just the policy makers who can't bear a risk anymore, and the subjects - indoctrinated for decades - blindly follow?

Sweet weeping jebus.

Update, 6/9: Doug Sundseth emailed me his comments on this piece because they're too long for Haloscan:

The one quote that I found most striking was:

[Mr. Gibson] said: "Vicky took her last breath as we tried to comfort her. There was no ambulance and no police officer with us, despite my repeated reassurances to officers that the gunman had long since fled. I think there is a very real chance that Vicky and Emma could have been saved if the paramedics had been allowed to the scene."

The concern of the police seems to have been that Mr. Gibson might have been forced to lie. So how many times has that happened?

Rescue personnel commonly assume risk in saving people from sinking ships, floods, burning buildings, whatever. They work to reduce that risk through training, but the risk never disappears entirely. Clearly, there are some situations so dangerous as to not warrant the risk of yet more lives, but that decision is made based on the individual circumstances of a rescue.

The police on this scene (by inclination or policy) so overestimated the risk of an idiot with a gun that the mere possibility of his continued presence prevented them from saving lives. I see this as yet another complete misunderstanding of the actual danger of firearms.

Let's look at the risks and take some WAGs at their probabilities:

1) Trained rescue people on scene reported that there was no gunman present. There is a very small possibility that they could have been coerced or mistaken. P(risk) ~ .05

2) Most shots in these sorts of emotional situations miss. P(risk) ~ .25

3) Most dangerous shots hit the body armor of armored responders. P(risk) ~ .25

4) Most shots that don't hit the body armor are entirely survivable. P(risk) ~ .1

If we use my (WAG) risk numbers, P(death) is somewhere near .03125%, or 1 in 3200. Can you imagine a fireman or Coast Guardsman (unofficial motto: "You have to go out; you don't have to come back) refusing to take such a risk?

Jasen is right that the same calculus applies to Columbine. I'd put the risk higher there, but the risk to innocents was higher too.

I don't know whether the cowardice was institutional or personal (I suspect the former), but that is only of relevance when deciding who needs to be fired.

Good points, Doug. And I concur.

I also predict that no one will be fired, or even reprimanded.

Well, This is Graphic

It seems that Steven Den Beste has stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest, and he's tired of the subject. However his description of the level of irritation struck me, and I think I'm going to have to add that to my list of quotes to remember:

The needle on the annoyance meter is currently pointing to "fingernails on chalkboard" and beginning to move towards "Chirac".

'Leave her alone or I'll shoot you right between the shoulders'

Another reason to respect Ronnie, though he should have kept some ammo:

Reagan Was Hero To Iowa Woman

Nursing Student Rescued From Mugger By Reagan

Former President Ronald Reagan is known as the "Great Communicator," but one Iowa woman will always know him as her hero.

Melba King was a 22-year-old nursing student in Des Moines in 1933. She was walking home one autumn night when a mugger came up behind her with a gun and demanded her money.

At that moment, Ronald Reagan -- who was a Des Moines radio sportscaster at the time -- came to her rescue. Reagan pointed a .45-caliber revolver at the robber from the window of his second-floor rented room.

"And he said, 'Leave her alone or I'll shoot you right between the shoulders,'" King told KCCI.

Reagan scared the man off and calmed King's nerves. Then, the future president said he would walk King home.

King didn't see Reagan again until 1984, when Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad heard her story and invited her to an Iowa caucus campaign event (pictured, above left).

After King and Reagan hugged on stage, Reagan laughed, and said to the crowd, "This is the first time I've had a chance to tell you the gun was empty. I didn't have any cartridges. If he hadn't run when I told him to, I was going to have to throw it at him."

King's rescue became a national news story. "The phone rang constantly," King said.

All the media attention caused Reagan and King to stay in touch. The two families exchanged cards on birthdays, holidays, and during times of sickness and grief.

The Reagans helped King when she lost her husband Harold in 1987, and now she will send Nancy Reagan a sympathy note.

You Have to Wonder...

I haven't commented on Marvin Heemeyer's bulldozer rampage in Granby, Colorado. Reader Matthew wrote a piece on Triggerfinger.org entitled The Canaries are Dying that he linked to in the comments to Are We Headed for Another Civil War? that I recommend you read.

Back in December when I wrote Pressing the "RESET" Button I said:

I think a lot of people are getting fed up with ever-increasing government intrusion into our lives. With our ever-shrinking individual rights. More than one of Jay's respondents noted the apathy of the majority, though, and I agree. Government interferes lightly on a wholesale basis, but it does its really offensive intrusions strictly retail. So long as the majority gets its bread and circuses, it will remain content.

But not everyone.

I found this editorial today from The Rocky Mountain News that I think illustrates this very well.

Heemeyer's ire understood, but not his act (Tina Griego)

Since 2001 - Sept. 7, 2001, to be precise - Ted Mascarenas, of Brighton, has fought with his homeowners association and/or with the city zoning department over his roof, his gate, his fence.

"Even the driveway, if you can believe that," Ted says.

Then there was the trailer. "I used to have a trailer parked out front, I don't anymore, but they thought I was living in it. I wasn't. But there were three guys down the road living in theirs. 'How about them?' I asked. 'You can't be throwing rocks,' they said."

It didn't end there. Don't even get him started on the barn.

"I finally finished my barn; it'd burned. One of the HOA board members, he inspected it after it was done. But then we had a falling-out over the gate because I built my fence and then they wouldn't approve my gate and I put it up anyway.

"So, they told me, 'You don't have 12-inch soffits on the barn roof' - you know where the roof overhangs, the flat part underneath, that's the soffit. They wanted me to redo it. That'd cost me roughly around $8,000. So, I pointed out 10 other detached barns like mine, identical. I said, 'What about them? They don't have soffits.' You know what their ruling was? 'They're grandfathered.' And I said, 'Well, my barn was one of the first put up here. I built it in 1997.' I said, 'If anybody has a right to be grandfathered, it's me.'

"I can't win, I tell you, I just can't win. They have different rules for different people."

Which brings us to Marvin Heemeyer.

Heemeyer, as you know, is the muffler shop owner who took out his frustration with Granby officials by bulldozing several buildings and then apparently killing himself. I'm not saying Ted Mascarenas thinks Marvin Heemeyer is some kind of a hero who took on government - he doesn't - though it's pretty clear from a quick look online that Heemeyer is already being mythologized as such.

"Colorado MAN has had enough of their crap," begins one news group entry. "Good for him."

My, how short the journey from maniac to martyr. I doubt the "attaboy" cheerleading would be heard if Heemeyer had killed anyone other than himself.

Ted doesn't condone what Heemeyer did, either. No, what Ted feels is a certain amount of understanding.

"I know what he's going through," he told his wife as they watched the news.

Ted keeps pages of letters and papers documenting his various squabbles. His voice climbs in outrage when he describes his disputes. Leave it alone, his wife tells him, maybe they'll leave you alone. "I'm not built that way," he says. When he saw footage of the bulldozer biting into a building, he said: "Boy, I wish I had the guts to do that."

"No, you didn't," I say.

"I did," he says.

"You're not building a tank in your barn, are you?" I ask.

He laughs and says no, he likes living. "What a price to pay. It's crazy."

I keep wondering if at any point Heemeyer fired up the blowtorch, studied the flame and thought, "What am I doing?"

"He just had enough," I hear, as if this were a reasonable explanation for the rampage. Most adults are able to work out their differences without welding themselves into a bulldozer and punching the gas. But, there is some germ of truth here.

I've met plenty of people, decent and, by all appearances, sane, who feel powerless in the face of government, who believe they have been jerked around, dismissed. What part of public servant don't these bureaucrats understand, these people say.

Their ire usually zeroes in on a zoning inspector or parking enforcement officer or cop, on rules arbitrarily enforced, on someone in some office saying one thing and someone else in the same office saying just the opposite, leaving Joe Taxpayer red-faced and shouting, "Aaargh! Why didn't you tell me this before?"

