100th London murders; Thinking Like A Brit!

It could be worse!

100th London murder investigation launched as capital set for record number of killings after pensioner found dead - Mirror Online: 100th London murder investigation launched as capital set for record number of killings after pensioner found dead Full list of those killed after epidemic of knife crime sweeps the capital this year piling pressure on Metropolitan Police.

They tell me that knife attacks are less frequently fatal than attacks by guns.   And I assume that not all of the Brits who were attacked by knives died from their injuries; the article does not address the question of how many Brits were attacked by knives and survived the attack.   For the sake of argument, we will assume that a few some survived.

So, if those who were "only injured" by knives had been armed with firearms, and were able to defend themselves against their attackers ... then the total number of "dead" would be much greater (due to the deaths, by gunshot, of the attackers).

That would be a terrible number of "death by gunshot", and would make it seem that London is a hotbed of violence!

When you think about it, it's ultimately A Good Thing that Brits are not allowed to defend themselves with firearms.

Help Stamp Out Gun Violence!

(Oh, and BTW .... The Brits have made knives illegal.   Which is okay, because they don't like to to eat steak anyway.)

PS: I wonder if there would be fewer knife attacks on Brits if they were legally permitted to carry firearms.   Logic suggests that the possibility that the victims might be able to defend themselves against more powerful and vicious attackers might make the villains more ... cautious ... about choosing their victims.
But that's just poppycock; that could never happen in a Civilized Society!

Attempted Murder Criteria in England

"I'm going to take your farm!"

British farmer fires paintball gun into ground to warn off aggressive trespasser.

“Close enough. I felt he would lunge at me and strike me with the stick as he was carrying it in a raised position,” the owner said. “He ignored my demand, slowly moving forward. Consciously, I moved the paintball gun to the front, still maintaining its position pointing to the ground. Approximately one metre in front of me, I released two paintballs. They made a popping sound. Then the man stopped.” The owner then called the police.

Arrested for attempted murder!

... and people wonder why eighteenth century Americans revolted against British Rule!

(It's a good thing we did, else we too would be a bunch of wimps with no rights!)

No, I am not making this up.  From the original article:

Charges could include possession of a dangerous weapon, contravening the Dangerous Weapons Act and even a charge as serious as pointing of a firearm – if the victim believes that the weapon is a real firearm. However, the Act states in section 3(1) that “any person who is in possession of a dangerous weapon under circumstances which may raise a reasonable suspicion that the person intends to use the dangerous weapon for an unlawful purpose, is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years”.

IS IT SIGNIFICANT that the article does not mention whether charges were brought against the tresspasser?

I think so.  What do you think?

The Pussification of the British Male

I regret to announce that I am obliged to add a new category to these blog articles:

"The Pussification of the British Male"

There have been so many articles from the British, enumerating instances of "Home Invasions" which have been resolved by the resident (and which resulted in the wounding or death of the uninvited stranger in the home ... and persecution of the defending resident) ... it becomes apparent that British Law will no longer allow a Citizen to defend hearth, health and home.

(This is not a situation endemic to The Brits: there was once a blogsite titled "The Pusification of the Ameriican Male" which seems to have been deleted ... but dealt with similar circumstances where Americans who defended themselves were subsequently persecuted.  It also relates to at least one popular George Carlin comedic routine.)

The latest incident (H/T: NeverYetMelted) involves yet another British Resident who defends himself against a Home Intruder, resulting in the serious injury or demise of  the intruder.

Pensioner, 78, arrested for murder after 'stabbing burglar to death in his home': A pensioner has been arrested after a suspected burglar was killed during a violent tussle at his home. The 78-year-old was held on suspicion of murder after the 38-year-old died of his wounds in hospital in the early hours of Wednesday morning. Police said the struggle broke out after the pensioner, named locally as  Richard Osborn-Brooks, found two men inside his home in South Park, Hither Green, south London shortly after midnight. One of the burglars, who was armed with a screwdriver, forced the homeowner into his kitchen while his accomplice went upstairs. Detectives believe a struggle then took place between "one of the males and the homeowner" and the 38-year-old intruder was stabbed in the upper body.

Further details of the invasion, and resistance by the home-owner, are not immediately available.

My personal opinion is that any "home-invader" who enters an occupied residence has already demonstrated that he has no qualms about confronting the resident with violence.  The home owner is fully justified in taking what ever actions which seem best to defend himself, if not his possessions, because nobody can know the mind of a home invader.   It seems that the best defense is one which renders the invader least capable of inflicting injury or death to the residents.