brought to us by The Englishman:
Illegally held guns are flooding Britain’s inner cities and a spate of fatal shootings in London has highlighted gun culture’s allure to disaffected youth. This comes despite the best efforts of the law and its enforcers to restrict the supply of guns. Yet, any man, woman or street urchin could own a gun in Victorian Britain — at least until 1870 when a licence fee was charged if they wanted to carry the weapon outside their home. And, surprisingly, there was very little gun crime.
Personally, I don't think it's surprising at all; someone checked the actual homicide rate of Tombstone, AZ back in the wild days and it was very low. And most were between gang members and general outlaw types(sound familiar?).
Well worth reading. Then go read Kim, who has some interesting comparisons and comments.
Yeah, I'm late on this. I first saw it a couple of days ago, late so I didn't post on it then. Yesterday had a couple of things I HAD to take care of, and being the the final(I hope) throes of whatever plague is going around, by the time I was done I gave up, read a bit and crashed. So I'm getting it done today.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Damn you, Goreacle!
I was expecting a visit from the Brown Truck of Happiness yesterday, bringing a package of goodies from Brownell's. But I get home and no package! No Brown Truck has come! So I turn on the computer and check the tracking and find Rescheduled in the delivery. Why?
ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS CAUSED THIS DELAY
Oh, joy. I'd planned on opening my box and checking out the goodies, hitting the grocery store, making dinner and spending the rest of the evening using my new stuff. But NOOOO.
For all the Globulist Warmering doomtalking, you'd think the damn blizzards would be over by now, or at least changed to drowning rain(got to make those sea levels rise somehow, you know). But no. The Goreacle is going to freeze the whole place if he keeps this up.
ADVERSE WEATHER CONDITIONS CAUSED THIS DELAY
Oh, joy. I'd planned on opening my box and checking out the goodies, hitting the grocery store, making dinner and spending the rest of the evening using my new stuff. But NOOOO.
For all the Globulist Warmering doomtalking, you'd think the damn blizzards would be over by now, or at least changed to drowning rain(got to make those sea levels rise somehow, you know). But no. The Goreacle is going to freeze the whole place if he keeps this up.
Monday, March 05, 2007
The son has been heard from
New friends and nice things to play with
It seems some friendlies showed up at the range while they were qualifying and, after business was taken care of, some "Can I try that?" went on. It's a G36(more on it here) and he said it's an interesting piece.
Yes, as you may be able to tell, he's doing just fine.
Cable damascus
It's what it sounds like, instead of bars or sheets of steel you take one or more pieces of cable, forge-weld them into a bar and then forge it into a blade. Makes a nice 'snakeskin' pattern when it's etched.
It has one real problem in the making that's worse than a standard pattern-welded piece: getting and keeping crap out of the pieces. With standard you can clean the bars, stack them together, heat and flux and the flux both carries out any traces of scale or whatever from between pieces and seals the surface(until you hammer it and drive the stuff out and off). When cable comes to you, brand new it'll be greasy; used, greasy and cruddy with the stuff having worked all through the wires.
Cleaning the stuff out of new isn't too bad, use a good degreaser, soak it in kerosene or whatever. Old cable, it's a bit more involved. I've read of everything from degreaser, boiling it in soapy water and pretty much anything else you can think of. What I used to do was fairly simple, since I used new cable: I burned it off. Be warned, smoky and smelly, but it works. I'd stick about six inches into a low fire and let it burn out, then push the next six in and so forth until the whole piece was done(I usually used about an eighteen inch piece). This does have the bad point of sometimes leaving some ash inside, but the fluxing seemed to take care of it nicely. Also, if you used low heat the grease tended to melt and run out before it burned, leaving the inside pretty clean. Several smiths I've read of would take a day to burn clean and flux a lot of cable, so as to have enough to keep them a while.
To flux it- I used borax- first I'd get the very end to welding heat and set the weld. Then heat a few inches to low red and unwind the section slightly(doesn't take much) and, while still good and hot, sprinkle it heavily with borax; you want the stuff to melt and flow throughout. Repeat heating and fluxing if needed, then twist it back as tight as you can. Move to the next section and repeat.
