Comments on: Britain outlaws a homeowner’s self-defense against intruders http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/01/09/britain-outlaws-a-homeowners-self-defense-against-intruders/ Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:19:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Liberal Justices Complain About American Law Being Too Protective of Civil Liberties and Colorblindness http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/01/09/britain-outlaws-a-homeowners-self-defense-against-intruders/comment-page-1/#comment-138652 Liberal Justices Complain About American Law Being Too Protective of Civil Liberties and Colorblindness Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:08:51 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=10294#comment-138652 [...] are often hostile to free speech, religious freedom, and other basic civil liberties, and the right of homeowners to defend themselves against criminals by wielding a knife or gun in self-defense. The U.N. Human Rights Council says [...] [...] are often hostile to free speech, religious freedom, and other basic civil liberties, and the right of homeowners to defend themselves against criminals by wielding a knife or gun in self-defense. The U.N. Human Rights Council says [...]

]]> By: Will “International” Norms Override Civil Liberties and Protections Against Violent Crime? http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/01/09/britain-outlaws-a-homeowners-self-defense-against-intruders/comment-page-1/#comment-136475 Will “International” Norms Override Civil Liberties and Protections Against Violent Crime? Fri, 09 Dec 2011 21:14:16 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=10294#comment-136475 [...] are often hostile to free speech, religious freedom, and other basic civil liberties, and the right of homeowners to defend themselves against criminals by wielding a knife or gun in self-defense. The U.N. Human Rights Council says [...] [...] are often hostile to free speech, religious freedom, and other basic civil liberties, and the right of homeowners to defend themselves against criminals by wielding a knife or gun in self-defense. The U.N. Human Rights Council says [...]

]]> By: Legal Elites Chip Away at Protections Against Violent Crime | OpenMarket.org http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/01/09/britain-outlaws-a-homeowners-self-defense-against-intruders/comment-page-1/#comment-97168 Legal Elites Chip Away at Protections Against Violent Crime | OpenMarket.org Wed, 19 May 2010 18:05:46 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=10294#comment-97168 [...] systems and international lawyers are often hostile to free speech, religious freedom, and the right of homeowners to defend themselves against burglars and other intruders who may commit violence by wielding a knife or gun in [...] [...] systems and international lawyers are often hostile to free speech, religious freedom, and the right of homeowners to defend themselves against burglars and other intruders who may commit violence by wielding a knife or gun in [...]

]]> By: Bookworm Room » Police lambaste British homeowners who try to reclaim property from squatters http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/01/09/britain-outlaws-a-homeowners-self-defense-against-intruders/comment-page-1/#comment-85946 Bookworm Room » Police lambaste British homeowners who try to reclaim property from squatters Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:57:49 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=10294#comment-85946 [...] few days ago, I posted about the fact that, in England, it is illegal to defend yourself against an attack within your own home.  I shouldn’t have gotten so upset about the whole [...] [...] few days ago, I posted about the fact that, in England, it is illegal to defend yourself against an attack within your own home.  I shouldn’t have gotten so upset about the whole [...]