Several people called the office Sunday to make this point.

One said he doesn't understand why more people don't go off the way Heemeyer did, what "with the cities and the land-taking and their condemnation and their closed-door politics. They just run over all the small people all the time."

A woman tells me of several frustrating experiences she had with Denver's zoning office. She spent a lot of time trying to get the problem worked out.

It never did happen.

"You can't fight City Hall and win," she said.

The whole thing was causing too much stress, so she and her husband decided to let it go.

After Granby, you have to wonder how many Marvin Heemeyers are out there who can't.

Yes, you do. And perhaps more government officials should, before they pass the next ordinance or enforce the next niggling little regulation, or confiscate the next chunk of property.

I Just Have To...

Thanks to some assistance from an AR15.commer, I give you Howell Raines as Saruman:

"Against the power of Mordor The New York Times there can be no victory."

----

Saruman: "We must join with them, Gandalf. We must join with the Democrats.
It would be wise, my friend."

Gandalf: "Tell me, 'friend', when did Saruman the Wise abandon reason for madness?"

----

Saruman: "I gave you the chance of aiding me willingly, but you have elected the way of pain."

Violence and the Social Contract

 In the previous piece immediately below, "(I)t's most important that all potential victims be as dangerous as they can," I put forward the concepts of violent and predatory and violent but protective, and their antithesis, non-violence or passivity. I also noted that the pacifist culture in general holds a logical disconnect in that it still supports violence, so long as that violence is threatened or performed by duly authorized agents of the State.

I found this link at Rev. Sensing's that illustrates why that logical disconnect, that dichotomy, exists. It's a quote from Christian philosopher-ethicist Jacques Ellul:

Violence is to be found everywhere and at all times, even where people pretend that it does not exist. . . every state is founded on violence and cannot maintain itself save by and through violence. . . . Everywhere we turn we find society riddled with violence. Violence is its natural condition, as Thomas Hobbes saw clearly.

Pacifists reject Hobbes's belief that the natural state of man is one of conflict, but in general hold his belief that governments are formed to protect people from their own selfishness and evil. And how do they do that? Rev. Sensing:

Ellul disagrees with the classic distinction between violence and force: it's lawyers who have invented the idea that when the state uses coercion, even brutally, it is exercising "force" and that only individuals or nongovernmental groups use violence. All states are established by violence. A government stays in power by violence or its threat and the threat is meaningless unless it can be and is employed.

The fact is that society depends on violence or its threat simply to exist. That's why there are police departments in every city. But there is no moral difference between the homeowner who protects his life or property with a gun and one who does not but summons a police officer. The police use violence or its threat to protect the law-abiding. The unarmed homeowner has merely "contracted out" his use of violence.

If using violence is sinful, the blunt reality is that there are no sin-free choices.

Note that critical point: "...it's lawyers who have invented the idea that when the state uses coercion, even brutally, it is exercising "force" and that only individuals or nongovernmental groups use violence." And that is, in my opinion, an insidious form of self-deception, because it draws a moral difference between a citizen who defends himself, and one who does not but instead summons a police officer.

This is a recent philosophical change. When Sir Robert Peel formed London's Metropolitan Police Force - the first of its kind in London - he set down his Nine Principles of policing:

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

The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.

Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.

The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.

Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.

Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.

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.

Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.

The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

Note 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."

Now look back at Principle #1. The prevention of crime and disorder is incumbent on every citizen in the interest of community welfare and existence. But when a society, step by slow deliberate step, deceives itself into believing that there is a moral difference between defending oneself and one's community and "contracting it out" to the State, then that society will lose the majority of its defenders and risk descent into chaos. The converse is also true - when there is no reliance on the State, you risk anarchy as well,

Discourage self-help, and loyal subjects become the slaves of ruffians. Over-stimulate self-assertion, and for the arbitrament of the Courts you substitute the decision of the sword or the revolver. - The Law of the Constitution, by A.V. Dicey (MacMillan, London 1885).

(Quotation found at Samizdata. I recommend you read the whole piece.)

The concept of pacifism as it pertains to crime is generally predicated on the concept that all life is of value, and that using violence to injure or kill in defense of mere property is disproportionate - the value of the material is much less than the value of the life of the person attempting to take the material. Surprise! I concur. The life of a human being is of greater value than, say, the contents of my wallet. But this ignores something more important - the fact that the contents of my wallet are the least things at risk. Because someone willing to threaten bodily injury or death in order to take my wallet violates the tenets of the society in which both of us live. He puts in fear not only me, but the entire society. He has proffered a new social contract - "Give me what I want, and I won't hurt you."

The pacifist culture tells us that we should not resist, that we should call the authorities who are empowered to deal with social miscreants. At most, we should respond (as the British are required) proportionally. Yet a proportional response requires us, the defenders, to read the mind of the assailant. If he holds a knife, are we to ask "Do you actually intend to use the knife, and if so is your intent simply to wound or would you be intending a killing blow?" A proportional response requires the defender to reason cogently in a situation wherein our lives, or at least our health may be at risk. The advantage belongs to the attacker, and that is a recipe for social disaster.

To prevent that social disaster, the new social contract offered by the criminal should be understood by all parties to be: "Whatever it is I want, I have decided that it is worth risking my life for." And we, the potential victims, should be as dangerous as possible.

So long as a sufficient number of us are, the rest of society will enjoy the benefit of our protection. When there are too few of us, or when those of us who are willing to resist are restricted by law from doing so, there remain only two options: suffer the onslaught of criminals, or increase the police forces to overly burdensome levels. With the second option, assuming that a sufficient level is attained to reduce crime, the officers of the State required to accomplish that task will not then be reduced, they will be reassigned to other tasks, and a de facto police state will exist.

Those are the choices. It seems apparent which Britain has decided on.

(To be continued...)  Original comment thread is available here (thanks to reader John Hardin).

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

That's the philosophy I subscribe to, very well put by James Rummel of Hell in a Handbasket. He was inspired by this piece at Grim's Hall on "Social Harmony."

In "Social Harmony," the author wrote:

I was reading an article the other day, in the local newspaper, about an elderly Korean gentleman who has moved into town and opened a martial arts studio. He chastened the reporter who had come to interview him not to suggest that the martial arts were 'all about fighting.' "No!" he said. "The purpose is social harmony."

That is exactly right. The secret of social harmony is simple: Old men must be dangerous.

Very nearly all the violence that plagues, rather than protects, society is the work of young males between the ages of fourteen and thirty. A substantial amount of the violence that protects rather than plagues society is performed by other members of the same group. The reasons for this predisposition are generally rooted in biology, which is to say that they are not going anywhere, in spite of the current fashion that suggests doping half the young with Ritalin.

The question is how to move these young men from the first group (violent and predatory) into the second (violent, but protective). This is to ask: what is the difference between a street gang and the Marine Corps, or a thug and a policeman? In every case, we see that the good youths are guided and disciplined by old men. This is half the answer to the problem.

This recognition of the difference between violent and predatory and violent but protective illustrates the difference in worldview between people like me, and the (we'll call it) pacifist culture.

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.

Obviously I'm taking this example to its extreme. Certainly the pacifist culture in Britain hasn't taken over completely, but it is, without a doubt, the motivating factor behind the last fifty-plus years of ever more stringent controls on weapons and violent behavior. Laws that make it illegal to purchase a firearm for the specific purpose of self-protection. Laws that prohibit carrying anything that might be considered an offensive weapon, including pepper spray and tasers. Laws that make the use of deadly force in defense of self or others legally risky because:

"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 you struck was deliberate rather than accidental - you can be guilty of murder and spend the rest of your life in prison."