Remember, the flux does two things: it seals the surface of the steel to keep scale from forming, and it causes impurities that may be trapped between pieces to melt at a lower temperature than otherwise, which means when you hammer it the liquid flux and impurities(if any) spray out. Yes, it will burn the crap out of you, an apron and eye protection highly recommended.
To actually make the billet, I'd heat four to six inches of cable up to welding heat and hammer it from the welded end back the first pass, then turn it 90-degrees and go back up the other way; remember, this has to both set the weld and drive out the flux. When this section cooled I'd inspect, and if well set I'd do the next section.
When I had enough for the purpose, I'd fold it two or more times- usually in a 'Z' shape- then flux and weld that into one piece. Then I'd fold that once more, either in half or three and weld it again. You have to be CERTAIN that you've closed any voids between wires and driven all the flux and any impurities out.
When done, you'll have a solid bar of sufficient mass for the blade you want to make, and forge it out, heat treat and so forth as you would any other.
I haven't made any of this in a while and have no pictures, but I did find this picture at this man's site:
This is a beautiful example, with a section of cable left on to make the hilt.
You can make it as I described, or you can cut pieces of cable and wire or arc-weld them around a bar for a handle(which is the first way I read about this being done). In the latter case, one man I saw some information on took one-inch cable, cut four pieces about four inches long, arc-welded them to a handle and brought the whole mess up to heat and did the billet making with a power hammer(Damn, the times I've wished for one of those...).
Besides a different appearance, some who've used it say they've found blades made this way to be a bit more aggressive in cutting; I never tested for that so I can't say. Although if I'm able to make some more, I'll give it a shot.
That's really about it, fairly simple process. Just remember that bit from Murphy's Laws of Combat: the simple things are never easy.
It has one real problem in the making that's worse than a standard pattern-welded piece: getting and keeping crap out of the pieces. With standard you can clean the bars, stack them together, heat and flux and the flux both carries out any traces of scale or whatever from between pieces and seals the surface(until you hammer it and drive the stuff out and off). When cable comes to you, brand new it'll be greasy; used, greasy and cruddy with the stuff having worked all through the wires.
Cleaning the stuff out of new isn't too bad, use a good degreaser, soak it in kerosene or whatever. Old cable, it's a bit more involved. I've read of everything from degreaser, boiling it in soapy water and pretty much anything else you can think of. What I used to do was fairly simple, since I used new cable: I burned it off. Be warned, smoky and smelly, but it works. I'd stick about six inches into a low fire and let it burn out, then push the next six in and so forth until the whole piece was done(I usually used about an eighteen inch piece). This does have the bad point of sometimes leaving some ash inside, but the fluxing seemed to take care of it nicely. Also, if you used low heat the grease tended to melt and run out before it burned, leaving the inside pretty clean. Several smiths I've read of would take a day to burn clean and flux a lot of cable, so as to have enough to keep them a while.
To flux it- I used borax- first I'd get the very end to welding heat and set the weld. Then heat a few inches to low red and unwind the section slightly(doesn't take much) and, while still good and hot, sprinkle it heavily with borax; you want the stuff to melt and flow throughout. Repeat heating and fluxing if needed, then twist it back as tight as you can. Move to the next section and repeat.
Remember, the flux does two things: it seals the surface of the steel to keep scale from forming, and it causes impurities that may be trapped between pieces to melt at a lower temperature than otherwise, which means when you hammer it the liquid flux and impurities(if any) spray out. Yes, it will burn the crap out of you, an apron and eye protection highly recommended.
To actually make the billet, I'd heat four to six inches of cable up to welding heat and hammer it from the welded end back the first pass, then turn it 90-degrees and go back up the other way; remember, this has to both set the weld and drive out the flux. When this section cooled I'd inspect, and if well set I'd do the next section.
When I had enough for the purpose, I'd fold it two or more times- usually in a 'Z' shape- then flux and weld that into one piece. Then I'd fold that once more, either in half or three and weld it again. You have to be CERTAIN that you've closed any voids between wires and driven all the flux and any impurities out.
When done, you'll have a solid bar of sufficient mass for the blade you want to make, and forge it out, heat treat and so forth as you would any other.
I haven't made any of this in a while and have no pictures, but I did find this picture at this man's site:
This is a beautiful example, with a section of cable left on to make the hilt.