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/01/09/britain-outlaws-a-homeowners-self-defense-against-intruders/comment-page-1/#comment-85910 Ymarsakar Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:29:16 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=10294#comment-85910 There's more murders because the gangs have a limited amount of territory to fight over. Limited resources means more competition.   In Britain, people don't need to kill the cows because they got them locked up for the slaughter whenever they want.     In the US, there are safe zones and less safe zones. The less safe zones are dominated by black jungle mentality, which is similar to the Islamic inferiority complex. This is such that they won't tolerate 'insults' because losing face is the same as dying in such a jungle environment. This includes various gang territories, inner cities, and what not. Most of them are either funded by Democrat welfare programs or drug running from Mexico/Latin America.     Because the US is so large and has so much territory to cover, much of it protected by local armed force, the crimes such as burglary and such are much less because most Americans don't live as the prey of criminals. As you get into denser population centers or certain Democrat controlled neighborhoods and slums, it changes. But there is only a limited number of crime that can be committed even there, and even such is limited by the fact that if you rob a store too many times the owner is going to get a shotgun and kill a few of the robbers next time. Which did happen, even in cities like Chicago.   Since gangs are primarily motivated about status, which then gives them money, they are often more interested in fighting amongst themselves for territory and street cred than anything else. Check out the youtube videos that they post glorifying their operations. Drive bys got very popular once they saw that such a thing would get coverage on the news, and the little inferiority obsessed minds of these people love that kind of attention, cause it equals 'status'.   It is far harder for a gang to expand their territory outside into the greater US, because there are more armed people outside than inside a ghetto. So it is much easier for criminals to focus on each other. More convenient. Less resource intensive.   In Britain, London specifically, you had some crime ridden areas back when the British aristocracy held balls and what not. But that was limited to the Chaucery or whatever they called it. The crims couldn't get much out, because the rest of the city was frequented by Aristocrats, which could call in the law or their own armed guards.   Britain now, who is there to protect the people from the expansion of criminal networks? Nothing and nobody. People will have to protect themselves. The law is not allowed to protect the people. The police aren't allowed to do. And the politicians have no interest in the sheep. There’s more murders because the gangs have a limited amount of territory to fight over. Limited resources means more competition.
 
In Britain, people don’t need to kill the cows because they got them locked up for the slaughter whenever they want.
 
 
In the US, there are safe zones and less safe zones. The less safe zones are dominated by black jungle mentality, which is similar to the Islamic inferiority complex. This is such that they won’t tolerate ‘insults’ because losing face is the same as dying in such a jungle environment. This includes various gang territories, inner cities, and what not. Most of them are either funded by Democrat welfare programs or drug running from Mexico/Latin America.
 
 
Because the US is so large and has so much territory to cover, much of it protected by local armed force, the crimes such as burglary and such are much less because most Americans don’t live as the prey of criminals. As you get into denser population centers or certain Democrat controlled neighborhoods and slums, it changes. But there is only a limited number of crime that can be committed even there, and even such is limited by the fact that if you rob a store too many times the owner is going to get a shotgun and kill a few of the robbers next time. Which did happen, even in cities like Chicago.
 
Since gangs are primarily motivated about status, which then gives them money, they are often more interested in fighting amongst themselves for territory and street cred than anything else. Check out the youtube videos that they post glorifying their operations. Drive bys got very popular once they saw that such a thing would get coverage on the news, and the little inferiority obsessed minds of these people love that kind of attention, cause it equals ‘status’.
 
It is far harder for a gang to expand their territory outside into the greater US, because there are more armed people outside than inside a ghetto. So it is much easier for criminals to focus on each other. More convenient. Less resource intensive.
 
In Britain, London specifically, you had some crime ridden areas back when the British aristocracy held balls and what not. But that was limited to the Chaucery or whatever they called it. The crims couldn’t get much out, because the rest of the city was frequented by Aristocrats, which could call in the law or their own armed guards.
 
Britain now, who is there to protect the people from the expansion of criminal networks? Nothing and nobody. People will have to protect themselves. The law is not allowed to protect the people. The police aren’t allowed to do. And the politicians have no interest in the sheep.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/01/09/britain-outlaws-a-homeowners-self-defense-against-intruders/comment-page-1/#comment-85908 Ymarsakar Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:17:21 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=10294#comment-85908 It's a perfect description of Book's anarchy and totalitarian hybrid. It’s a perfect description of Book’s anarchy and totalitarian hybrid.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/01/09/britain-outlaws-a-homeowners-self-defense-against-intruders/comment-page-1/#comment-85907 Ymarsakar Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:16:55 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=10294#comment-85907 When a person has no confidence in the law and will be punished regardless of what they do, they will have no reason to hold their limits in check. That means whatever response they have to a perception that they are in danger will be more and more disproportionate because they can no longer count on proportion to save them.   British politicians like Blair specifically wanted to protect Muslims from British law, so he wouldn't enforce the law against them while using every part of the law to suppress native Brits. When a person has no confidence in the law and will be punished regardless of what they do, they will have no reason to hold their limits in check. That means whatever response they have to a perception that they are in danger will be more and more disproportionate because they can no longer count on proportion to save them.
 