There is no doubt that the philosophy behind those laws holds that there is no such thing as legitimate violence if it is committed by anyone other than agents of the State. There is no doubt that this philosophy ignores the historical and biological fact that young men are violent, and unguided will be predatory. Instead, that philosophy speaks of a "gun culture" - one of predatory violence without recognizing the other "gun culture" they have systematically been destroying for decades that teaches responsibility, safety, and protection. That "gun culture" does not exist in that philosophy, because that gun culture teaches violence, and violence is, by definition, bad.

Unless it is done in the name of the State.

That is a mindset that is making inroads here as well. In cities such as New York, D.C., and Chicago, and in states like New Jersey and Maryland, similar laws - though not as comprehensive - have been passed. Yet Americans in the main hold to the "John Wayne" ideal - that violence in defense of self or others is legitimate - that the State serves us, and since it cannot be everywhere at all times we have primary responsibility for that defense. We still understand the concept of violent, but protective.

It's trite, but one of the best illustrations of the inroads of the pacifist mindset is in the DVD release of George Lucas's original STAR WARS. In the cantina scene Lucas has revised the scene to show the character Han Solo being shot at - at point blank range - before he kills the villain Greedo. In the original scene, Han, the quintessential space cowboy, shot Greedo from concealment under the table first.

And the American audience cheered.

We knew who the good guy was.

(More later...)  Original JSKit/Echo comment thread available here (thanks to reader John Hardin).

I Stand Corrected

Although I did change my mind and decide that former NYT editor Howell Raines was not Gollum, but Saruman, it appears that there was no possibility of Raines having the role of Gollum in the first place. Frank J. of IMAO has proven beyond a doubt that, in fact, John F'n Kerry has that role.

In retrospect, it's obvious. Kerry's the one with the split personality.

Requiescat In Pace

Ronald Reagan, succumbing to Alzheimer's disease and age, died today.

I didn't agree with everything Mr. Reagan stood for. I don't think there's a politician I ever will agree wholly with, but I respect him for what he did, and for very much of what he said.

When he stood before the Berlin wall and said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear this wall down!" I don't think I've ever been more proud of a President.

Except maybe when it came down.

You want to know why I'm voting for Bush this November?

Because he stands for something.

And Kerry most definitely does not.

Rest now, Mr. Reagan. You did a helluva job.

Are We Headed for Another Civil War?

A while back I wrote in response to a Steven Den Beste piece why I thought the U.S. would not see another Civil War. In What if Your Loyalty is to The Constitution? I said that America wouldn't see another Civil War because the majority of the population is too willfully ignorant and too apathetic to care much anymore. That piece was an update of Pressing the "RESET" Button, which I wrote in December. In that piece I wrote:

Generally, government is treated by the media as a vast benevolent force (unless, of course, that same government is defeating an enemy totalitarian government or unseating a murderous tyrant - then it's eeeeeevil.) Whatever actions that government takes for the benefit of an endangered species, or "for society" is more important than what it does to the people who are directly affected by these actions.

Oh, occasionally something really egregious will pique some reporter, and we'll get a "human interest" story that pisses off the few of us who are paying attention. Sometimes our ire will get the government to back off, claiming it was all a big misunderstanding or worse, the government doesn't back off at all. The recent incidents of Melvin Spaulding in Florida, George Norris in Texas, Dennis Pryslak in New Jersey, Stratford High School in South Carolina, and many others come to mind. Scroll through the archives of this site. There's probably at least one a week that will raise your blood pressure.

I've quoted Jefferson's letter to William Smith several times recently, but this part is the one I find most interesting:

Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

It seems, in the main, that we aren't informed at all, much less well. Lethargy? For the overwhelming majority, yes indeed.

Until it happens to you. Then you get pissed right quick, and wonder why nobody hears your side of the story.

I think a lot of people are getting fed up with ever-increasing government intrusion into our lives. With our ever-shrinking individual rights. More than one of Jay's respondents noted the apathy of the majority, though, and I agree. Government interferes lightly on a wholesale basis, but it does its really offensive intrusions strictly retail. So long as the majority gets its bread and circuses, it will remain content.

But not everyone.

And I gave the example of Steven Bixby, of South Carolina, who shot and killed two police officers over a 20' section of his property taken under eminent domain.

Today I read via Instapundit this quotation from a Village Voice theater review:

Republicans don't believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.

Compare and contrast this *ahem* progressive opinion with that of Wretchard of The Belmont Club in his latest piece:

Reader MG wrote to ask "in what way is The Left the spirit behind all the carnage of the 20th Century". The answer might properly begin with the words of the Internationale (1871), which took as its starting point the notion that men born to the world had nothing to lose but their chains.

-

It set the theme which was to endure for more than a hundred years: that the familiar world is not worth fighting for. Only the unseen tomorrow gives life any meaning. The present could never be ended too soon. The odious aspects of life in the early 20th century were clear enough, and nowhere better portrayed than George Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier. Who can forget his portrayals of coal workers and their daily lives? From its earliest inception, the Left cried that the world was not good enough. It held that any attempts to find happiness in the present were not only doomed, but immoral. Religion, Marx said, "is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness." He claimed that capitalism could never feed the poor. Lenin said Marxism could, and defined Communism as "socialism plus electricity".

What they forgot to add was that the world would never be good enough. That not a single Marxist state ever managed to provide either the food or electricity in adequate quantities remained beside the point. Shortages were always in the present and the present was unimportant anyway. When capitalism provided wealth in quantities that Lenin could only dream of, then food and electricity themselves became hated in turn, the way starvation once was.

--

Lenin's future was attractive only for so long as it didn't exist and was legitimate only when its promises were not provided by capitalism. John Buchan could tell his son, when he wrote "Memory Hold The Door", which described friends who died in the Great War, that "they held up the world for you". But a true Leftist could only ever dream of boasting to his progeny that 'I tore down the world for you'. The present was always too hateful to endure.

Please, take the time to read the whole thing.

I doubt that many of my readers would argue with the proposition that the Left has a firm grip on a large part of American society. They certainly control the entertainment industry - perhaps the strongest propaganda machine ever assembled. They control the education system, and are busy cranking out more little ignorant, pliable leftists daily. They, by and large, control the courts. But they do not yet control the NATION, and are, as many people are noting, coming unhinged by that fact, as America still supports, in the main, the war that they abhor in their very veins.

Hugh Hewitt commented on George Soros's speech at a "Take Back America" conference. (Take it back? They haven't - quite - taken it yet.) Soros is spending $15 million - regardless of the "Campaign Finance Reform" law - to see President Bush defeated. Soros spent $18 million, according to this USAToday piece, to support that legislation. Soros's speech equated the Abu Ghraib prison abuses to 9/11, much as Teddy Kennedy equated the abuses there to Saddam's murder and torture. And he was loudly applauded for it. He was introduced, gushingly, by Sen. Clinton. Soros is a major contributor to MoveOn.org. The Left is quite large, quite powerful, and very well directed.

I believe that Wretchard is correct in his assertion that the desire of the Left is to "tear down the world." I don't think the rank-and-file see it that way, but the pursuit of their beliefs would absolutely result in it. It would appear that the Left believes that the Right wants to "destroy the human race and the planet." (Projection, do you think?)

This is a philosophical divide every bit as wide as the one that resulted in the last Civil War.

I cannot help but wonder: Are we going to war again, against each other? And what form would that take?

I think the answer might very well be "YES," and the form will be that of domestic terrorism.

And that means a very, very ugly future.

Another DeMotivational Poster

This one's by fellow AR15.com poster Bastiat, proprietor of Flashbunny.org:

Damn, that's good!

An Oldie, But a Goodie: Economic Theories Explained by the Two Cow Example

DEMOCRAT
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
Barbara Streisand sings for you.


REPUBLICAN
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?
Revised: You sell him dairy products at a suitable markup. (Per Triticale)


SOCIALIST
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.


COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.


CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.


DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a
man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from
your government.


BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you
for the milk, and then pours the milk down the drain.


AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised
when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts
stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.


FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.


JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow
and produce twenty times the milk. They learn to travel on unbelievably
crowded trains. Most are at the top of their class at cow school.


GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give
Excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.


ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.


RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.


TALIBAN CORPORATION
You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
Then you kill them and claim a US bomb blew them up while they were in the
hospital.


IRAQI CORPORATION
You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.


FLORIDA CORPORATION
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who like the brown one best, vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which is the
best-looking cow.


NEW YORK CORPORATION
You have fifteen million cows.
You have to choose which one will be the leader of the herd,
so you pick some fat cow from Arkansas.


CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows.
Most are illegals.
Arnold likes the ones with the big tits.

Added, from reader Tom:

HONG KONG CAPITALISM:
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly-listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute an debt/equity swap with associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax deduction for keeping five cows.

The milk rights of six cows are transferred via a Panamanian intermediary to a Cayman Islands company secretly owned by the majority shareholder, who sells the rights to all seven cows' milk back to the listed company.

The annual report says that the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.

Meanwhile, you kill the two cows because the Feng Shui is bad.

Too Little, Too Late (I Hope)

It appears that the pressure is on now to renew the Assault Weapon Cosmetic Legislation Ban.

The GOA is reporting that Sen. Diane Feinstein is looking for a bill to which she will attach a renewal amendment, and that's being covered by Publicola, the Geek, and others.

Meanwhile the Brainless Brady Bunch are sending out recruitment emails - as usual - filled with fear-mongering lies. Reader Ben, a stealth member of "StoptheNRA.com" - a subsidiary of the Bradyacs - was kind enough to send me a copy of their latest list of lies. Let us fisk:

Dear Friend,

If you are going to get involved in renewing the Assault Weapons Ban ... the time is now. Congress is in session for only 30 more days before the ban expires later this summer. If the ban isn’t renewed, in most states, new assault weapons will be sold at gun shows without even a background check.

LIE #1 & #2. If it's new it will be sold by a FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER - who, by the way, can sell new "post-ban" weapons right now. And all FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS DEALERS MUST run a background check whether they sell the gun at a gunshow or at their shop. So there's two lies here. Regardless of whether the ban expires, you can buy a new "post-ban" weapon that lacks a few cosmetic features, but you'll get a background check anyway. Or you can buy a "pre-ban" rifle from an individual sans background check, also regardless of whether the ban expires. Only the price will change.

That means assault weapons could be sold to anyone: criminals, gang members, drug dealers, and terrorists.

And this is different under the existing conditions exactly... how? If the first argument is wrong, this one doesn't improve it.

Our advertising campaign starts next week and it is crucial that we maintain it throughout the summer. We need your support to renew the ban. We can’t do it alone. CLICK HERE TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION.

Just a heads-up. And as for that contribution? I wouldn't piss on you if your head was on fire.

Over 75 percent of Americans agree that the Assault Weapons Ban must be renewed. Every police organization in the country, religious groups, educators and scores of other mainstream organizations agree.

If true, it might have something to do with the way you and groups like you LIE TO THEM. Ya THINK?

In fact, there is only one group in the country in favor of letting the ban end: The National Rifle Association. And so far President Bush is listening to the NRA over every other constituency.

We cannot let this ban expire. Here's what happens if the NRA wins:

And let's count the lies, shall we?

1. In most states, eighteen-year-olds will be able to walk into gun stores and buy new American-made AK-47s.

Which they can do RIGHT NOW.

2. In many states, it will be possible to bring concealed TEC-9 assault pistols, loaded with thirty rounds of ammunition, into bars, churches and sports arenas, and even public schools or universities.

Which can happen RIGHT NOW. The "ban" didn't make the guns go away, it just changed the way they look. All those thirty round magazines are still out there.

Fearmongering like this REALLY PISSES ME OFF!

3. In many states kids as young as 13 will be able to buy brand new American-made AK-47s at gun shows and through the classifieds.

Current FEDERAL LAW, 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), (c)(1), prohibits firearms dealers from selling or delivering a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 18. Dealers are prohibited from selling or delivering other firearms (e.g., handguns) or ammunition for those firearms to any person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under the age of 21. STATE law controls transactions between private parties. As of right now if a 13 year-old has $1,000 laying around he can probably purchase just about anything he wants, if he knows the right people. The AWB DOESN'T ADDRESS THE QUESTION.

More fearmongering.

4. New assault weapons will be advertised over the internet.

Hmm... Bushmaster, DSA, DPMS, and there are a lot more. The product line will simply broaden again. But if you want to BUY one, you still have to go through a FEDERALLY LICENSED DEALER.

5. New rapid-fire ammunition magazines that allow guns to fire up to 100 rounds without reloading will be mass-produced and sold on a cash-and-carry basis to anyone, with no questions or background checks.

Oh Jeebus, I hope so! Standard capacity magazines are way overpriced these days.

Here's how you can help renew the ban:

1. contribute to our campaign (Bite me!)

2. sign our petition if you haven't yet (Ditto!)

3. forward this mail to everyone you know (Posted it on my website. Happy?)

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in a past presidential race that he would find it hard to back any candidate who favored repealing the federal assault weapons ban. "Someone who now voted to roll back the assault-weapons ban would really be demonstrating that special interest politics mean more to them than life-or-death issues."

Good thing nobody has to "vote to roll back the assault-weapons ban" isn't it? All they have to do is just let the useless, irritating thing die a natural death.

More later.

Of that I have no doubt.

Thank you for your support.

No, thank YOU, you morons.

UPDATE 6/5: Publicola reports that Diane Fienstein has introduced her AWB renewal bill, S2498, in the Senate. At first blush it appears to be a simple 10-year extension of the existing cosmetics ban. Co-sponsors are the usual suspects:

Barbara Boxer (CA), Lincoln D. Chafee (RI), Hillary Clinton (NY), Michael DeWine (OH), Christopher Dodd (CT, Jim Jeffords (VT), Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Carl Levin (MI), John Reed (RI), Chuck Schumer (NY), and John Warner of Virginia.

Time to start writing and calling your congresscritters.

NOW.

I Take it Back. Not Gollum - Saruman

I think Wretchard of The Belmont Club has described it with devastating accuracy. (Via Mrs. du Toit)

Wretchard describes precisely the Left's self-loathing, self-immolating mindset. I cannot excerpt from the piece. It must be read as a whole.

All they want is to tear down the world, and the leaders want to rule over the rubble.

(And The Belmont Club goes on my daily reading list.)

Howell Raines as Gollum

By now I'm sure almost everyone in the blogosphere has heard of, if not read the political phillipic by disgraced and ex-New York Times editor Howell Raines that was printed in Britain's Guardian. Andrew Sullivan has commented, Dean Esmay, Dodd Harris, and of course, Glenn Reynolds. According to Technorati, there are fifty-three links to the story. Here's number fifty-four.

I've not read all the links, but the few I have read have concentrated on the fact that Raines doesn't seem to see John "Lurch" Kerry as much of a candidate. Dean Esmay's latest post touches on the part of the piece I'm going to concentrate on here:

I particularly enjoyed these thoughts on former New York Times editor Howell Raines' recent screen (I think he meant "screed") in The Guardian from someone who used to work for the guy. These updates, too.

It's all part and parcel with an elitism and a condescension I've mentioned many times before. It all goes like this: "We're liberals. This means we're broad-minded and have a tradition of being thoughtful. Thus the only explanation for people in disagreement with us on any important issue is that they are stupid, dishonest, or evil."

I left a comment on Dean's site this morning, but I want to expand on it here.

Hopefully if you're one of my regular readers you're familiar with Henry Louis Mencken, one of my favorite sources for pithy quotes. Henry wrote oh-so-many years ago,

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods".