You can make it as I described, or you can cut pieces of cable and wire or arc-weld them around a bar for a handle(which is the first way I read about this being done). In the latter case, one man I saw some information on took one-inch cable, cut four pieces about four inches long, arc-welded them to a handle and brought the whole mess up to heat and did the billet making with a power hammer(Damn, the times I've wished for one of those...).
Besides a different appearance, some who've used it say they've found blades made this way to be a bit more aggressive in cutting; I never tested for that so I can't say. Although if I'm able to make some more, I'll give it a shot.
That's really about it, fairly simple process. Just remember that bit from Murphy's Laws of Combat: the simple things are never easy.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
What hath the GFWs wrought?
A buttload of people buying guns and ammo
Gun show this weekend, and my Dad was able to get up here for it. Small show(I'll get into that later), but busy as hell. We got there a little after it opened at 9, not too many people: by 11 when we left for lunch it was packed. Young, old, men & women, etc., and lots of buying going on; guns and ammo being carried out in large numbers.
You always have to be careful at shows, there's always some people pricing things for more than they're worth. Noticed two things on this line: more people doing this, and their prices were higher. Which, unless you have something someone is just dying for, means people buy from someone else. Some guy was selling 500-packs of 7.62x39 for $120(gack!) or $5/box. Don't think he sold much of it. Someone else was selling Mosin Nagant M44 rifles for $125.
On the other hand...
Place called Big Boy's Toys here in town had a bunch of stuff, including DPMS AR15 rifles in various configurations, including a 16 or 18" barrel carbine with collapsing stock, 2 magazines, cleaning kit and a hard case for $695; if I were in the market for one and had the cash I'd have checked that out. Some other people had good prices on things, too. Higher than in the past overall, but realistic-level higher, not "I'm gonna gouge people while they're worried" higher. Lots of used stuff, including a guy who had both a 9mm and a .45acp Marlin Camp Carbine in very nice condition for a very good price.
Overall, it proved something someone said a few years back: the GFW politicians are a businessman's best friend in one way: every time they open their mouth and start making threats and demands, business goes up.
On the small size, you've got three groups that have been doing shows in town. One of them does two shows a year, spring and fall- sometimes one or two more during the year- and they're always good sized with lots of dealers. The other two seem to alternate doing a show every 2-3 weeks, and because of that they're almost always small. Guy that did this weeks show for example: every so often one of his is big and busy, but most are like today, not too many vendors. I really wish they'd start just doing one a month or something.
In any case, this one was a: small like I'd feared(when Dad has a chance to come up for one, I hope it'll be a good one), but b: busy as hell because of the political climate. Overall, had a good visit. And ran him to Sportsman's Warehouse to get some reloading stuff he needed since there wasn't any at the show.
Oh, and the only things I saw for .30 Carbine were three magazines(two 30's and a 15), two bayonets and some ammo.
I got the 30's.
Gun show this weekend, and my Dad was able to get up here for it. Small show(I'll get into that later), but busy as hell. We got there a little after it opened at 9, not too many people: by 11 when we left for lunch it was packed. Young, old, men & women, etc., and lots of buying going on; guns and ammo being carried out in large numbers.
You always have to be careful at shows, there's always some people pricing things for more than they're worth. Noticed two things on this line: more people doing this, and their prices were higher. Which, unless you have something someone is just dying for, means people buy from someone else. Some guy was selling 500-packs of 7.62x39 for $120(gack!) or $5/box. Don't think he sold much of it. Someone else was selling Mosin Nagant M44 rifles for $125.
On the other hand...
Place called Big Boy's Toys here in town had a bunch of stuff, including DPMS AR15 rifles in various configurations, including a 16 or 18" barrel carbine with collapsing stock, 2 magazines, cleaning kit and a hard case for $695; if I were in the market for one and had the cash I'd have checked that out. Some other people had good prices on things, too. Higher than in the past overall, but realistic-level higher, not "I'm gonna gouge people while they're worried" higher. Lots of used stuff, including a guy who had both a 9mm and a .45acp Marlin Camp Carbine in very nice condition for a very good price.
Overall, it proved something someone said a few years back: the GFW politicians are a businessman's best friend in one way: every time they open their mouth and start making threats and demands, business goes up.
