Samizdata points out that Tony Martin has been denied parole, largely because he refuses to apologise for defending himself and his home.
The Tony Martin case highlights why the right to self defense is so important: The police cannot be there to protect you all the time.
Surprise, surprise. Lie through your teeth about your deep regret for having mugged granny and beaten her black and blue for the 20p she has left of her pension after the government and concil have taken their cut, and you can go on your way sonny, don’t worry about the other half of your sentance. By the way, would you like to sue granny for having forced you to beat her senseless to get your hard earned 20p?
Now sir, I see you decided to take the law into your own hands and defend everything you’ve worked for for 40 years, against some naughty chaps who were exercising their right to take it from you. Now come on, sir, just admit you were in the wrong in impeding them and we’ll let you out. What’s that? You were within your rights? You’d do the same again? Right, back to the cells for you sir…
I mean, come on people. This is the 21st century, not the 19th or earlier. These people aren’t stealing to feed themselves, they do it because they know the legal system won’t punish them.
I think all judge should be made to live on council estates. Maybe after their Jauguar, paid for by the taxpayer of course, has been keyed for the 10th time, they might decide to get tough…
“A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged” as the quote says. Last week’s Independent newspaper revealed that a government (Labour, of course) working party has decided that burglars are ordinary member of the public who need protecting from violent householders.
Britain is a sick place right now.
I like that you’re all coming around to my point of view that people should be allowed to use firearms as a means of self defense. Excellent!
Since when Self-defense applies to someone who shot someone else in the back ? Protecting your life is right, I do not believe that Tony Martin’s life was at risk when he killed, therefore he should stay in jail for a very long time !
It’s an interesting point. One of the burglars was shot in the back, the other in the leg. I’ve always said that the main advantage of a gun as a weapon is that the mere threat of it is enough – it should rarely need to be fired.
But the question is, how accountable should you be for your actions when you’re defending your home? Think about this: You’re lying in bed at night, and you hear someone breaking in downstairs. You’re going to be absolutely terrified. You don’t know who these guys are or what they’re trying to do, how desperate they are, or whether they’re armed. It’s a survival situation, and a split second could mean the difference between life and death.
It was two youths against an older man. How much of a position is he in to wait and see what they do? To what extent should he have to? Was the guy he shot turning around to run away, or to pick up a weapon?
Next time you’re lying in bed at night, imagine you can hear people moving in your house. How would you feel? If it was me, I wouldn’t be too concerned for _their_ welfare.
You say, “I do not believe that Tony Martin’s life was at risk when he killed”. At the time, I think Tony Martin had reason to believe rather differently.
You are making a good point. A weapon in the hand of someone scared and untrained is dangerous. That’s why most civilized country have banned them. I also don’t believe that Tony Martin was really scared, I think that he felt powerfull with a shoot-gun in his hand and that he wanted to do his own justice, mainly vengeance in this case. One shot in the air would have been enough to scare them to death. Instead he decided to execute them. But for some people, it is acceptable, a TV set is far less important than a life …
“A weapon in the hand of someone scared and untrained is dangerous.”
Which is precisely why it’s a bad idea to burgle, mug or rape someone who has a gun. And why there would be less crime if more people could arm themselves.
“I also don’t believe that Tony Martin was really scared”
Unfortunately there’s not much evidence one way or another on that point. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt.
You seem to be seeing the world as full of mostly evil people who given the chance would do you and each other harm and are only rendered safe because the government protects them from themselves.
I see the world as full of mostly good, benevolent people who by being disarmed are sometimes rendered victims of a tiny minority of criminals. Criminals who are free to take whatever they want, because woe betide anyone who tries to stop them.
What a Funny argument ! Why, When I say that a burglar stilling a TV shouldn’t being killed, you understand that I mean “Criminals who are free to take whatever they want, because woe betide anyone who tries to stop them” ? At school when a kid took your lunch box, did you cut their arm … I don’t think so. Knowing you are right, doesn’t make every thing you do in consequence right !!!!! I know a country who think the same way, you kill 1 of us, we kill 4 of yours … watch the result on TV every night.
I agree that theives don’t deserve to be killed. I do, however, think you should have the right to defend yourself against those who threaten your life, the lives of loved ones, and even property (not all self defense is lethal).
Taking away that right in case some burglars get unnecessarily killed is not good trade-off. It is unfair to assume that I am too dangerous to be allowed to defend myself, while giving burglars the benefit of the doubt.
Since there are more good people than bad people, the mere threat of armed resistance would prevent much crime before it happened. A lack of such a threat makes criminals free to take whatever they want.
I agree that theives don’t deserve to be killed. I do, however, think you should have the right to defend yourself against those who threaten your life, the lives of loved ones, and even property (not all self defense is lethal).
Taking away that right in case some burglars get unnecessarily killed is not good trade-off. It is unfair to assume that I am too dangerous to be allowed to defend myself, while giving burglars the benefit of the doubt.
Since there are more good people than bad people, the mere threat of armed resistance would prevent much crime before it happened. A lack of such a threat makes criminals free to take whatever they want.
The threat should be the police, not the home owner.
Where do you think it is safer to live, swisserland, sueden or the US ? You will find that the safest places are countries with very little poverty, a good education and not with big guns !
Well, the trouble with the police is that they can’t be there all the time. So they mostly turn up after the crime is already done which is too late.