Let me concentrate on just that portion of "Howlin' Mad's" screed.

...which raises the question of what Kerry needs to do to win in a campaign that's going to become the political equivalent of a street fight. I believe Kerry can do it, but I feel less sure of that now than I did in the primaries. Every time I talk to a reporter who has covered him, new doubts creep in about his ability to connect with voters.

--

The difference between him and Bush is that Kerry represents the liberal, charitable wing of the Privilege party and George W represents the conservative, greedy wing of the Privilege party.

--

Now for the hard part of the performance challenge - the economy. Two and a quarter centuries into its history as a nation, America has the most unfair tax system ever and the greatest gap ever between rich and poor. Even a real populist, however, would have trouble taking on these issues frontally. As Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council noted, Americans aren't antagonistic toward the rules that protect the rich because they think that in the great crap-shoot of economic life in America, they might wind up rich themselves. It's a mass delusion, of course, but one that has worked ever since Ronald Reagan got Republicans to start flaunting their wealth instead of apologising for it. Kerry has to understand that when a cure is impossible, the doctor must enter the world of the deluded.

What does this mean in terms of campaign message? It means that he must appeal to the same emotions that attract voters to Republicans - ie greed and the desire to fix the crap-shoot in their favour. That means that instead of talking about "fixing" social security, you talk about building a retirement system that makes middle-class voters believe they will be semi-rich someday. As matters now stand, Kerry has assured the DLC, "I am not a redistributionist Democrat."

That's actually a good start. Using that promise as disinformation, he must now figure out a creative way to become a redistributionist Democrat. As a corporation-bashing populist, I'd like to think he could do that by promising to make every person's retirement as secure as Cheney's investment in Halliburton. But that won't sell with the sun-belt suburbanites. Not being a trained economist like, say, Arthur Laffer, I can't figure out the exact legerdemain that Kerry ought to endorse. But greed will make folks vote for Democrats if it's properly packaged, just as it now makes them vote Republican, and in terms of the kind of voters Kerry must win away from Bush, I think the pot-of-gold retirement strategy is a way to work. Forget a chicken in every pot. It's time for a Winnebago in every driveway.

Well! The mask has obviously slipped off, being lubricated with the foam from his mouth.

Here we have the unabashed Leftist, unaware of his hypocrisy waving from his unzipped fly. As Mencken put it:

Democracy is the theory that the common man knows what he wants, and deserves to get it good and hard.

And he'd never met Raines. First, let me start at the top. Howell is concerned with Kerry's ability to "connect with the voters," though Kerry "represents the liberal, charitable wing of the Privilege Party." So what is Howell's suggestion?

LIE.

After all, Howell has so much experience at it as editor of the NYT. He should be an expert in crafting an image with a hidden agenda, right?

Let's continue.

"Two and a quarter centuries into its history as a nation, America has the most unfair tax system ever and the greatest gap ever between rich and poor." Really? The "Most unfair tax system ever?" I'd put that back at the passage of the 16th Amendment when "soak the rich" was the battle-cry. The tax originally ranged from a mere 1% on the first $20,000 of taxable income to only 7% on incomes above $500,000.

Remember, this was 1913. Twenty-thousand dollars a year would be an income of more than $360,000 today, adjusted for inflation.

Yeah, that's "fair." Raines wants to go right back to it, making the "rich" pay for everything again.

And "the greatest gap ever between rich and poor"? I suppose you could stretch the point by using Bill Gates as the upper end, but surely things were far worse during the Depression - when, according to this piece:

According to a study done by the Brookings Institute, in 1929 the top 0.1% of Americans had a combined income equal to the bottom 42%. That same top 0.1% of Americans in 1929 controlled 34% of all savings, while 80% of Americans had no savings at all.

Jane Galt made an interesting point in a 2002 post:

Has the qualitative life experience of the rich really increased, while the poor stayed stagnant? Since the 50's? 60's? 70's? I would argue it's the reverse. The head of GM's life is not, qualitatively, much better than that of the head of GM in the 50's. The poor, on the other hand, have more space, better food, more and better clothes, color televisions, VCR's, automobiles. . . items that were beyond the wildest dreams of the poor in the 1950's.

Or the 1930's for that matter. The difference between a squatter's shack and the Biltmore.

Why this concentration on the disparity in income? Because it's a dividing line the Left wants to use, and cannot. Why? Because:

"...Americans aren't antagonistic toward the rules that protect the rich because they think that in the great crap-shoot of economic life in America, they might wind up rich themselves. It's a mass delusion, of course...."

The Left wants to fire up envy in order to engineer social change, and are unsuccessful because Americans believe it is possible to get rich - an idea Howell Raines causes "mass delusion."

Really? The two men I work for were middle-income salarymen in the late 1970's, and in 1980 they risked everything they had to start a business.

They're pretty damned wealthy today. They won the crap-shoot, through hard work. Raines seems to think Americans believe it will just fall out of the sky into their laps. We know better. That's why we know that we can end up, if not rich, then pretty damned well off if we're willing to work to achieve it. That's the tradition of America: Come here, work hard, sacrifice and you can be rich! And compared to most other nations in the world, our middle class is fabulously wealthy.

This seems beyond the Left's ability to grasp. They seem to believe that everyone should receive an equal portion, handed out to the proles by the Party - who, of course, are "more equal," and thus entitled to do the handing out. Keeping the best for themselves, of course, because they're entitled.

But they don't have that power, and cannot seem to understand why not. As Dean said, "...the only explanation for people in disagreement with us on any important issue is that they are stupid, dishonest, or evil." So to achieve power they will do whatever is necessary, including - but not limited to - mass deception. Kerry must use "deception" and "legerdemain" to convince the populace that he's not a "redistributionist Democrat," so that he can achieve office where he will be a redistributionist Democrat.

And yet they revile Bush for lying?

The Democrats are the Doctor, you see. It won't hurt, and anyway the pain is for our own good. We have to be cured of our delusions that being affluent is good, that keeping the money we earn is right. Just hold still, the frontal lobotomy won't take a minute.

Here's what I said in my comment to Dean's piece:

They speak in terms of "Secret Agendas" and "Secret Plans" because that's how THEY think. It's projection - "If WE do it, they MUST." One of the problems the left, both here and in Europe had early on in the Bush administration, was an inability to grasp that he said what he meant, and meant what he said. So simplisme.

We generally understand that politicans lie to us. As Mencken said, every election is an advance auction sale of stolen goods, with nine out of ten promises made by the candidates being merely hot air. The difference is, at least in my case, I believe the Republicans generally would like to make it easier for me to pull myself up by my bootstraps and work towards creating wealth for myself. I believe the Democrats want to take whatever wealth I'm able to acquire and redistribute it. And I believe that the Democrats will lie to me

and everyone else until they've acquired enough power to do so.

And they cannot understand why we oppose them. We must be evil and greedy as well as stupid, but we're not so stupid that we don't see through them, so they have to be even more "tricksy."

Suddenly I see Howell Raines in the role of Gollum. And the Democrat Party as Orcs.And socialism is their Sauron.

Sweet. BLEEDING. Jeebus.

Via Ry Jones' blog Mindless Bit Spew comes this story illustrating:

A) The results of the deliberate dumbing-down of America

and

B) The Statist policies designed to guarantee it.

I cannot excerpt a word from this post. You must read it for yourselves.

Sorry, You Forgot To Give Me A Lobotomy With My Nametag

I weep for our future.

Let Me Clear the Air About a Few Things, Myself

I entered Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, In Conclusion... into this week's Carnival of the Vanities, hosted by Read My Lips.

