We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
A Canadian Samizdata reader alerted Samizdata to a story in Canada’s National Post. The Post reports that costs for Canada’s gun registry have overrun by a factor of 500. No, that’s not an overrun of 500% (which would be bad enough) but a final cost of five hundred times the original estimate. Did I say final? I meant cost so far; it’s not final yet.
Well, at least Canadians are safe now. Only they’re not. He adds:
“Herewith is another example of why gun registration programs don’t work. Canada has a history different from the US with respect to firearms (which explains, in large part, why this became law in the first place). I think that violent, gun-related crime in Canada’s urban centers has probably increased since 1995 (but I don’t have any hard evidence to support this assertion). I can say that, in Toronto, there was a series of gang related shooting in October where every weekend (for a month) different gang members ended up dead in different parts of the city. Further to this, the gun control law has had no impact on the Hell’s Angels in Montreal.”
As chance would have it I had posted earlier today about how Simon Jenkins of the Times should not believe all that Michael Moore says about Canada being a paradise of trust. Moore is right about one thing. America does have an anomalously high murder rate. But all the strategies put in place by countries who boast that their lower murder rate is the result of gun control, and that they therefore need more of it, keep on failing. Expensively.
That would have been a good sign-off line, but I’ve one more thing to say. I was struck by the sentiments of Allan Rock, a Liberal Party bigshot who the opposition attacked for keeping mum about the spiralling costs of the gun registry. The report said:
Mr. Rock defended the registry, saying it has “saved lives” and reinforced “Canadian values” by distinguishing Canada from the United States on the issue of gun control.
Were his actual words as thin and shabby as this paraphrase implies? Does he really see mere difference to the United States as a merit in itself?
I don’t recall ever having reproduced an article in full on this blog and, only on the rare occasion, will I publish a letter in full. This is one such occasion and the quality of the letter merits it:
Modern changes ignore old gun laws
“Sir – Alan Judd is hesitant to advocate a “firearms free-for-all” (Comment, Dec 2), but one might recall that, before the First World War, when almost any British citizen could possess and carry any gun without a licence (and frequently did so, for there was a massive domestic firearms industry), armed crime in London ran at only two per cent of what it is today.
In 1946, the year the Home Office first moved against the licensing of pistols for self-defence, there were only 25 armed robberies in London: today, we have more than that every fortnight.
Confusion over our right to self-defence has not arisen because, as Mr Judd at one point suggests, we have “renounced” that capability. It is a right enshrined in our central constitutional document, the Bill of Rights of 1689, which is still in force as statute law. The right to possess arms for self-defence was one of only two rights of the individual guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and was indeed the ultimate surety of the subject’s other liberties.
While it had been the Restoration disarmament of Protestants that provoked the arms provision of the Bill of Rights, the equal right of Catholics to self-defence was guaranteed in the same year, and case law upheld the right to bear arms for self-defence through to the 20th century.
When the first Firearms Act was introduced in 1920, it was recognised that the normal justification for owning a revolver was self-defence; it was only in 1946 that the Labour Home Secretary indicated that this would no longer necessarily be accepted as a good reason.
When the Home Office advised Lord Cullen, in the prelude to the pistol ban of 1997, that “as a matter of policy” British law did not permit the citizen any weapons for self-defence, it was therefore asserting a new policy without legal foundation that simply chose to ignore the Bill of Rights.
It is the text of a letter written to the Daily Telegraph by a gentleman called Richard Munday whom I know not but admire much, not just because he is correct, but also because he has not forgotten his heritage.
Unlike our political rulers and most of fellow citizens who have shed their birthright like dead skin in the headlong rush to serfdom. But despite having been so outrageously and cynically trampled underfoot the 1689 Bill of Rights is still the law of the land and it does, indeed, bestow on every citizen the right and ability to defend their life, liberty and property.
However, the Bill of Rights is an Act of Parliament and, since no parliament can bind its successors, it could easily be repealed by another Act of Parliament. The fact that it has not yet been so repealed is doubtless due to the Old Bill being more honoured in the breach than in the observance.
So dragging the glorious old Bill of Rights from its musty chest and waving it in the face of the policeman who will come to arrest you for exercising your rights is all very back-stiffening in theory and may earn your day in Court to shout your case. But, in practice, the merest hint of any such happening would spur HMG into passing a repealing Act which would sail smartly through the House of Glove Puppets with nary a whisper of dissent nor a turn of a single hair.
And that would be that. Back to square one.
Still, the publication of Mr.Munday’s most righteous missive brings a twitch to my jowels. It proves that some people have not buckled to the maladies of crass hysteria and infantile paranoia. Some people remember what freedom really means and more and more of them are prepared to shout it from the rooftops.
Instapundit reports that the Cato Institute is having a go at gun control in their nation’s capital city. Makes sense. The media people don’t have to go far for the story, unless they’re scared of course, what with the law not having yet been changed the way it should be.
