The people of The UK are beyond help and hope. They’ve handed their streets over to robbers, rapists, killers and even terrorists.With traditional snobbery the Brits have rejected use of force to avoid violent crime. People who dare hurt a criminal in the course of a deadly crime face years in prison as well as civil actions by the predators.
I guess the pacifists rule the UK with an insane idea that laying down playing dead and total cooperation with criminals is somehow good public policy. I’m sure the UK’s most hardened criminals love Merry Old England for its kind of misplaced benevolence.
I remember the case of an American woman who used a Swiss Army knife many years ago to fend off an attacker in the Tube. The woman’s attacker was not injured and the woman faced serious time in prison. That incident took the UK off of my tourism list but for an occasional stopover at Heathrow Airport.
Actor Rob Knox, 18 who will be seen in the November opening of the latest film in the Harry Potter franchise was stabbed to death protecting his brother from a knife attack. Others were hurt during this incident.
For those who don’t know or were influenced by too many Hollywood film productions, knives are far deadlier than guns at close range. Bullet wounds seal themselves because human tissue is elastic. Knife wounds leave blood vessels wide open and our bodies can bleed out in seconds even if vital organs are uninjured.
Now the UK is trying to bring an end to knives through more laws that criminals don’t care about. They have a big KNIFE AMNESTY program underway. The great chefs of the UK may just become the latest refugees seeking asylum in nearby countries that still value freedom.
To aid the Amnesty program police have set up airport style checkpoints to frisk citizens suspected of nothing. I ask, what are UK’s politicians smoking these days?
This is all as backwards as can be and here is a simple cure.
1. Legalize reasonable force including deadly force in self-defense and defense of others.
2. Legalize the carrying of weapons including handguns by any sane and law abiding citizen.
3. Protect crime victims from civil liability from the thugs.
4. Arm all cops 24/7
5. Allow for armed private detectives and security patrolmen.
By making these changes and putting the thugs on notice will greatly slow down this violent crime rate that has been directly tied to new laws and enforcement against self-defense.
Are the Brits so dumb they can’t figure out that Charles Darwin, not the government is policing their streets?
13 comments:
What do you think Obama has in store for us if He gets the White House. Hillary is bad enough but Obama sucks as a leader of anything that would protect us.
Everything the British Government does has one aim and one aim only: to make people dependent upon the state.
As it is, about 25% of the UK population works for or on behalf of the government. Collecting fines, fees, charges and taxes, or just in jobs with no real purpose like 'diversity'. And that includes about 1,000,000 people added since 1997.
As for law enforcement, take a look at http://www.thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com
It's hard to believe but that's written by a British Magistrate (judge) from one of the lower courts. He regularly complains about the harsh justice system in the USA. He's typical of the soft-hearted (and soft-minded) liberal intellectuals who have ruined Britain and turned it into a hell on earth for many ordinary people. He doesn't seem to mind that the career criminals who come in front of him have nothing but contempt for the whole process, and him, because they know that even after admitting as many as forty burglaries, they are most likely to be released on bail or given at most a month in jail.
Of course, if he had to be elected, like judges in the US, he wouldn't stand a chance. But since he's appointed, all that matters is that he toes the Politically Correct line imposed by his masters, and he could let Jack the Ripper loose on London, and nobody who mattered would care about it. The only people who would be affected would be the ordinary working people, and what can they do about it? That's British Justice, and British Society.
Rob was murdered by someone wielding a knife - adding guns to the mix wouldn't exactly help. We do have armed response teams if absolutely necessary.
The judicial system is not entirely to blame - soft sentences have been handed out due to prison over-crowding, due in large part to huge levels of (often desperate) immigrants heading to Britain.
The UK Government has been too leniant on immigration, through naivety, not maliciousness to its own people.
It's extremely unfair to directly blame anyone but the people carrying the knives.
Paul that's a great piece. However I'm not a fan of actors. What a sad story.
Laura,
You are incredibly brainwashed! What armed response unit can get to you before you bleed to death? You have a God given right to self-defense and must use it to survive. Waiting for the Government to come to your aid is nothing short of suicide.
Fighting for your own life and that of family members is worthwhile, even in the UK.
Why allow your government to keep only the law abiding disarmed? That’s insane!
I don't think AFV's have ever had trouble getting to someone in good time. They patrol like regular PC's, the difference being the safe in the back of the car with submachine guns and pistols. AFV's are just as likely to get to you as an ordinary response team patrol is.
@ Socialism sucks
Not to criticise you, but I'd be interested to see where you got that figure about 25% of people working for the government. Cheers very much if you can supply, would be incredibly interesting.
@ Crimefile
You argue that American legal values would work well in Britain. I would contest that, since you need greater amounts of prison space per head, and greater crime per head. Your argument that keeping the law-abiding disarmed is bad, is flawed, since most of the law-breaking are disarmed as well. Our rights to defend ourselves are there and work incredibly well. Whatever the news would have you believe, it's one in a million that using reasonable force would get you in the shit. I like your argument but you don't speak from experience or fact, simply from the viewpoint that 'American is better.' I'm quite sure you'll write me off as anti-American after that, but I'm not, that really is how you come across in this.
We do have many problems in the UK including weak sentencing by our courts, a government totally out of touch with its population and an increasingly large feral underclass whose purpose is to breed to obtain free housing and benefits.
We do not however deny decent health care to the poor, execute the mentally ill, children and those who can't afford decent legal representation, vote in as their leader a man who can't string two coherent sentences together and have 50% of its population who accept the Book of Genesis is a work of fact and then insist this is taught in schools. This isn't an anti American rant but please take a look at yourselves before having a pop at others. As a cop approaching 30 years service (27yrs front line) I love to read these blogs but some of my colleagues do overstate the problems that we face.
