Anti-gunners say the craziest things. If they weren’t serious about the bizarre things they said, we could almost take it as comedy. Unfortunately, they really are serious.
Take, for example, the United Kingdom. You see, in the U.K., self-defense is essentially illegal. I’m not being sensationalist when I say this, nor am I exaggerating. J.D. Heyes explains,
As reported by The New American, British subjects seeking advice about what are and are not permissible self-defense instruments found some recently on a police web site. It is sponsored by the British government’s Police National Legal Database.
Q589: Are there any legal self defence products that I can buy?
The police answer:
The only fully legal self defence product… is a rape alarm.
Now, the site goes on to say that there may be other products, but those have yet to be fully tested and that “if you purchase one you must be aware… there is always a possibility that you will be arrested and detained until the product, it’s [sic] contents and legality can be verified.”
To give you a little more detail: the police in the U.K. are serious about the necessity of approving what you can use to defend yourself. The New American gives an example of what can happen:
Real people have experienced the absurdity of such rules being enforced with diligence across the country. Three knife-wielding burglars [guns are illegal in England] invaded a home in England, tied up the family members and threatened to kill the father. One of the members managed to escape and get help. The family member and the helper returned and inflicted permanent brain damage on one of burglars — a criminal, by the way, with more than 50 previous convictions — using a cricket bat. Authorities arrested the defendants — the victims — and sent them to prison for more than two years. The attacker? He escaped punishment.
Now, in case you are someone who thinks that you can just scare away an attacker with a rape alarm, I would suggest that you stop and get a dose of reality before you or someone you care about gets hurt or killed. Someone will murder in their eyes is not going to stop because you scream or because of a rape alarm. And, while the police may be able to catch the person who assaulted/raped/murdered you, fat lot of good that does you after the fact.
See, one of the biggest problems that anti-gunners have is their belief that law enforcement officers actually stop crimes from being committed. But, if you think about it, this belief isn’t even logical. How can law enforcement officers stop a crime if they don’t know about it before it happens? They can’t, and that’s the reason why it’s vitally important for people here in the U.S. (and in the U.K., too) to be able to lawfully defend themselves from other people who are willfully breaking the law by physically assaulting another person.
So, I stand by my statement: anti-gunner thinking will get people killed, and that is why gun ownership cannot be restricted if people are going to be able to be safe.
Things continue to get worse in this regard in the UK. I lived there from 12/70 to 12/74 working for an American company. There were many people I knew who owned guns (usually shotguns used for hunting small game or skeet shooting) and most would not have hesitated to use that shotgun on a violent intruder. Back then, they would not have been prosecuted for such an action. One of my friends, who worked for the Birmingham Proof House at the time, actually shot and killed an armed intruder in his home. He was not even detained, but questioned at home and the police were satisfied that he had committed no crime. Today he would certainly be sent to prison for a long time.
The Birmingham Proof House, by the way, was the official government agent for proofing firearms, especially antique and collector guns. The owners had to have a proof certificate showing their gun had been tested and found safe before it could be legally fired by the owner at a firing range or shoot.
This is similar anti-gun mentality nonsense to the verdict the other day (by a leftist judge) on the Kaitie Curic (Sp?) on a big Civil lawsuit by a gun store against her TV documentary that supposedly ‘defamed’ the owners. Interesting case but it missed the underlying premise driving the entire debate.
The ‘question’ that was the main point of the lawsuit to the Plaintiffs in defense of Katie, et al., was “How are you going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists without background checks?” Supposedly the plaintiffs couldn’t answer and there was a 9 second ‘pregnant pause’ that might have been an intentionally derogatory film Edit, to make them look stupid.
If I were the plaintiffs’ lawyer I would have immediately objected to the question as irrelevant speculation due to the FACT that it can be absolutely proven with statistics and empirical knowledge that everybody who is not in abject denial KNOWS THAT BACKGROUND CHECKS DO INSIGNIFICANTLY LITTLE, BUT MOSTLY NOTHING TO PREVENT A DETERMINED CRIMINAL OR TERRORIST FROM GETTING A GUN, if they can’t get a heavy truck to smash through a crowded street and kill and maim even More people faster than they could with a gun.
So the correct ‘answer’ to the question would be already a ‘given’. And technically must be stipulated to in a trial of facts. Any type of anti-Constitutional background checks or gun control simply does NOT prevent criminals or terrorists or anyone from getting a gun to use in a crime. PERIOD. And when you factor in the cost of gun control background checks, enforcement and useless prosecution, it is also one of the stupidest useless wasteful attempts only, on solving a social ‘violence’ problem, that causes more problems than cures. Especially when integrated with one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on Free Citizens by a totalitarian deep state–the notion of ‘Public Safety’–by the execution (increasingly becoming summarily) of extreme ‘crime prevention’ measures.
And that’s BEFORE we realize the true purpose of any background checks or gun laws, which is to disarm the populate.
Anyone who thinks like this deserves to die, the people who make up those worthless laws are sitting pretty behind a wall with armed security, and they REALLY need to experience a family attack with fatalities to really know how the general public gets to deal with their stupid laws. I know it sounds harsh, but until they get a taste of real life it goes on with the stupid crap
Comments are closed.