British politicians like Blair specifically wanted to protect Muslims from British law, so he wouldn’t enforce the law against them while using every part of the law to suppress native Brits.

]]> By: Danny Lemieux http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/01/09/britain-outlaws-a-homeowners-self-defense-against-intruders/comment-page-1/#comment-85902 Danny Lemieux Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:10:34 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=10294#comment-85902 Incidentally, the last time I looked (about a year ago), violent crime is much higher in Canada, Britain and much of Europe than in the U.S. Murder rates are significantly higher in the U.S., though. Property crimes are also much higher in Europe. Incidentally, the last time I looked (about a year ago), violent crime is much higher in Canada, Britain and much of Europe than in the U.S. Murder rates are significantly higher in the U.S., though. Property crimes are also much higher in Europe.

]]> By: Danny Lemieux http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/01/09/britain-outlaws-a-homeowners-self-defense-against-intruders/comment-page-1/#comment-85901 Danny Lemieux Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:09:07 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=10294#comment-85901 Ari Tai - that's a very good question you pose at the end. Violent crime tends to be much more localized in U.S. than in Europe. What is frightening in Europe is that you really can't escape it. For the individual victim, of course, it doesn't make much difference. I knew a woman, mother of two, who got raped in a small town and never got satisfaction from the law. She ended up committing suicide one year later on the anniversary of the event. I suspect that worse than being the victim of violent crime is the knowledge that you cannot get justice. I heard that vigilantism in Belgium is sky high. When there is no governing law, people create their law. Can't say I disagree with them. In Britain, "justice" has become a joke. Frankly, I don't know what I would do if I was the victim of a violent crime in Britain but I suspect that it would be pretty ugly. Ari Tai – that’s a very good question you pose at the end.
Violent crime tends to be much more localized in U.S. than in Europe. What is frightening in Europe is that you really can’t escape it. For the individual victim, of course, it doesn’t make much difference.
I knew a woman, mother of two, who got raped in a small town and never got satisfaction from the law. She ended up committing suicide one year later on the anniversary of the event.
I suspect that worse than being the victim of violent crime is the knowledge that you cannot get justice. I heard that vigilantism in Belgium is sky high. When there is no governing law, people create their law. Can’t say I disagree with them. In Britain, “justice” has become a joke. Frankly, I don’t know what I would do if I was the victim of a violent crime in Britain but I suspect that it would be pretty ugly.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2010/01/09/britain-outlaws-a-homeowners-self-defense-against-intruders/comment-page-1/#comment-85893 Ymarsakar Tue, 12 Jan 2010 06:00:09 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=10294#comment-85893 When the Left is allowed guns, what you get is the Iranian Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, WACO, Cuban Revolution, aka death and misery for millions untold.   Don't ever allow Leftists to get a hold of guns or any other weapons like explosives. They're not adults. They don't have what it takes to handle that power.   Not to mention they are piss scared of physical violence and death to begin with.   A Democrat that is against guns isn't using their head, but their fears as counsel. Their insecurity is telling them to ban guns because they can't handle guns, they don't want to face a gun, and they can't handle the thought of wielding violence against another or having it wielded against themselves.   Some are hunters, of course, and they are for banning guns. They seem to have their own rationalizations on this level, but those are the minority. The great majority simply have one reason: fear. When the Left is allowed guns, what you get is the Iranian Revolution, Bolshevik Revolution, WACO, Cuban Revolution, aka death and misery for millions untold.
 
Don’t ever allow Leftists to get a hold of guns or any other weapons like explosives. They’re not adults. They don’t have what it takes to handle that power.
 
Not to mention they are piss scared of physical violence and death to begin with.
 
A Democrat that is against guns isn’t using their head, but their fears as counsel. Their insecurity is telling them to ban guns because they can’t handle guns, they don’t want to face a gun, and they can’t handle the thought of wielding violence against another or having it wielded against themselves.
 

Some are hunters, of course, and they are for banning guns. They seem to have their own rationalizations on this level, but those are the minority. The great majority simply have one reason: fear.

]]>