My mother relates an anecdote about an aquaintance who called the police to report burglars in his garden shed. The police told him that unfortunately there was no one in the area. When he called the police back to let them know he’d made a citizen’s arrest with his shotgun, squad cars appeared five minutes later. He was chastised by the police for his actions, but the burglar was caught!
You’re right about education and wealth, of course. These things are important for a low crime rate.
Oh, by the way. Switzerland has very relaxed gun laws. Here is an interesting Wall Street Journal article comparing the US and Switzerland:
http://www.theblessingsofliberty.com/articles/article11.html
Sweden has stricter gun laws and more crime than both Norway and Finland.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds39.html
The British police force do not exist to protect the public. They are not there to keep the peace. They do not attempt to prevent petty crime. They exist only to collect up the pieces after a crime, and arrest the most convenient party (id est, the generally law abiding who will give them less trouble). Anyone who thinks they are anything else is naive in the extreme.
What bothers me about mealy-mouthed liberals is the attitude that “property is not worth a life” – whilst failing to realise that having spent a portion of your life earning (you know, that weird thing some people do instead of stealing or insisting that the state somehow owes them) the money to afford a television – not to mention the insurance against theft that such a purchase requires – they are stealing a portion of your life that no insurance will ever get back.
Tony Martin deserved a conviction for posession of a shotgun he was not legally entitled to posess. And a medal for adding some bleach to the gene pool.
I love my country – I fear my government.
If I understand properly :
TV = £500 = £15 * 33.3 hours of work = 1 life
What you are saying is that a week of your working time is more important than 1 life. If you don’t find the “sadness” of this, I am not surprised that some people kill for a fiver.
I don’t think the point is that it’s worth killing for a TV. I think the point is that it’s not worth trying to steal a TV if it might get you killed.
If you catch someone stealing your TV, are you really going to just let the thief take it, or are you going to try to stop them?
OK, from the top:
If someone breaks into your property whilst you are present, there is nothing unreasonable in assuming they are prepared to use force against you. It is also not unreasonable to assume they are armed to deal with the minority of uppity householders who may feel they have a right to interfere in the aforementioned scrote’s chosen trade.
Therefore, if someone breaks into my house, they will be apprehended. If they offer me violence, they will receive enough in return to prevent them. “Prevent” has many connotations.
You, on the other hand, are quite at liberty (no pun intended, as you seem determined to forgo yours) to offer them your television, your telephone and your girlfriend. After they are done with them, you can call the police – who will tell you it is your own fault for owning property in the first place. Except – you can’t, because your phone has also been stolen. Even if you were even in a fit state to use it after the event.
I get the distinct impression you have never been directly on the receiving end of a burglary. As such, you can’t possibly understand what it really means.
Criminals place no value on the lives of the law abiding – it is time the law returned that favour.
“I like that you’re all coming around to my point of view that people should be allowed to use firearms as a means of self defense. Excellent!”
Nowhere have i said that, nor do i agree with that statement. Firearms are the last things that should be allowed into the hands of the public – how long would it be before burglars started brandishing their legally bought guns when breaking into a house?
The only thing that allowing the general public to arm themselves will achieve is more gun deaths through accidents, mis-understandings, kids getting hold of guns, police not knowing who’s a criminal and who’s a law-abiding citizen who happens to be waving their gun around… It’s a downward spiral
Nice to see that someone (cerebros!) understands the drawbacks.
I would like to apologize to “ThePresentOccupier” for my poor use of the English language (bloody foreigners!) because he obsiously did not understand me. Let me try again quickly:
- Anyone should be able to defend themself at a similar level of the attack (like killing if life is at risk).
- Guns are too dangerous to be in everybody’s hand. Look at the violence in football stadium or outside pubs, imagine the same with some guns in the middle of this, progress ?!?
- I do beleive that comment like “adding some bleach to the gene pool” is scary and stupid, and it does show how little you understand the root of the problem (violence etc..).
Cerebros: I know you didn’t say that; I was being provocative. On the other hand, you didn’t outright condemn Martin either, so you presumably have some sympathy for him. How a 55 year old man with heart problems is supposed to defend himself against three yoofs without using a firearm I don’t know…
I don’t believe making firearms available to the general public would be the downward spiral you describe. Criminals already have ready access to guns. Arming the general public would increase the risk of crime to the point that most would no longer be worthwhile. In a study comparing US states, John Lott found that those with the most relaxed gun laws have the least crime.
There will likely be more gun accidents, but I think the benefits would greatly outweigh the costs. To put what you said in context, I regularly spend entire days in the company of over a hundred people walking around in a field all “armed” with shotguns. Do I feel in danger? No. How many clay pigeon shooting related deaths have you heard about?
Having lived in this country rather longer, and in a greater variety of communities than certain imports I could mention, I understand the root causes of the problem pretty well. Bleach & gene pools still applies. The state is not fit to tell me that *I* am unfit to use a firearm (I was when it suited them, now I have to jump through hoops).
Regardless – I see the Home Orifice has released a study demonstrating that pensioners who are burgled are more likely to die early than those who are not.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3018658.stm
Looks like that TV is worth a whole life after all, as opposed to my partial estimation.
And some more…
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits/db020206.htm
51% of people at home during a burglary???
I had no idea the figures were so high. Still, with the criminals’ carte blanche to do what they want, I suppose I shouldn’t be quite so suprised.