Reynolds links to Fox News, who make it clear that Cato is really rolling up its sleeves and getting stuck in to the issue.
The CATO Institute, a public policy research group that bases its work on libertarian principles, is crafting a legal challenge to Washington, D.C.’s law, claiming that all Americans have the right to defend themselves.
“The Second Amendment provides an individual right for a person to bare arms, not a collective right, not a right of the states, not a right of the militia, but a right on each and every person,” said Bob Levy, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at CATO.
I don’t think that’s quite what Bob Levy said. Seriously, I never thought I’d see this particular spelling mistake done for real.
I briefly toyed with the idea of posting this under the ‘Humour’ category but, the trouble is, I am not making this up. I couldn’t possibly make this up.
In a country where virtually all forms of private firearm ownership have been outlawed, there was a march today in South-East London by a group calling itself ‘Mothers Against Guns’ in protest at rising gun violence.
But that thigh-slapping irony descends into tragi-farce:
“The march had to be re-routed away from the crime scene of the early morning shooting outside Pharaoh’s Pub in Peckham Road.
Police confirmed one man was killed on the spot and that another was in a stable condition in hospital after the incident.
Sometimes I feel as if this isn’t a nation anymore. More like an open-air Theatre of the Absurd.
This poster can be seen all over London. In it a young man standing at a bus stop chats on his mobile phone, a sight one sees all the time on London’s busy streets.
What the Metropolitan Police are saying is that doing this, talking on a mobile phone in London, in public, is unwise behaviour. Okay, fair enough, London is a big city and all big cities have their fair share of street crime, so what is the problem with this message from the boys in blue?
The problem I have is that this poster is not warning criminals who might attack us and steal our phones of the sure vengeance of the law. Not it is calling on us all to refuse to tolerate thieves in our midst and to resist to the best of our ability. Hell, how about suggesting “if you have a mobile phone in your hand and you either witness a mugging in progress or think you are in danger, dial 999 and the Police, whose paychecks and cars with flashing lights come from your taxes, will come rushing to the rescue”.
No, it does not say that at all. The real message here from our appointed protectors is not “we will protect you from crime” and certainly not “protect yourself from street crime”, but rather HIDE from street crime.
OUT OF SIGHT IS SAFER
The state cannot protect you, it will not permit you to protect yourself effectively, so all it can do is offer advice… and the advice is hide. Do not show anyone you have something worth stealing. I expect we will soon see posters across London saying “it is safer not to wear Armani suits, you might get mugged” and then “don’t wear short skirts, you might get raped” and finally “don’t go out at all, the streets are not safe”.
Perhaps when the state has taxed everything and we no longer have anything left to hide, we will indeed have ‘safer streets’.
The state is not your friend.
Does anybody else recall reading this rather doom-laden analysis written by John Derbyshire?.
I seem to remember that Mr.Derbyshire was treated to something of a rotten tomato-splattering from much of Blogland in response to his heretical pessimism. Whilst I must admit that it makes for a sobering read (to say the least) there was one prediction which struck me as all too plausible:
“Actual crime — murder, rape, robbery, burglary, and assault — will skyrocket, but it will be illegal to talk about it.”
That plausibility began to look like distinct possibility when I read this:
“An editor whose newspapers print lists of local crimes has claimed the police are trying to gag him.”
Now that’s not quite the same as making it illegal, but the impulse is apparent.
“Andy Jackson of Avon and Somerset Police said: “We do not want a blanket list of crimes because we don’t benefit from that.”
No, I’m sure you don’t benefit from that, Mr.Jackson. After all, if the tax-cattle are exposed to the reality they might begin to wonder what the hell they’re paying you for.
“We wanted to present it in a responsible way so readers weren’t alarmed by large volumes of crime.”
Note: no denial that there are ‘large volumes’ of crime, merely a plea for the statistics to be presented in a responsible manner (whatever that means).
And so it begins. And Mr.Derbyshire, if he ever reads this, might feel just a little vindicated.
[My thanks to Chris Tame of the Libertarian Alliance for the link to the BBC story above]
The National Ammo Day BUYcott is today, November 19th. Remember all those people in other nations who have been disarmed by their governments when you stock up on a few boxes of your favorite 9mm and 308 Win.
No retreat. No surrender.
I walked past the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police Service in Victoria Street yesterday and saw giant banners telling citizens not to call the emergency services number 999. The advice was that “unless a crime is being committed or a person is in immediate danger” one should call the local police station.
If I understand this notice correctly, if I should observe a murder being committed in the street outside my window, and I am quite sure the victim is dead (e.g. by being decapitated with a machete), and the murderer flees the scene of the crime, then I must not call the emergency services or risk being arrested for wasting valuable police time. Instead I should attempt to contact my local police station which is normally either shut, or the fearless crimefighters are hiding in back offices compiling hate crime statistics. As the typical response time for calling my local police station is never (at least on the three occasions in the past five years that I tried that route), this means that the police don’t want forensic evidence, and the corpse is presumably a problem for the road sweepers.