On the small size, you've got three groups that have been doing shows in town. One of them does two shows a year, spring and fall- sometimes one or two more during the year- and they're always good sized with lots of dealers. The other two seem to alternate doing a show every 2-3 weeks, and because of that they're almost always small. Guy that did this weeks show for example: every so often one of his is big and busy, but most are like today, not too many vendors. I really wish they'd start just doing one a month or something.
In any case, this one was a: small like I'd feared(when Dad has a chance to come up for one, I hope it'll be a good one), but b: busy as hell because of the political climate. Overall, had a good visit. And ran him to Sportsman's Warehouse to get some reloading stuff he needed since there wasn't any at the show.
Oh, and the only things I saw for .30 Carbine were three magazines(two 30's and a 15), two bayonets and some ammo.
I got the 30's.
New book out
Hogboy got it done, it's actually published and everything.
Now if he'll get the damn second cookbook done...
Now if he'll get the damn second cookbook done...
Friday, March 02, 2007
Just bloody freakin' wonderful
I’m not doing justice to the story, but, if not an attempt on the cockpit, this was a serious probe.
I get the money and time together to go to Britain/Europe or Australia, I think I'm going to take some close-combat training before I go. I didn't doubt it, this just points out that the bastards are still working at it.
Found thanks to Sondra
I get the money and time together to go to Britain/Europe or Australia, I think I'm going to take some close-combat training before I go. I didn't doubt it, this just points out that the bastards are still working at it.
Found thanks to Sondra
I gave up on TV news too, Jeff
Jeff notes his reasons(some of them) here. Mine... Didn't have a particular one incident, but there was a trigger to saying "Screw you!" and flipping the bird to the major media.
After my '2x4 to the head' moment of realizing there were a bunch of people who'd never let me go shooting or hunting with my Dad again, I got more and more sick of the news: I concentrated on the bullcrap they always threw out about firearms, but that also led to being far more critical about what they put out about anything. Then came the day...
This was during the O.J. Simpson trial. At the time, as I recall, the media was playing up everything possible(so it seemed to me) to justify us jumping into the Balkans. On this day, the first time in about two weeks that people in one city had been able to go to market, somebody dropped a couple of mortar shells into the marketplace. Lots of bodies and blood. And 'The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather' started: "Horror in the Balkans as a marketplace is bombed, many dead and more wounded;" and at that point his voice shifted and became almost a touch, cheery, "but first, in the O.J. Simpson trial"-
Which was as far as I got. Happily there were no heavy objects handy to throw or I'd have had to get money together for a new tv. As it was, I was on my feet screaming at the screen and that jackass Rather just exactly what I thought of him and his network and his 'news' reporting. And I don't think I've paid attention to their broadcasts(or trusted 60 Minutes after the Alar bullshit) since. Or much else of the major media. Local news, in particular for weather, but the rest from reading and from this here innernet.
After my '2x4 to the head' moment of realizing there were a bunch of people who'd never let me go shooting or hunting with my Dad again, I got more and more sick of the news: I concentrated on the bullcrap they always threw out about firearms, but that also led to being far more critical about what they put out about anything. Then came the day...
This was during the O.J. Simpson trial. At the time, as I recall, the media was playing up everything possible(so it seemed to me) to justify us jumping into the Balkans. On this day, the first time in about two weeks that people in one city had been able to go to market, somebody dropped a couple of mortar shells into the marketplace. Lots of bodies and blood. And 'The CBS Evening News with Dan Rather' started: "Horror in the Balkans as a marketplace is bombed, many dead and more wounded;" and at that point his voice shifted and became almost a touch, cheery, "but first, in the O.J. Simpson trial"-
Which was as far as I got. Happily there were no heavy objects handy to throw or I'd have had to get money together for a new tv. As it was, I was on my feet screaming at the screen and that jackass Rather just exactly what I thought of him and his network and his 'news' reporting. And I don't think I've paid attention to their broadcasts(or trusted 60 Minutes after the Alar bullshit) since. Or much else of the major media. Local news, in particular for weather, but the rest from reading and from this here innernet.
No-knock progress in Georgia
Too bad it took an old lady being killed to do it.
ATLANTA (AP) -- A group of lawmakers wants to make it harder for police to use "no-knock" warrants in the wake of a shootout that left an elderly woman dead after plainclothes officers stormed her home unannounced in a search for drugs.