It would seem that Tiger, proprietor of Read My Lips, was, well, underwhelmed:

Kevin Baker may have the worst timin' of this week's participants because he drew a lawyer that failed to buy his argument on his jury. The only apparent thing I discovered 'pon a thorough readin' of his submission, which, by the way, was, for me, somewhat akin to a poorly organized busman's holiday on steroids, is that Kevin post exhibits some unknown degree of disdain for judges, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys. From followin' the whole discourse that eventually resulted in this summation, it was completely apparent to me that our esteemed Mr. Baker lacks any meanin'ful ability to view an issue from both sides. Of course, that is just my take on it, and I do now 'spect you to go and make up your own mind.

Hmm...

Let's analyse, shall we?

I "drew a lawyer" this week. Gee, do you think that Tiger's being a lawyer might have some effect on how he views the legal system? Or the fact that he is running (or has run) for the job of Somervell (TX) County Attorney?

I'll ignore the "poorly organized busman's holiday" comment. That's his opinion, he's entitled.

"Kevin's post exhibits some unknown degree of disdain for judges, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys." Well, if you've read much in here, you can see that that's a valid point. I have said, more than once, that our "Justice System" is not interested in justice. It seems apparent to me that England's is, if anything, worse. I think perhaps that Tiger was offended by my disdain. Well, that disdain has been earned by a system more interested in convictions than in justice. I seem to have pricked his sense of honor.

Pardon the fuck out of me.

"...it was completely apparent to me that our esteemed Mr. Baker lacks any meanin'ful ability to view an issue from both sides." I've made it plain that I AM AN ADVOCATE. I've looked at "both sides" and decided which one I wanted to stand on. I could not be a lawyer because lawyers are not allowed to choose - they've got to advocate for their side whether they think their side is right or wrong.

I think Tiger misses the point of the piece, but that's not surprising from someone who could write - apparently in all seriousness:

Some things that favorably affect humanity in general may have a detrimental impact on specific individuals. Take for example the recent bombing in Spain. On one level, the world is so overpopulated that any massive reduction of people is good for humanity as a whole.

Read the whole thing for the context, but understand the basic flaw in the argument begins with "...the world is so overpopulated..."

Again, I rest my case.

Some Other Results of My Research

The piece on self-defense in the UK was long enough by itself, but I found quite a few pieces I didn't want to just leave out. I'll just put them here for your reading enjoyment RCOB experience.

First, let's take a look at how the British police are handling crime. First up, a story from 2002 that shows that the cops understand implicitly what their limitations are, and just who they can and can't intimidate:

Police fail to stop rave

A Lincolnshire farmer has accused police of failing to stop illegal ravers from taking over his sheds on New Year's Eve.

David Benton, of Moorby, said about 70 revellers smashed down his farm gate, drove a lorry-load of disco equipment onto this property and set fire to pallets.

He called Lincolnshire Police, who sent two officers, but said ravers could not be evicted because there were fewer than 100 trouble-makers involved.

Mr Benton, 44, said: "I will defend my property, and I will use violence if I have to if this happens again. The police have already said they will arrest me if I do."

'Totally irresponsible'

"Anybody must be able to defend their own property."

"It was like being a farmer in Zimbabwe - the police stood outside the gate while inside people were smashing up my property and they were doing nothing about it."

Lincolnshire Police said officers could only intervene to break up rave parties if certain criteria were met.

Inspector John Ginty stressed: "The law states that there must be more than 100 people in the open air, causing a public disruption - those conditions were not met in this case.

They weren't in the "open air" because they were in David Benton's BARN.

That's enough of that. You read the rest.

Then there's this lovely bit of news from December of 2003:

Don't bother about burglary, police told

Police have been ordered not to bother investigating crimes such as burglary, vandalism and assaults unless evidence pointing to the culprits is easily available, The Telegraph can reveal.

Under new guidelines, officers have been informed that only "serious" crimes, such as murder, rape or so-called hate crimes, should be investigated as a matter of course.

In all other cases, unless there is immediate and compelling evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA material, the crime will be listed for no further action.

The new "crime screening" guidelines were quietly introduced in the Metropolitan Police area last month and similar measures are being brought into effect by forces across Britain as pressure grows on senior officers to maintain a tighter control over budgets.

A Met spokesman confirmed that "less serious crimes" would now only be investigated if they were considered to be "solvable using proportionate resources", or were part of a current crackdown on specific offences. He said: "It might mean that people who have had their bikes stolen from outside a shop might not get any investigation into it. It is looking at the high priorities for crime in the community."

The Met's policy document states that when crimes are of a less serious nature and there are no "special factors", such as a particularly vulnerable victim, they will now be logged but not solved.

That might help explain this story from May of 2003:

Misery of couple 'burgled 192 times'

A couple say they have become prisoners in their own home after being burgled 192 times in four years.

Rita Redfarn and Bruce Charter, of Earith, near Ely, Cambridgeshire, say they fell prey to burglars for the 192nd time after leaving their house unattended for the first time since the New Year.

"We decided to go out for two hours and obviously were being watched or had been seen in the local pub," Ms Redfarn said.

"It's just been hell here for four years."

Since 1999 property worth hundreds of thousands of pounds has been taken from the couple's £475,000 Victorian house, its two-acre garden and outbuildings.

Jewellery worth up to £7,000 was taken in the latest raid alone.

The couple can no longer get insurance cover.

I'd imagine not. There's a bit more to the story, but here's the kicker:

Police Inspector Richard Douce, said: "Officers in Ely are aware of the continued problems at the address in Earith and have worked with Mr Charter in the past to look at the security at his house and outbuildings.

"Over the next week officers will be reviewing the problem, which will include drawing up a new action plan - in conjunction with Mr Charter - to tackle the problem."

After four years and 192 incidents. I'm sure Mr. Charter is greatly relieved.

Of most everything he owns.

But here the police are on top of the job! Someone might be defending themselves! Can't have that!

Police swoop on 4ft 10in granny

A DISABLED grandmother who tried to film yobs terrorising her neighbourhood was ordered out of her home by a police Swat team who suspected she was armed and dangerous.

Terrified Maureen Jennings, who is only 4ft 10in tall, received a call from a police negotiator at 1.30 am telling her to look out of the window of her bungalow.

A police Armed Response Unit had surrounded the house and Mrs Jennings, who suffers from a chronic heart condition and diabetes, was told to put her hands in the air and step outside while police searched her home.

"I could have had a heart attack and dropped dead on the spot", she said today.

"I opened the door with my hands in the air and four big policemen and two policewomen came in. I explained it was a camera and I was taking photographs of what had been going on on the estate.

"I am a four and half foot tall midget, and I am disabled and they asked me if I had any weapons in the house. The next day a police constable spoke to me and said that they usually just burst into the house but that they had checked me out and because I'd never been in trouble with the police they decided to ring me first."

The drama began after Mrs Jennings, 50, had used a digital camera with an infra-red directional beam to film youths who have made her life a misery for the past two years.

She has regularly complained to police about the gang on The Moss estate in Macclesfield but claims that officers rarely bother to investigate.

Terrible

But when police received a tip-off that Mrs Jennings was armed, the force's Armed Response Unit immediately went into action.

Mrs Jennings has been using the camera after a string of complaints to police failed to stop the gang terrorising the neighbourhood.

The gang congregate most nights on her garden steps and at a phone box opposite her home. She suspects they are responsible for vandalising her car.

"It is terrible living here," she said. "We've all had enough and I can't sleep at night."

"I have had them boozing and taking drugs on my front steps. I can't take this anymore. Doctors have sent notes to the council because of what it is doing to my health. But nothing ever happens.

"I love my bungalow but I want out of this estate. It is ruining my life."

Macclesfield police said several youths had been "grounded" by parents after officers visited. Some have been threatened with Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and one faces an Anti-Social Behaviour Order.

"The Moss Estate area was given special attention by officers during the days following the incident and several of the young people involved, and their parents have been spoken to," the officer said.

Senior Housing Officer Richard Christopherson was confident that the troubles on the Moss would be resolved.

