Tag Archives: Firearms

Has someone shot the gun control lobby’s Cumbrian fox?


Christopher Houseman

Recent events in Cumbria have led to an entirely predictable concern among UK libertarians that even more restrictions on gun ownership and usage are on the way. But on this occasion, I don’t share their pessimism.

UK domestic gun legislation is already among the tightest in the world (which is a bit ironic for a country that is one of the world’s largest arms exporters). Furthermore, even the most dyed in the wool statists are currently resigned to having their budgets (and therefore their de facto powers, at least) cut in the short to medium term. These facts, combined with the rarity of shooting sprees in the UK by licensed gun owners using their own weapons, make any attempt to administer further restrictions uneconomic.

So, might a total ban be contemplated? I couldn’t help noticing from the outset that key elements of the Whitehaven episode didn’t play out according to the standard gun control script. Jamie Reed, the local MP for Copeland was interviewed by the national media as the story broke on 2nd June. Although a Labour MP, he didn’t go along with one reporter’s efforts to corral him into calling for tighter gun control laws. Clearly, Mr. Reed knows something of the realities of his rural constituents’ daily lives. Quite simply, the prominent role of shotguns in particular in rural pest control means that a shotgun ban is unlikely to be supported.

Since 2nd June, it’s emerged that Derrick Bird had held shotgun and/or firearms licences for 20 years with no prior incidents, so it’s unlikely his actions could have been foreseen by anything short of continuous human and/or audio-visual surveillance (and then only in the very short term). Furthermore, it’s also emerged that local police officers had sight of Derrick Bird and might have been able to prevent his last 9 killings – except that the officers were unarmed, and therefore backed off when he confronted them directly.

This last snippet of news has clearly been released in an effort to deflect criticism away from Cumbrian officers. It may have the effect of relaunching the debate over the routine arming of police officers (that would be the state-thinkful option). This is unlikely to be deemed acceptable, but combined with the recent attack on 2 baby girls in their London home by a fox, it opens up new public debate opportunities for libertarians.

What’s the point of relaxing or scrapping the “reasonable force” restriction on householders’ defence of life and property against intruders if householders aren’t allowed to own and train with the best technical means available for home and self-defence (including pepper sprays, tasers and guns)? No wonder ministers are getting jittery about changing the law. And as urban foxes get more numerous and bold, isn’t it time to stop thinking of home defence purely in terms of repelling human burglars?

But what, you may ask, if the forthcoming debate does result in the police being routinely armed? In that case, civil libertarians of all stripes will unite to get it reversed. A significant number of police officers will meanwhile complain about the potential damage to their public image, and the extra pressures routine carrying of a gun will put on them. And then we will have to wait and see how well the state’s prefabricated “one rotten apple” justification will stand up to the public outcry when an armed police officer finally goes on the rampage with a Heckler and Koch. What, then, will be the justification for using the law of the land to allow only the police and the criminal classes to carry guns in Britain?

Intellectually speaking, at least, I suggest the gun control lobby is only a few steps away from shooting itself in the foot.

Advertisements

If arms offer power and protection, they belong in the hands of the People


David Davis

And no I didn’t invent that myself: it is the formal policy-position of the Swiss “Government” (if that word is not slightly tautological.)

Paul Goodman at ConservativeHome nicely articulates the position most of us take on here, which is that now is definitely not the time to do kneejerk, Tabloid-Million-Moms-driven legislation to further restrict, or even ban entirely, all firearms, thus taking us as a people into the territory of the Third Reich, wherein Himmler said that private gun ownership and licensing was “inconvenient” for the State. Except for Göring of course.

I have been excoriated on Facebook, for saying that these periodic massacres, ostensibly by lone crazed lunatics, are set up by the “authorities” every time they want to ratchet up the gun controls here. With hindight, I’m prepared to suspect (but only suspect) that I was wrong in this particular case. But my major thesis still stands I think. We will anyhow know the truth about Dunblane in about 80 years’ time.

Here you go, dont say i didnt warn you


Michael Winning

Armed Police” with machine guns, to be deplyed on streets for first time”.

Well we are a dangerous and uncontrollable people as everyone know and it’s surprising it toook so long. Can’t have people rebelling now, can we.

How has it come to this that the UK now has machinegun-police on our streets, what did we do wrong. This will be hailed as a “success”, it will be “rolled out”. You’ll see, and remember what I said.

Guns: confiscation of legally held weapons in Germany will be next.


David Davis

UPDATE1:- On second thoughts, perhaps the poor tormented bugger was just deranged and so could not get a girlfriend like we even managed to do, despite being barking and turning into libertarians. See … Here.

…..But….why do the deranged always seem to have access to shagloads of guns? Does the presence of guns actually lead to mental derangement? I’d not have thought so, but I do not know. Do you?

David Davis

I almost can’t watch this saga any more – I really can’t. It’s like a tragic play, in which you always know what’s going to happen in the next scene, but you’re not sure where.