The measure would allow judges to grant the warrants only if officers can prove a "significant and imminent danger to human life."
and near the end:
"Every citizen ought to be safe and secure in their homes," Fort said. "A no-knock warrant should be a special warrant, not a standard. And that's what it's evolved into."
This last is the key: these warrants are only supposed to be used in cases of actual need: not because someone likes them, or likes breaking in doors, or whatever. They're like tactical teams, a very useful tool that's been overused, and too often for crap where a hammer is not called for.
ATLANTA (AP) -- A group of lawmakers wants to make it harder for police to use "no-knock" warrants in the wake of a shootout that left an elderly woman dead after plainclothes officers stormed her home unannounced in a search for drugs.
The measure would allow judges to grant the warrants only if officers can prove a "significant and imminent danger to human life."
and near the end:
"Every citizen ought to be safe and secure in their homes," Fort said. "A no-knock warrant should be a special warrant, not a standard. And that's what it's evolved into."
This last is the key: these warrants are only supposed to be used in cases of actual need: not because someone likes them, or likes breaking in doors, or whatever. They're like tactical teams, a very useful tool that's been overused, and too often for crap where a hammer is not called for.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
From The Englishman,
we get a link to this article, well worth reading: Gun law and common sense:
More rubbish is written about 'gun control' than about almost any other subject. Allegedly 'tough' gun and knife laws are the liberal substitute for the death penalty, the left's way of trying to stop criminals from killing.
Like most 'liberal' solutions, they don't work against their intended target, and they attack freedom. It helps a great deal to be liberal about this if you a) don't think about it and b) know no history at all. Until 1920, Britain's gun laws made Texas look effeminate. There was no effective restriction at all on owning a firearm. Yet there was virtually no gun crime. Now we have some of the most restrictive anti-gun laws in the world, and gun crime is a serious and growing problem. Interestingly, the laws came first, the problem afterwards, and the recent ban on handguns was a completely logic-free response to the Dunblane mass-murder which preceded it.
On the subject of owning one himself, we get a touch of the 'I don't want the responsibility' attitude:
Actually, I don't want us to become a gun-carrying, gun-owning society at all. I have absolutely no desire to own a gun or have one in my house. They are even more dangerous (which is saying something) than motor cars, which I - likewise - don’t much like using because of the heavy responsibility of being in control of such powerfully lethal machinery. And any burglar who arrives at my house will be given a cup of tea (choice of Indian, China or herbal) and a biscuit, and asked to sign a release form stating that he has not been harmed, intimidated or upset in any way. I understand the liberal criminal law well enough to know that this is the only sensible approach for a British burglary victim, who doesn't want to be handcuffed and put in the cells.
Note that he does NOT say "I don't like them! Ban everything!", just that he doesn't want one. Which would be a fine thing, if he actually had the choice; but the government has made the 'choice' for him. And he full well understands that as things sit now, defending himself from a burglar could get him more time in jail than the burglar will get. Which is absolutely insane. And he'd better hope the burglar will settle for tea, cookies, and walking out with anything valuable.
And I also think that strict gun laws are wholly ineffective against their targets. The guns used in crime are hardly ever legally obtained. The people who use them almost invariably have criminal convictions, which would disqualify them from legal gun ownership anyway. So you can pass as many laws against gun ownership as you like. It will have precisely no effect on the level of gun crime. In which case, why do it?
Well, partly to keep the dim liberals happy, of course, which is important these days. But could there be another reason? If the state and the people broadly agree, about most matters, then the state can license the people to do such things as defend themselves, make citizen's arrests, thump burglars, even keep weapons. (Every Swiss home contains arms and ammunition, and the Swiss crime problem is minor, to put it mildly).
But if the state believes that criminals are to be pitied and treated, while the people believe that criminals need to be punished, then the state cannot trust the people any longer.
And there you get it: the state cannot trust the people. Which, of course, means the people need to be restricted in every way possible, and their lives controlled in every way possible. Like deciding that they need to be licensed to defend themselves, make citizen's arrests, thump burglars, even keep weapons. Mr. Hitchens seems to hold to the view that, even if things were loosened up, you should still have to get a license from the government to own arms, which- especially with a government like that which the British state has become- is too much; it allows the government to deny you for whatever reason they choose, or jerk your license 'just because we want to'. Like Bloomberg in NYFC* ordered the police to cut the number of licenses, just because he said so because he doesn't like them. And you have no recourse. In any case:
And the people, likewise, cannot trust the state, which is becoming - increasingly - a tyranny which watches, dockets, snoops and generally pries into our lives, and grants us smaller and smaller limits within which we may live if we wish to avoid being interfered with by its agencies.
