The Brits gone balmy

On its way to the USA

[Reprinted from Issues & Views August 12, 2002]

In his syndicated column, author Paul Craig Roberts describes the degenerating condition of England, as its citizens are punished for defending themselves:

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

In England, the penalty for possessing 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 by 53 percent. . . .

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 two burglars who had broken into his home. The police arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten and intimidate. . . .

In the British welfare state, crimes against property are not taken seriously. 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."

In October 2001, Issues & Views reported on England's Tony Martin, the unfortunate Norfolk farmer who fell afoul of the new, two-tier version of English law when, in 1999, he shot at burglars invading his home, injuring one and killing another. Martin, tried for murder, was sentenced to life in prison--plus added time (if that's possible) for the temerity of owning a shotgun.

After Martin's first trial, public outcries ensued, remarkable for strangely passive England. Support and sympathy for Martin has come from all quarters (even from the injured burglar's father, who claims that his son deserves to be in jail, not Martin.)

In an update, on LewRockwell.com, writer Roland Watson tells more about this "political prisoner of political correctness," as Martin languishes in jail, a year after the invader of his home has been set free.

In October 2001, an appeal court quashed Martin's murder conviction and reduced the charge to manslaughter, thus overturning the life sentence. Given a new sentence of five years, this makes Martin eligible for parole in October 2002.

Calling it a "bitter twist of irony," Watson writes that, in the end, Tony Martin may lose the very home he fought to defend. For now, in merry olde England, the thug who broke into Martin's home, Brendon Fearon, is allowed, even encouraged, to sue Martin for up to £50,000 for--get this--"assault and trespass against his person." The state will pick up the tab for this court action in behalf of Fearon. It is very possible that Martin will have to hand over his only possession of any value--his home. Watson writes:

So the slide of Statist justice Western-style continues. The growing criminal sector continues to walk the countryside and streets with impunity. Young and old alike rebel against natural authority as egalitarian nonsense about empowerment for the underprivileged unwittingly provides the weapons for society’s decay. Punishments in violation of natural justice continue to be doled out with the deterrent force of a wet sponge and justice rolls not like a mighty river but like a dripping faucet. . . .

When State Welfare does begin to unravel, one thing must needs be ditched or reformed first and that is State Justice. When the welfare and criminal class see their free money cut off, there will be such a rise in crime fuelled by decades of amoralistic teaching in the classroom that only locally and swiftly applied justice will do to arrest the plague. In that day, the government had better legalise firearms quickly or the jails will not hold the army of Tony Martins that will arise in that troubled time.

Piling the insults even higher, the relatives of the dead burglar, Fred Barras, are also gearing up for the courts. Barras' father, Fred, Sr., a lifetime criminal, once spent 14 years in jail for armed robbery. In 2000, he and a partner raided a warehouse, held the security guard at gunpoint, and made off with £400,000 worth of clothing. Now back in jail, he and other family members are seeking legal aid to sue for "criminal compensation" over the death of Junior.

So far, in the United States, the struggle to maintain the Second Amendment is vigorous. Although there are regular setbacks, citizens are still able to lobby for gun ownership and the right to self-defense. In fact, in 1982, in Kennesaw, Georgia, city officials passed a law requiring every household to own a firearm, exempting those with criminal records or religious objections.

Erich Pratt, of Gun Owners of America, tells of the results of Kennesaw's bold experiment:

The results of this experiment have been phenomenal, showing that armed citizens deter crime. An early study (in 1982) found that the residential burglary rated in Kennesaw had fallen 89 percent in the seven months following the law's enactment. That drop far outpaced the more modest 10.4 percent drop in the entire state of Georgia during that same period.

In the ensuing years, the crime rate has remained at basement levels. According to the Kennesaw Police Department, there was less than one property crime for every 1,000 people in 1998. That's down from 11 such crimes per 1,000 residents in 1981 -- the year before the gun law was enacted.

Another report, in 1991, shows that the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the gun law was enacted. But lest we become cocky over these still existing freedoms, Paul Craig Roberts warns us:

American prosecutors now follow British ones in restricting self-defense to reasonable force as defined by prosecutors. Be forewarned 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.

Copyright © 2008 Issues & Views