In one civilised Western nation after another, a multiple-fatal-shooting is staged, usually at a school (to maximise the parental anguish involved, and to mobilize a million mums, plus harden public opinion against “shooters”.) 

The Australians were clever: they did it at a popular tourist/beauty spot in Tasmania. The British rather overdid it at Dunblane, using a primary school (really gross, that – you could just about stomach the slaughter of secondary-school pupilas but not little kids, surely?) but I guess they were in a hurry to get all of absolutely everbody’s firearms before the 90s-Tories’ New Labour Project was to kick off properly.

Then, in more or less short-order, “legislation is enacted” to deprive one more section of the law-abiding community of all its guns – category by category, one at a time.

Of course, illegally-held weapons remain untouched. Some “security-theatre” about “amnesties” is staged, for effect, but produces little. In the meantime you can go to a pub in Catford, get to know certain people, and get a shooter, and some food if you’re rich, in the fullness of time, for a wad of cash. I expect this is still the case.

A totally-disarmed citizenry is a pre-requisite for a tyrannical government being able to entrench itself permanently – just look at the Third Reich, and Stalin’s USSR before that, its mirror.

At least the USA still has the Second Amendment, but for how long I wonder?

A libertarian wonders to what extent States are now prepared to go, via the public slaughter of (chiefly and on purpose)  children, to deprive citizens of all the world’s most civilised nations, of firearms. When will they start on kitchen-knives, I wonder, or angle-grinders, or power drills? Or chain-saws? (Perhaps that’s why you can now be fined for doing moderate electrical repairs in your house, like rewiring it yourself, or changing a window without certification….)

Why doesn’t this go on in Africa, which is bursting at the seams with guns? Or South America? Or Saudi-Arabia? Or Syria?

Why the first-world West? Can anybody help me here?

…and I think Mr Underclass quietly agrees with me, about my main hypothesis.

“24-hour-drinking” is not the problem … the government is.


David Davis

Police “chiefs” complain about “24-hour drinking”. I don’t know about you, but I don’t tend to come across binge-drinkers blind-drunk at say 10.40 am in the morning. Or even 7.55 am. Or 2.14 pm. Do you, or I, or does anybody you know, or have ever seen, drink for 24 hours a day? No, I thought not.

No. The problem is not that this guvmint has relaxed the licensing laws. This is a sound move and takes away the smell of distrust of the British people, imposed on them since WW1, when it was thought that without these we would be too drunk to make shells properly. it is an unconscionable piece of farm-animalery to suggest that a sane man ought not to be able to buy a beer at 6.40 in the morning, or at any time it pleases him so to do….and drink it too. When I used to drive to what was then called Czechslovakia, one regularly stopped one’s fast car after about 16 hours from London, at a roadside caff in Plzen or Stribro in West Bohemia, and you could have a large Becherovka, or a Vyskov-11 (about a pint or more) with your coffee.

The autobahn probably goes round those places now…and I expect that the dear Czech Police would string me up for what I have just said…but it was 1991-92 and all was new and bright, and the West had won, and people were happy, and the girls just wanted to have us…..

No, the problems lie elsewhere:-

(1) This is a coolish and nearly-always-damp island, in which one surviving pleasure is to crawl into your mud hut in the late afternoon with mates, soddden and muddy and shitty after a day in the fields slding about in the cowpoo, and down a few beers or more and joke about how the Bail-Reeve fell into the worst and deepest pile. The British drink alcohol regularly in industrial amounts: it is our job.

(2) Sex is not that great any more as a substitute for alcohol, unless you are

(a) very lucky with one or a few wenches well known to yourself, or else,

(b) the Feminazi revolution has somehow passed you by.

(3) If this guvmmint wanted socialism in a post-capitalist-civilisation and therefore (it would have to create) a de-educated populace, which it has tried personfully to bring into being, and which it could push about like in 1984, then it has succeeded. This populace will behave like irresponsible farm-animals, because that’s what it has been forced to become (the responsible ones are all dead.)

If you treat people like children, and deny them knowledge and understanding, then unsocialised children is what you will get. (You will probably have to ban guns, knives…lasers ( a new one, to be advanced for a ban at a local newspaper near you, and soon…..see the Southport Visiter! And yes thatt iz how itt izz spelled!)…..airguns…..kitchen-knives, soon?…..to stop them murdering each other, let alone you and your apparatchiks……) (“Nobody hurt in milk float crash”)

(4) If it thought it could raise alcohol excise duty takes by lengthening opening hours, then it is probably right. The overall sterling value of revenue has probably risen – that’s poss why it can afford to nationalise the Banks (paid for mostly by poor-people – could not the National Lottery have done it? More appropriate….)

People who are going to get rat-arsed in public, are going to do it in the early-to-late-evening, as they always would have been and have been able to do. So I think the rozzers have got the wrong end of the stick somehow.