How The British Maximize Crime

by Nathan Natas 15 Replies latest jw friends

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas


    From the NRA magazine, AMERICA'S 1st FREEDOM, October 2002 issue.


    Did you know that a person's chances if being mugged in London are six times higher than in New York City?

    Did you know that assault, robbery and burglary rates are far higher in England than in the U.S.?

    Did you know that in England self-defense of person or property is regarded as an antisocial act, and that a victim who injures or kills an assailant is likely to be treated with more severity than the assailant?

    Joyce Lee Malcolm blames the rocketing rates of violent and armed crimes in England on "government policies that have gone badly wrong?" Her careful research in "Guns and Violence: the English Experience," just released by Harvard University Press, leads to this condusion: "Government created a hapless, passive citizenry, then took upon itself the impossible task of protecting it. Its failure could not be more flagrant."

    Professor Malcolm begins her study of English crime rates, weapons ownership, and attitudes toward self-defense in the Middle Ages. She continues the story through the Tudor-Stuart centuries, the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. She finds that five centuries of growing civility, low crime rates and declining firearm homicide rates ended in the 20th century.

    Professor Malcolm shows that an unprotected public at the mercy of criminals is the result of, (1) the 1967 revision of criminal law, which altered the common law standard for self defense and began the process of criminalizing self-defense, and (2) increasing restrictions on handguns and other firearms, culminating in the 1997 ban of handgun ownership (and most other firearms).

    In England the penaity for possessirig a handgun is 10 years in prison. The result is the one predicted by the National Rifle Association; "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns." During the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent. During seven months of 2001, armed robberies in London rose 53 percent.

    These shocking crime rates are understatements, because "the English police still grossly underreport crimes. The 1998 British (crime Survey found four times as many crimes occurred as police records indicated."

    A disarmed public now faces outlaws armed with machine-guns. People in London residential neighborhoods have been machine-gunned to death. Gunmen have even burst into court and freed defendants.

    The British government forbids citizens to carry any article that might be used for self defense. Even knitting needles and walking sticks have been judged to be "offensive weapons." In 1994, an English homeowner used a toy gun to detain five burglars who had broken into his home. The police arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten and intimidate.

    A British Petroleum executive was wounded in an assault on his life in a London Underground train carriage. In desperation, he fought off his attackers by using an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick. He was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

    A youth fearful of being attacked by a gang was arrested for carrying a cycle chain. After police disarmed him, he was set upon and hospitalized as a result of a brutal beating. The prosecutor nevertheless insisted on prosecuting the victim for "carrying a weapon."

    Seventy percent of rural villages in Britain entirely lack police presence. But self-defense must be "reasonable," as determined after the fact by a prosecutor. What is reasonable to a victim being attacked or confronted with home intruders at night can be quite different from how a prosecutor sees it. A woman who uses a weapon to fight of an unarmed rapist could be convicted of using unreasonable force.

    In 1999 Tony Martin, a farmer, turned his shotgnn on two professional thieves when they broke into his home at night to rob him a seventh time. Mr. Martin received a life sentence for killing one criminal, 10 years for wounding the second, and 12 months for having an illegal shotgun. The wounded burglar is already released from prison.

    American prosecutors now follow British ones in restricting self-defense to reasonable force as defined by prosecutors. Be forwarned that Americans can no longer use deadly force against home intruders unless the intruder is also armed and the homeowner can establish that he could not hide from the intruder and had reason to believe his life was in danger.

    The assault on England's version of the Second Amendment was conducted by unsavory characters in the British Home Office. Long before guns were banned, the Home Office secretly instructed the police not to issue licenses for weapons intended to protect home and property.

    In the British welfare state, crimes against property are not taken seriously. Professor Malcolm reports that criminals face minimal chances of arrest and punishment, but a person who uses force to defend himself or his property is in serious trouble with the law. A recent British law textbook says that the right to self defense is so mitigated "as to cast doubt on whether it still forms part of the law."

    An Englishman's home is no longer his castle. Thanks to gun control zealots, England has become the land of choice for criminals.

    Edited by - Nathan Natas on 11 October 2002 22:20:50

  • ScoobySnax

    LOL......not true, but can I see your jewellry box??

  • Brummie

    ashamed to say its all true! Though the farmer who shot the 2 had his sentence reduced to 5 years.

    A list of other stupidities could also be added, including the fact that a burgular could break into your home trip over a ripped carpet then sue you for any damages caused in the trip, ie, sprained ankle etc!


  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    So the farmer who defended himself and his property is STILL in jail (gaol), and the surviving perp is walking free. How very civilized!

  • Satanus

    He got 'only' 5 yrs. He should have gotten a medal, or at least a handshake.


  • heathen

    I think the problem with britian is that for a long while they didn't have elected officials and people there just seem to accept whatever the government does as business as usual. If I heard correctly they started having free elections so that tells me it's time for the people to have a voice.

  • johnathanseagull

    Just a snippet on the farmer who shot the burgular.........the nearest town to which he comes from is Norwich and if you by chance go and watch Norwich FC play (I don't recommend it!!!).....the fans sing "We shoot burgulars, We shoot Bugulars" at the opposing fans

  • Mutz

    Actually the nearest town is Kings Lynn...... we still shoot burglars in Norwich though :)

  • Mutz

    I think the problem with the Tony Martin case (the farmer who shot the little shit burglar) was that he shot the guy as he was trying to crawl away.

    Edited by - Mutz on 12 October 2002 4:31:18

  • Englishman


    I remember this one. The farmer HAD been robbed several times, so he lay in wait for weeks in what appeared to be a deserted and broken down old house hoping to lure somebody inside. He emptied his shotgun into the intruders back and killed him.

    There's definitely a fear of people taking the law into their own hands though, and as such a lot of righteous anger is brewing amonst the population.


Share this