Re: Safe Gun-Free Britain (was Re: Guns [was Re: property Rights])

Michael S. Lorrey (
Tue, 01 Jun 1999 17:07:10 -0400

"Joe E. Dees" wrote:

> Date sent: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 12:13:15 -0400
> From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <>
> >
> > If Britain is so safe, why are gun crimes still happening? I have not heard of a
> > single instance of a Brit successfully defending themselves in many years.
> >
> There's not a whole lot of them getting shot, either, Mike. I just
> thought I'd mention this, since you conveniently forgot.

When the most popular TV announcer in the country is popped off on her front doorstep and the shooter gets away without anyone attempting to stop them, there is something odd going on. I've seen numerous stories of women getting raped or mugged in parks there while people stroll by, afraid to interfere cause they aren't armed.

> >
> > Additionally, no you are not as free as an American. You are a subject, not a
> > citizen. Your rights only exist as a matter of statute, not as a matter of
> > Natural Law. You did once have a similar level of freedom, but it was severely
> > eroded under Charles I and James I. You have no freedom of speech except for in
> > one location on some stone in a park somewhere. Everyplace else your speech is
> > only what the government allows you to say. The illusion of freedom is not the
> > same as actual freedom. Actual freedom survives tests of its limits. Illusiory
> > freedom triggers additional limitations on that freedom. Granted that things
> > here have been becoming more and more illusiory the last few decades.
> >
> He is more free from the threat of gun violence than we; why don't
> we combine his greater freedom and ours, and render ourselves
> freer still?

Security is not freedom, except maybe to an Orwellian. Why don't we free ourselves even further by enlsaving ourselves. "Slavery is freedom".

> >
> > > I cannot believe people use freedom as leverage behind having the right to
> > > carry a gun. It is pointless in this day and age. Sounds to me like many
> > > people believe they are still living in the world as it was 200 year ago.
> >
> > Has the human animal significantly changed over the last 200 years? No it has
> > not.
> >
> Some cats refuse to be declawed even when they eat din-din from
> a dish.

As well they should. Who knows when their owner decides to toss them out the door, or wants to torture them, or even goes and dies on them. >

> > > In the UK, when crimes involve guns special police units take care of it.
> >
> > As stated repeatedly here, there have been numerous Supreme Court rulings that
> > specifically declare that no police unit or personnel at any level of government
> > in the US is permitted or delegated the authority to protect individuals from
> > crime, or to prevent criminals from commiting crimes. They are only authorized
> > to catch criminals once they have committed crimes. Part of the whole 'innocent
> > until proven guilty' tradition that you all seem to forget so easily. The
> > presumption of innocence dictates that you cannot apprehend anyone for the
> > crimes they have not yet commited. You can only apprehend them while in the
> > commission or after the commission of a crime.
> >
> When someone pulls a gun on another person, a present
> policeman has probable cause to assume that the gunman is
> about to rob, wound or kill him, and is authorized to act to protect
> his life and/or property.

They are not authorized to shoot someone who merely is holding a gun. The person must either point the gun at the officer or at a person who appears to not be violating any law, or actually shooting. Its also situational based. Of the 50 police officers who belong the gun club I am a director of, if any tried that on club premises they'd be summarily booted for even attempting that, if they are not shot themselves.

> >
> > It is a recognized fact that 2.5 million crimes are prevented by private
> > citizens with guns here in the US each year, most of these WITHOUT DISCHARGING
> > THE WEAPON. Some 60,000 people are killed every year with guns. Half of these
> > are suicides and should not be counted as crimes. At least half of the remainder
> > are the offenders being killed by law abiding citizens. Of the remaining 15,000,
> > 90% are themselves criminals who are killed by other criminals, leaving around
> > 1500 innocent civilians who are killed by guns each year. So we have 1500
> > murders/homicides by guns countered by 2.5 million crimes prevented by guns.
> >
> Well let's work to keep the guns out of the hands of the violent
> criminals, the mentally deficient and/or deranged, children, and
> spouse and/or child abusers, and bring the 1500 bad ones down as
> far as possible (as well as some of the 30,000 suicides, preferably
> those which do not represennt a rational desire for surcease from
> intractable physical pain), while not interfering with the right of
> responsible people to defend their lives, families and property.
> What could possibly be wrong with that?

I have said repeatedly that I don't find your stated standards totally unreasonable, however the ease with which you are ready to institute them with IMHO extremely loose and easily manipulated definitions of what exactly meets these standards causes me great concern and is what I do find unreasonable. The government authorities have already proven with their abuse of the Insta-Check records that they have no regard for statutory limitations on their abuse of power. What makes you think they will not do the same with the other standards when it suits their needs? That you yourself seem to show little or no regard for due process, the presumption of innocence, and unreasonable search and seizure also causes me great worry. Any time I press you on this, you say 'screw those rights'. This is what, IMHO makes YOU the very dangerous person here. If you can retract or qualify those statements I would appreciate it.

> >
> > > You see, in the UK they actually employ police officers that are trained for
> > > those situations. Unlike in the US where people obviously have so little
> > > faith in the law enforcement agencies that they feel they must deal death
> > > themselves. As for protecting yourself, chances are, in a situation where
> > > they police don't have time to respond, you'd probably be dead anyway before
> > > you have a chance to brand your gun and do that bit of shooting which people
> > > are just dying to do (no pun intended). Is that a wrong perspective? Well,
> > > then why dictate you need a gun to 'defend' yourself, what else do you plan
> > > on doing with a gun?
> >
> > Its a proven fact that in any given crime situation, a police officer is five
> > times more likely to kill an innocent civilian that a law abiding citizen in the
> > same situation. What sort of special training does it take to do THAT badly? Its
> > also proven fact that a person carrying a gun is 29% more likely to survive a
> > given crime situation than without a gun (you are only 16% more likely to
> > survive if you have a knife.)
> >
> This is because the victim KNOWS who the bad guy is, but the
> policeman who walks into the evolution of a strange situation can
> never be as sure.

I never said that the arms bearing person was the victim. It frequently isn't.

> >
> > Rather than a danger to the community, I am an asset. I know the people and the
> > geography, and function much like a plainclothes police officer, although as a
> > private citizen I am limited to making citizen's arrests. The only people in
> > government who will look at me as a threat are the types who have really nasty
> > things in mind to do with their government authority.
> >
> Sounds like a closet authoritarian to me. You dislike the
> government because you don't control its every move, and like the
> idea of playing cop with your piece.

Hardly. I don't play cop, since cops cannot and will not protect me. I work the very serious and responsible job of free citizen, and I encourage others to do the same. Keeping and bearing arms is not just a right, but a civic duty.

Mike Lorrey