He said: "I would very much like to go speak to this lady. If she can give some descriptions of these people I am sure we will be able to identify them. What we are doing is looking at the gang and finding out about the ringleaders and building up our evidence."

This story would almost, almost be funny, except for these two stories that show that the behavior of these "youths" is hardly unusual:

Yobs drove man to kill himself

The widow of a disabled man who killed himself after being repeatedly attacked by young yobs at his Midland home last night backed calls for a "Tony Martin's Law".

Teenage hooligans terrorised Martin James, 64, so many times that he eventually fired an air rifle at them to scare them off - and landed himself in trouble.

Instead of tackling the louts, who had also vandalised his property, police threatened the despairing householder with prosecution for daring to use the firearm.

Days later Mr James hanged himself in his garden shed after leaving wife Angela a note bearing a heart-breaking message that summed up his misery.

"I'm sorry," he wrote. "The kids have beaten me."

At the inquest into his death, coroner Alan Crickmore said that "a campaign of torment" had led Mr James to take his own life last August.

--

Angela met her husband, a retired demolition contractor, while using Citizens Band radio. They were married for 13 years but the constant harassment from youths put an enormous strain on Mr James.

"Every night they were there," said former British Telecom worker Angela. "They used to shout abuse and throw stones at our windows.

"There's a cemetery at the back of our house. They used to hang out there and shine torches into Martin's bedroom at night.

"Once they tied a fishing line and hooks to our door handle. I didn't realise and I went to grab it as usual, I felt something sharp on my knuckle.

"They knew that they could wind Martin up. He just wouldn't stand for their loutish behaviour.

"The police didn't help. He even went to the parents of the yobs but they said there was nothing they could do."

--

Angela recalled how her husband had picked up the airgun to defend their property.

"Martin shot at them with an air rifle a week before he died," she said. "He aimed it above their heads so it wouldn't hit them.

"But the police later told him that he could be prosecuted.

--

Gloucestershire Police said they sympathised with Mrs James and said they had offered her husband advice on how to deal with anti-social behaviour.

Chief Insp David Peake said: "We take all such calls seriously and will investigate incidents that are reported to us."

Investigate, but do nothing to stop it.

Nor is this the first case like this. Here's another:

Let the force be with the good guys...please

What are people to do if the police can’t help them to solve major problems of lawlessness affecting their lives? Sometimes, desperation forces them to take matters into their own hands.

Bill Clifford, a 77-year-old war veteran tormented for months by local yobs who banged on his door, threw stones at his windows and shoved eggs through his letter box, eventually brandished a toy pistol at them to try to scare them into leaving him alone.

The police, who according to his brother had earlier told him that they couldn’t do anything unless Mr Clifford caught the youngsters up to their mischief, did something now. They arrested Mr Clifford and charged him.

The day before he was due to appear in court, he hanged himself in the kitchen of his one-bedroomed housing association home.

Residents of the Oxmoor estate in Huntingdon decided last Sunday afternoon that they’d had enough of the problems caused by drug dealers and addicts. They were sick of dealing taking place in public, and of discarded needles lying about the place posing a threat to their children.

“The police know it’s going on but they don’t seem bothered,” one woman told a reporter after the estate erupted into a six-hour riot.

For once, the police turned up on the estate in force. Sixty officers were called in to tackle the mob, arrest a dozen troublemakers and escort the dealers to safety.

“While we recognise the residents’ concerns and are willing to work with them, it is clearly not appropriate for them to engage in this type of behaviour,” a police spokesman warned afterwards.

And I agree. Vigilante behaviour is the start of a very slippery and dangerous slope. But I ask again, what are people supposed to do if the police won’t or can’t protect them?

If the police had acted sooner to sort out the drugs menace on the Oxmoor estate, there would have been no need for the residents to riot.

If the police had acted to protect Bill Clifford from the tearaways who were making his life such a misery, he would have had no need to try to see off the yobs with a toy pistol and would be alive now, enjoying the rest of his days in the peace which should be everyone’s right.

The police are undermanned. There is no doubt about that. They need a huge boost to their resources and I for one would have no objection to paying extra taxes to help fund it.

But they only deserve it if they’re prepared, even with the limited resources they currently have, to show more enthusiasm for looking after law-abiding citizens when they ask for their help, and less for protecting the bad guys when the long-suffering good guys finally start to stick up for themselves.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

Oh, and remember the bit about women having the inherent right to kill a rapist? Well, they really shouldn't, according to this piece:

Advice to resist sex attackers may make it worse, rape charity warns

A charity caring for rape victims warned yesterday that advice in Cosmopolitan to fight back when attacked could leave women with more injuries than offering no resistance.
"Sometimes it is far better just to let it happen and then deal with the aftermath," said Helen Jones, co-chairwoman of the Rape Crisis Federation.

She was responding to a report in the magazine of a study by US researchers who examined 1.5m cases over a decade. They found that women who offered resistance were much more likely to get away, and that whether or not women resisted a rapist had no bearing on the level of injuries they received.

They also suggested that the first five minutes of an attack were decisive, and found the best response was to go for "pain receptive targets" in an attempt to disable the attacker for as long as possible. "There are, of course, no guarantees, but one thing seems clear - it is worth fighting back," the magazine concluded.

Ms Jones, a criminologist, said that the article could leave women who had been raped feeling guilty and responsible for what had happened, because they had done nothing to beat off the attack.

"It could also increase the potential for women being harmed," she added. "It is not always right to fight back. There is a phrase put around that rape is a fate worse than death. Of course it is not.

"Every case is different, and women can only assess each particular situation and the likely danger to them if they do resist. Doing that in a split second is extremely difficult."

The magazine report suggested that effective defences included poking fingers or thumbs hard into eyes or throat, pulling hair, pulling fingers back to break, and squeezing or kicking the groin.

Self-defence tutor Floyd Brown, quoted in the magazine, said: "Remember, you are trying to maximise your safety margin. You want to disable the attacker for as long as possible while you escape."

Scott Lindquist, author of the Date Rape Prevention Book, added: "Trust your instincts. If one tactic isn't working, try another."

The report said: "Some rapists will stop when forced into adult reasoning mode and faced with the consequences of their actions. Tell him this is rape, someone will find him, he will go to prison. Other methods are throwing the rapist off guard by faking an epileptic fit or pretending to faint or urinating, defecating or sticking fingers down the throat to induce vomiting as few people can stand the smell."

Since 1985 recorded rapes in Britain have risen threefold. In 1999 the Rape Crisis Federation received 50,000 calls, yet it estimates only 6% of these women reported the assaults to the police.

Detective Chief Inspector Jim Webster, of the Metropolitan police steering group on sexual offences, said that women who were attacked could go "as far as is necessary". He said: "By law you have a basic right to defend yourself with 'reasonable means', and if the crime is rape, you can defend yourself well." He recommended all women attend a self-defence course to give them the confidence to respond quickly.

No, according to the law if the crime is rape you can defend yourself with lethal force - but apparently you're limited to using "adult reasoning" and "poking fingers or thumbs hard into eyes or throat, pulling hair, pulling fingers back to break, and squeezing or kicking the groin," none of which - last I checked - were particularly lethal.

And now let's skip to the subject of gun control in the UK, shall we? The most recently passed piece of legislation banned a certain type of "easily convertible" airgun. Yet guns, and more lethal weapons, seem pretty easy to get anyway. Here's a case where a guy was machine-gunned to death, not that this was necessarily a bad thing:

Shot man was teen rapist

The young dad gunned down on a city street was a convicted rapist, the Evening Mail can reveal today.

Dad-of-two Mohammed Sabir was involved in the gang rape of a young woman in front of her baby when he was just 15 years old. People who knew about his evil past today declared: "We are not going to mourn his death."

Sabir was riddled with bullets as he stood chatting with pals in Lozells Road on Monday night.