Say it, brother!
Yet the one thing that will bring a rapid and powerful police response to a phone call is a claim that guns are being used by private citizens. And the one offence the courts will always punish severely is the one they call 'taking the law into your own hands'. Why? Because they are much more worried about their monopoly of force than they are about protecting us. Is that a good sign?
Actually, I object strongly to the expression 'taking the law into your own hands'. The law is ours and we made it for ourselves, to protect us and govern us, as a free people. Our freedom to defend ourselves against criminal violence is part of our general freedom to live our lives lawfully. We hire the police to help us enforce the law, not to tell us that we cannot do so. Sadly, the modern British law is not our law, but an elite law, based on ideas which most of us do not share. And the modern police are the elite's police, not ours, which is one of the reasons why they have vanished from the streets, where we want them to be. The disarming of the people, and the cancellation of all their rights to defend themselves, are bad signs.
I do have my disagreements with him, like here:
I don't want my neighbours to own guns, either. It shouldn't be necessary in a properly law-governed country.
Our small, easily-policed and largely urban society is deeply unlike the USA, where many people live hours from the nearest police station and can expect no immediate help if they are in dire trouble
"...shouldn't be necessary..." should have NOTHING to do with whether a citizen owns arms or not. It is a Right of free men, period. And he's noted a problem that is the same here or there: it doesn't matter if you live next door to the police station or miles away, if the police cannot or will not be there when you are in danger, you are on your own. And as has been pointed out by many, the best single method of self-defense, especially if you have any kind of physical handicap, is a gun. Like it or not.
Overall, a very good piece of thinking by Mr. Hitchens. Which will- predictably- cause the nanny-staters to scream and hold their breath.
*NYFC: New York Effin' City, per Kim
Speaking of which, The other day on Glenn Beck's radio show he had the former NYFC police chief on, interviewing him about- among other things- Rudy Giuliani, and asked about ownership of guns, specifically how difficult(as in 'damn near impossible') it is in NYFC for someone to get a permit. And he got the same song and dance that Giuliani has given: NYFC is 'special', like places like LA, Rudy was actually 'very friendly' to gun owners, and that- the real kicker- you had to make sure that only the 'right people' could own guns. Which in NYFC has meant, especially for carry permits, people with lots of money/fame/influence, and screw everybody else. As Beck put it, "I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution about only the 'right people' getting to have guns".
More rubbish is written about 'gun control' than about almost any other subject. Allegedly 'tough' gun and knife laws are the liberal substitute for the death penalty, the left's way of trying to stop criminals from killing.
Like most 'liberal' solutions, they don't work against their intended target, and they attack freedom. It helps a great deal to be liberal about this if you a) don't think about it and b) know no history at all. Until 1920, Britain's gun laws made Texas look effeminate. There was no effective restriction at all on owning a firearm. Yet there was virtually no gun crime. Now we have some of the most restrictive anti-gun laws in the world, and gun crime is a serious and growing problem. Interestingly, the laws came first, the problem afterwards, and the recent ban on handguns was a completely logic-free response to the Dunblane mass-murder which preceded it.
On the subject of owning one himself, we get a touch of the 'I don't want the responsibility' attitude:
Actually, I don't want us to become a gun-carrying, gun-owning society at all. I have absolutely no desire to own a gun or have one in my house. They are even more dangerous (which is saying something) than motor cars, which I - likewise - don’t much like using because of the heavy responsibility of being in control of such powerfully lethal machinery. And any burglar who arrives at my house will be given a cup of tea (choice of Indian, China or herbal) and a biscuit, and asked to sign a release form stating that he has not been harmed, intimidated or upset in any way. I understand the liberal criminal law well enough to know that this is the only sensible approach for a British burglary victim, who doesn't want to be handcuffed and put in the cells.