With the abolition of the right to silence, police licence to shoot people in the street for no good reason, and the removal of double jeopardy, there doesn’t seem to be much point in wasting time on detective work to actually try to find out who is really committing a crime.
Meanwhile hate crimes have their own hotline. This is useful. I’ve been bored with the usual tiresome ethnic jokes for some time. The fact that one can be arrested for telling a joke which someone finds offensive on the grounds of race, gender, and sexuality will obviously make London a safer place to live.
An investor of a company well known to us is being sued: the classic tactics of a certain over the edge group. Read this. Make sure you save a personal copy of the page.
Need I say more?
Here’s a meme (“a pack not a herd”) that I’d like to see run wild. And allow me also to refer back to this and to this, a single piece by me in two fragments from the Samizdata archives (from before we had the “MORE” routine in place).
Says Glenn Reynolds (for it is he):
… After repeatedly slipping through the fingers of law enforcement, John Muhammad and Lee Salvo were caught because leaked information about the suspects’ automobile and license number was picked up by members of the public, one of whom spotted the car within hours and alerted the authorities – blocking the exit from the rest area with his own vehicle to make sure they didn’t escape. …
… So while Chief Moose and the other talking heads were holding press conferences in which they castigated the press for reporting information, they should have been figuring out how to take advantage of the vast resources that a mobilized public can command. But the officials didn’t want to, for fearof “vigilantes”. Luckily for them, a leak saved the day. …
… Rather than creating new bureaucracies, we need to be looking at ways of promoting fast-moving, dispersed responses, responses that will involve members of the public as a pack, not a herd. Even if doing so reduces the career satisfaction of shepherds. …
In other words and to extrapolate the principle only somewhat, what if security, catching bad guys, the very law itself maybe, turn out to be like the economy? What if, like the economy, the criminal justice system (and most certainly the criminal detection system) can’t be or – more modestly – works far better when not centrally planned? Oh sure, there’d be a mass of “waste and duplication of effort” in a free market in public safety, just as there is now in the electric kettle industry. But good electric kettles are not now hard to find, the way they would be in a world run by the likes of the F(ederal) B(ureau of electric) K(ettles). So …
About a week ago I posted a brand-X piece about armed citizenry (wisdom and virtue of), but included a not quite brand-X question: does anyone know of any website/blog/compendium of links to individual stories of guns used successfully for self-defence? There were a few comments, including this from themic:
The best way to find regular stories about guns saving lives of good guys is to rely on the abilities of thousands of bored people who are connected to the internet and have a common interest.
So, I recommend checking out Packing, a website dedicated to keeping track of concealed permit laws here in the US. Click on “Gun Talk” and scour the headlines that people post throughout the day… you can usually find at least a couple per day, that were actually referenced in the media somewhere (!).
Here in the US, it’s generally thought that guns are used defensively 2 – 2.5 millions times per year (but rarely actually fired).
I can point you to some more links if you want. I keep track of this stuff because I’m often bored and on the internet.
To my shame I didn’t email any encouragement back to him, and that was that, until today, when themic came back with a further comment:
I have doubts that anyone will read this anymore, as it come a bit late … but i stumbled upon the absolute best place website that tracks firearms used defensively.
I share these doubts, which is why I’ve rescued the comment and its link from the oblivion of being attached to a week-old posting and put it here.
Changing the subject somewhat, on his own blog themic also supplies a link to this – as he rightly calls it – creepy website, that backs up that creepy poster first encountered and photographed by Perry, and copied ever since by bloggers everywhere.
UPDATE. Quote from keepandbeararms.com:
What We Do
We seek and find current news stories recounting true events of lawful, decent citizens using firearms to defend themselves, their loved ones, others and property — and channel it back to this central location to assure maximum exposure of these events in a timely and efficient manner.
That’s exactly what I was asking someone to be doing. (How nice it would be if some Americans actually heard about this site for the first time from here. Usually all the information and explanation flows in the other direction.)
Justice Barker has a curious notion of the law. Last time I thought about wandering the streets of London with a crowbar, I remembered that if I were found to be in possession of such an object, that I would be charged with possesion of a dangerous weapon.
A Londoner was recently shot several times by armed police for carrying a table leg: that murder however was entirely justified, according to one of Mr Justice Barker’s colleagues. So presumably the intruder teleported the crowbar into his victim’s home using equipment from the 25th century.
Also, presumably I would be allowed to carry a machete, crowbar or table leg around Mr Justice Barker’s home at 3am, but not in my front garden at 3pm. Perhaps a group of squatters might like to find out where Mr Barker lives and turn up at about 3am with plumbing tools and invite themselves in for a cup of tea.
I assume that Mr Barker thinks there is no difference between this and the “right to roam”. And to think there are people who want the UK to have more common law? With barking Barkers on the judges’ benches, who could tell the difference?
Anyone believe that a future Conservative government would amnesty self-defence prisoners of conscience? Ha!
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
