For years now, your friendly neighborhood gun control advocates have been steadily chipping away at your human right to effective self-defense. Their logic is that your civil right to defend yourself is outweighed by the highly unlikely possibility that you’re going to go nuts and kill a bunch of innocent liberals who, being “good people”, do not own any icky, scary guns.
One of their more popular “misdirections” is Britain banned guns and they have almost no shootings now.
While this is technically correct, it is also a smoke screen. As those of with personal defensive philosophies based on reality already know, there is more to violent crime than “gun crime”.
As we see in today’s example from The Metro, criminals don’t need guns to injure or kill you. Our protagonist was assailed in his caravan trailer by a group of machete- and grenade-wielding thugs. The only gun present was the defender’s shotgun.
And yes, you read that right, the attackers made their own grenades and Molotov cocktails out of common, household items. And went to attack Mr. Reuben Gregory, 72, bringing accelerants, bleach, a funnel, a hammer, and zip-ties along for the “fun”.
According to the septuagenarian, the attackers damaged his door during their first attempt at entry, leaving a hole in the bottom through which they were stabbing and swinging the machete. The elderly victim then put his shotgun down to the level of the hole and pressed the trigger. The blast killed one attacker.
Mr. Gregory, however, is not yet out of the woods. Self-defense (self-defence?), though completely legal under British Law, is repugnant to most Crown Prosecutors’ sensibilities of appropriate behavior by the lower classes and investigated as a crime in the UK (as well as the more “progressive” states in the US).
For the crime of Murder, he was exonerated; the Magistrates deciding that the trouble came to him, after all. But for the heinous crime of possessing the sole viable means for a 72 year-old man to defend himself and his family against 48-year-old Wayne Digby and his accomplice, Anthony Hearn, Mr. Gregory may do five years in a British prison.
Now, don’t get us wrong here. Mr. Gregory possessed a two-shot, double-barrelled shotgun without the appropriate license. And that’s illegal in Britain as well as some of the free states of the US.
But, let’s look at how the UK discriminates against the poor by ensuring that they cannot afford the means to effective self-defence:
Paid licensing at extortionate prices.
For the last 50 years, Mr. Gregory, 72, and his sister, 50, have lived in their camper-trailer near Heathrow Airport. They have no access to running water, no access to electricity, and no access to sanitation services. Strangely enough for being so incredibly poor, they have clean criminal records.
So, for the privilege of defending themselves with what appears to be an antique shotgun, these poverty-stricken Brits are required to cough up £79.50 ($104.15) for the first five years, and then £49 ($64.19) every five years thereafter.
So, their choice was food or a license to defend themselves.
Here in America, we have a dedicated group of morons who believe quite firmly that civil rights should be free for all. They spend great quantities of time and energy telling us that the right to vote or the privilege of driving should be free to the masses.
They then turn right around and, when they’re not calling for the violent death of all gun owners or some subset thereof, they scream for expensive, hard-to-get licenses for the civil and human right to armed self-defense claiming that this will reduce criminal homicide and other gun-related violence rates.
But the anti-self-defense mobs are adamant that this is the one true path to eliminating violent crime. And the right of the Gregorys to defend themselves? They’re just some poor people living in a camper down by the airfield. Who cares (so long as they vote Labour, right)?