Note that he does NOT say "I don't like them! Ban everything!", just that he doesn't want one. Which would be a fine thing, if he actually had the choice; but the government has made the 'choice' for him. And he full well understands that as things sit now, defending himself from a burglar could get him more time in jail than the burglar will get. Which is absolutely insane. And he'd better hope the burglar will settle for tea, cookies, and walking out with anything valuable.
And I also think that strict gun laws are wholly ineffective against their targets. The guns used in crime are hardly ever legally obtained. The people who use them almost invariably have criminal convictions, which would disqualify them from legal gun ownership anyway. So you can pass as many laws against gun ownership as you like. It will have precisely no effect on the level of gun crime. In which case, why do it?
Well, partly to keep the dim liberals happy, of course, which is important these days. But could there be another reason? If the state and the people broadly agree, about most matters, then the state can license the people to do such things as defend themselves, make citizen's arrests, thump burglars, even keep weapons. (Every Swiss home contains arms and ammunition, and the Swiss crime problem is minor, to put it mildly).
But if the state believes that criminals are to be pitied and treated, while the people believe that criminals need to be punished, then the state cannot trust the people any longer.
And there you get it: the state cannot trust the people. Which, of course, means the people need to be restricted in every way possible, and their lives controlled in every way possible. Like deciding that they need to be licensed to defend themselves, make citizen's arrests, thump burglars, even keep weapons. Mr. Hitchens seems to hold to the view that, even if things were loosened up, you should still have to get a license from the government to own arms, which- especially with a government like that which the British state has become- is too much; it allows the government to deny you for whatever reason they choose, or jerk your license 'just because we want to'. Like Bloomberg in NYFC* ordered the police to cut the number of licenses, just because he said so because he doesn't like them. And you have no recourse. In any case:
And the people, likewise, cannot trust the state, which is becoming - increasingly - a tyranny which watches, dockets, snoops and generally pries into our lives, and grants us smaller and smaller limits within which we may live if we wish to avoid being interfered with by its agencies.
Say it, brother!
Yet the one thing that will bring a rapid and powerful police response to a phone call is a claim that guns are being used by private citizens. And the one offence the courts will always punish severely is the one they call 'taking the law into your own hands'. Why? Because they are much more worried about their monopoly of force than they are about protecting us. Is that a good sign?
Actually, I object strongly to the expression 'taking the law into your own hands'. The law is ours and we made it for ourselves, to protect us and govern us, as a free people. Our freedom to defend ourselves against criminal violence is part of our general freedom to live our lives lawfully. We hire the police to help us enforce the law, not to tell us that we cannot do so. Sadly, the modern British law is not our law, but an elite law, based on ideas which most of us do not share. And the modern police are the elite's police, not ours, which is one of the reasons why they have vanished from the streets, where we want them to be. The disarming of the people, and the cancellation of all their rights to defend themselves, are bad signs.
I do have my disagreements with him, like here:
I don't want my neighbours to own guns, either. It shouldn't be necessary in a properly law-governed country.
Our small, easily-policed and largely urban society is deeply unlike the USA, where many people live hours from the nearest police station and can expect no immediate help if they are in dire trouble
"...shouldn't be necessary..." should have NOTHING to do with whether a citizen owns arms or not. It is a Right of free men, period. And he's noted a problem that is the same here or there: it doesn't matter if you live next door to the police station or miles away, if the police cannot or will not be there when you are in danger, you are on your own. And as has been pointed out by many, the best single method of self-defense, especially if you have any kind of physical handicap, is a gun. Like it or not.
Overall, a very good piece of thinking by Mr. Hitchens. Which will- predictably- cause the nanny-staters to scream and hold their breath.
*NYFC: New York Effin' City, per Kim
Speaking of which, The other day on Glenn Beck's radio show he had the former NYFC police chief on, interviewing him about- among other things- Rudy Giuliani, and asked about ownership of guns, specifically how difficult(as in 'damn near impossible') it is in NYFC for someone to get a permit. And he got the same song and dance that Giuliani has given: NYFC is 'special', like places like LA, Rudy was actually 'very friendly' to gun owners, and that- the real kicker- you had to make sure that only the 'right people' could own guns. Which in NYFC has meant, especially for carry permits, people with lots of money/fame/influence, and screw everybody else. As Beck put it, "I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution about only the 'right people' getting to have guns".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)