The 22-year-old died despite a nurse, known only as Elizabeth, giving first aid as he lay on the pavement.

A post-mortem examination revealed Sabir, who had a one-year-old daughter and a son aged four, had been hit several times in the head and chest, possibly with a mini sub-machine gun.

Police today declined to disclose his previous convictions but have already confirmed that Sabir, who lived in Lozells with his parents and young family, was known to them before he died.

And machineguns aren't all that uncommon, even though they've been banned since the 1930's. Not heavily regulated, like they are here, but completely banned:

GANG HAD MACHINE GUN

Three members of a suspected Yardie hit team who were caught with a lethal machine gun and military hardware face years behind bars.

Marvin Herbert, 30, Darryl Hewitt, 32, and Paul Murdoch, 32, were spotted by police throwing a fully-loaded Ingram machine gun and silencer over a garden wall.


Officers found the gang were also equipped with body armour, balaclavas and high-tech radio scanners programmed to listen in to police frequencies.

US Army weapon

The Ingram, a US Army issue weapon capable of firing a devastating 20 rounds a second, had its safety catch off.

Woolwich Crown Court heard the trio were stopped by police after being spotted acting suspiciously in Hargrave Park, Holloway, north London in the early hours of August 1 last year.

Mark Rainsford, prosecuting, said: "The police driver noticed that the three men stopped whatever they had been doing.

"One of the men was seen to throw a large dark object over a wall into a garden."

Stolen Mercedes

Police officers detained them and after a search, discovered the gang had dropped three balaclavas and a set of keys to a stolen Mercedes parked nearby.

The lethal machine gun was also loaded with extra-heavy Israeli-issue 'blue-tip' bullets.

They are specially designed to travel slower than the speed of sound so they do not cause a 'gun crack' sound when fired.

Herbert and Murdoch were both wearing bullet-proof body armour.

Go read the rest. Ignore the photo - that's not an Ingram, and, to my knowledge, the Ingram has never been a "US Army issue weapon."

I've covered other stories of machine-guns in England, too. There's this story of an intercepted shipment of Uzi submachineguns, and here's one about an honest-to-jebus LMG found in a London raid. Here's one where a gang went on a 'shooting rampage' across London with an SMG. There are more, but you get the idea.

Here's one that's a bit of a shocker. In addition to all the American, Israeli, and East European hardware being smuggled across the water, it seems there's a market for personal explosives, as poor Mrs. Ester Jonas discovered when someone lobbed a hand grenade into her home and took her leg. This guy was lucky - he just found one in the road. Where it came from, no one is saying. Here they found a live grenade in a railway tunnel. Of course, you don't have to import them if you can get them domestically while you're out for a beer.

But, machineguns and hand grenades aside, it doesn't seem all that difficult to get a shotgun. Or a handgun.

Because gun crime in the UK has been on the rise, according to this Telegraph piece, the money quote being:

Firearms offences in England and Wales rose from 13,874 in 1998-99 to 24,070 in 2002-03. Recorded crimes involving imitation weapons trebled from 566 to 1,815 during that period.

A separate report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, also published yesterday, showed that two thirds of gun crime was concentrated in London, Birmingham and Manchester, though it has spread to a number of other areas.

Response? Ban some airguns! This piece from October of last year puts some perspective on the problem:

We are overrun by gun crime, says police chief

A chief Constable admitted yesterday that his officers are being forced to ignore thousands of burglaries, thefts and car crimes because they are swamped by increasing drug and gun violence.

The public's perception that the police were not interested in low-level and non-violent crime was underlined when Steve Green, Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire police, said there was not enough money or officers available to investigate all crime.

The emergence of Britain's drug and gun culture had impacted on his force to such an extent that "something had to give".

Yes, Britain's draconian gun laws have worked so well in keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals the law abiding.

But this opinion piece said something I think illustrates a significant part of the problem, and I will close this post with it:

"There Was Violence Used"

For today’s liberals, crime is like the weather—it has nothing to do with human agency.

In March (2003), thieves broke into the home of Mrs. Adu-Mensah, an 83-year-old Ghanaian woman living in South London. Not content with stealing her property, they bound her hand and foot, suffocating her to death, and then set her body alight. The Independent, one of the newspapers favored by Britain’s liberal intelligentsia, reported without comment that the police were investigating the possibility that the crime was “a break-in that went wrong.” I couldn’t help thinking of the way surgical procedures with fatal outcomes used to be described: the operation was a success, but the patient died. In this case, the burglary was a success, but the householder died.

In the Independent’s report, we see how deeply and unconsciously entrenched a perverted way of thinking has become in the minds of much of the British establishment. Thugs break into an old lady’s home and murder her in the most brutal way imaginable, and the police consider her death as an unintended consequence of a normal and even acceptable event, a kind of meteorological freak accident that occurred without the intervention of human agency. A journalist, almost certainly a university graduate, accepts this without demur, because it happily coincides with his newspaper’s liberal outlook. It was not the burglars that killed Mrs. Adu-Mensah, but the burglary. A cold front brings us bad weather; a burglary brings us a charred corpse.

If caught, the perpetrators of this horrible crime will no doubt also claim that the crime went wrong, that unexpected circumstances somehow perverted their good intentions: their burglary having a kind of Platonic existence independent of their decision to commit it. In like fashion, violent men and women are likely to say that their relationships went wrong, as if relationships existed independently of how people behave toward one another. Last week, I asked a man who was complaining that his wife had deserted him whether he had ever been violent toward her.

“Yes,” he said. “There was violence used” - used, no doubt, in the course of an argument that went wrong.

Of course, man has always sought to distance himself from responsibility for his own wrongdoing by ascribing it to forces beyond his control. Is there, in fact, a man alive who has never done so? Four centuries ago, Shakespeare remarked upon the “admirable evasion of whoremaster man, to lay his goatish disposition on the charge of a star.”

What is relatively new, however, is the willingness, even eagerness, with which intellectuals endorse, promote, and validate the admirable evasion. Murders are now committed by burglaries, not by murderous burglars. Not all men are whoremasters, of course: but all too many of our intelligentsia are.

And it's bled down from the intelligentsia. Now juries can decide, 10-2, that someone who has acted defensively in the insanity of defending one's family from an intruder, that "excessive force" was used, and the defender is guilty of manslaughter.

Hindsight being 20/20, of course.

The (considerably less than) Million Moms chanted at their first (and only) big rally: "England can do it! Australia can do it! We can too!"

Not if I have any say in the matter.

As They Say in the Northeast: "Ayup."

Compare and Contrast

On the evening of May 17, a Pizza Hut delivery driver shot a robber - between 10 and 15 times. ("Why did you shoot fifteen times?" "That's all there were in the magazine!") He then picked up his assailant's firearm and drove to his place of business where he had his supervisor call the police.

On Friday, May 28, the prosecutor's office ruled that the shooting - and the subsequent actions of the shooter - were justified.

Contrast that to the piece two posts down. No charges of murder filed for "unreasonable force." No seven-week investigation. The shooter had a licensed firearm. His assailant had an unlicensed one. The shooter wasn't attacked in his home, but on the street - where, if you're in England, you're prohibited from carrying any sort of "offensive" weapon. If you actually obey the law, that is.

Now, do you think pizza delivery drivers in Indiannapolis will be more or less safe for a while?

Of course, this is just another example of the "blood in the streets" predicted by the anti-concealed carry crowd, right? Just one more example of how carrying a gun is useless, won't make you safer, and only endangers innocent people.

Right?

Damn it's tough being a "gullible gunner," but I agree with Ronald Honeycutt, the shooter who lost his job because Pizza Hut requires its delivery people to be unarmed:

Honeycutt said he was fired from his job because he had violated the store policy against carrying a gun, which he was licensed to carry.

"It's my life. I choose which policy to follow."

That's what free people do. And that's what a free society defends.

Hat tip, Kim