The streets of Britain s not as bad as you or our press portray. The use of deadly force to protect your own or another's life has been enshrined in Common Law for centuries its just that we don't think that just because someone has entered your house you can use them for target practice with whatever weapon you have available.
Compare the figures- USA about 30,000 firearms related deaths a year, UK just over 200 per year, USA firearm homicide rate 25 times more per 100,000 of population than the UK.
USA homicide rate 5.4 per 100,000 UK 1.1 per l00,000. We are told New York's streets are now safe to walk, 921 homicides in 2006, population 19.3 million, same period the UK had 765 homicides, population 60.5 million. I can see why you no longer would feel safe in the UK.
Finally, 'British snobbery' its as valid a point as we all live in castles, drink warm beer and eat terrible food. Give yourself a shake.
While I agree with some of your observations, you are wrong about self defence in the UK as is much of the media. The main problem is that many people believe all that is written and therefore are scared and/or misinformed.
When I had cause to resort to what could have been lethal force (we have a good medical service) I was rightly questioned by the police (with free legal representation), the whole incident was investigated and witnesses questioned. In the end, quite rightly no charges were brought (it did not get to trial).
The questioning was not pleasant, and I spent a nervous month awaiting a decision, but the right result was achieved. Not having faced a criminal charge in you country I can’t comment on how my situation would have been dealt with, but overall I am happy with the outcome.
"The streets of Britain s not as bad as you or our press portray. The use of deadly force to protect your own or another's life has been enshrined in Common Law for centuries its just that we don't think that just because someone has entered your house you can use them for target practice with whatever weapon you have available."
Wow! This from a veteran police officer with 30 years service? I'm in the same league, having served 30 years as a police officer in the U.S. However, I cannot fathom that a law enforcement officer, who has seen the evil that men do to each other numerous times during their career, would find it unreasonable to consider utilizing deadly force against criminals who would dare to break into their home. In the state of Illinois, that is called "home invasion", and if this happened at my home, the offenders will be met by a hail of 9mm gunfire. I can assure you that anyone breaking into an occupied residence is not there to share in your afternoon tea and crumpets.
"In the state of Illinois, that is called "home invasion", and if this happened at my home, the offenders will be met by a hail of 9mm gunfire."
This is the problem...in the US everyone and anyone is allowed a gun (they're even giving them away with cars and bank accounts!!) therefore the likelihood is that an intruder will have a weapon and you therefore need to defend yourself.
In the UK we are not daft enough to let random people have access to firearms - therefore the likelihood that someone entering your house is armed with a gun is extremely low.
As someone working for the healthcare service I can assure you that the majority of your sane and normal fellow human beings are actually complete crackpots and if you realised just how many of these appear "normal" there is no way you would let them anywhere near a gun.
"USA homicide rate 5.4 per 100,000 UK 1.1 per l00,000. We are told New York's streets are now safe to walk, 921 homicides in 2006, population 19.3 million, same period the UK had 765 homicides, population 60.5 million. I can see why you no longer would feel safe in the UK."
'Nuff said!
My one and only experience of the US has been enough to put me off from going back - the government agencies with guns feel they can treat you like cr@p and the majority of the people on the street are armed up to the eyeballs ready to screw you over for a couple of dollars.
Certainly didn't make me feel safe!
@ kyyria_6:
The basic problem with an average dialogue between U.S. and U.K. citizens concerning crime and the prevention of such is that the prejudices between the two thoroughly poison the well of discussion, leaving nothing but British accusations of "typical American cowboy antics" and "typical soft-headed British cowardice", personified by a few of the comments here, yours included.
The solution to this problem won't come from an American source -- it has to come from the Brits themselves. They and only they can solve the problem in a manner that is satisfactory to them. It would be ridiculous for me to force upon my British counterparts the solutions to high crime rates as implemented in the U.S. It would also be equally ridiculous for the British to chastise and admonish us over how we handle such situations when they don't even have a good grip on it themselves.
In short, the answer will have to come from within the British. I only hope that it's one that effectively works.
When it comes right down to protecting one’s own self or family, there is no middle ground. Disallowing weapons for personal protection such as knives and guns is asking people to accept rape, death and dismemberment at the hands of violent criminals.
America’s violence problem is relative to weapon bans. Where there is little or no weapon bans or enforcement there is little crime. The opposite is true in the places where weapon laws are vigorously enforced.
My life and that of my family will always be placed in front of any laws of any government. The sheep of America and the UK deserve the blight and violence they have tolerated through laws that only protect criminals.
The UK is ass backwards as those people protect criminals from their victims instead of the other way around.
I have to agree with Laura. Even if Britons were given privilege or right to bear arms, the majority still would not carry. It is not part of their heritage, and on average do not consider a firearm a weapon of self-defense. Their weapon of choice is a knife. In fact self-defense was not even considered when in June 1997, Members of Parliament voted to ban all handguns in the United Kingdom in response to the Dunblane massacre. The following year after 1997 ban, the number of people in England and Wales injured by firearms equaled only 2,378 incidents. Yet, injury incidents increased to 5,001 between 2005 and 2006. Why the increase? Obviously, it is do to poor firearm training among persons still owning firearms. In the U.S. we teach gun safety almost religiously with government support. Since, the ban, UK gun owners have not had the same kind of support, and therefore, have lost that respect ingrained in Americans from childhood. Finally, as an American with the right to bear arms, I would never give up my guns just do to principal!
Post a Comment