There is a certain amount of irony in the fact that the land that produced Richard Dawkins has such a touching faith that the government will take care of you. But of course, the good people of Great Britain are not content to have faith in their government. No, they feel it necessary to impose that faith on everyone in the land.
In Great Britain it is taken as an article of faith that you should always rely on the police to keep you safe. Even if you see other people being attacked or otherwise harmed, you should still wait for the police. Here is a Minister in the British government on what to do if you see someone committing a crime….
Jeremy Vine: You see something happening in the street. Do you step in?
Tony McNulty: I think the general line must be to get in touch with the authorities straight and make sure that if things are as bad as you paint the police will be there as quickly as they can.
Jeremy: You see a young man looking aggressive, shouting at an old woman, what do you do? You retreat and ring the police?
Tony McNulty: I think you should in the first instance. It may well be the simply shouting at them, blowing your horn or whatever else deters them and they go away.
Jeremy: He’s now hitting her and the police haven’t come, what do you do then?
Tony McNulty: The same the same, you must always …
Jeremy: Still wait?
Tony McNulty: Get back to the police, try some distractive activities whatever else.
Jeremy: What jump up and down?
Tony McNulty: But I would say you know sometimes that that may well work.
Mr. McNulty is not just trying to prevent someone from suing him should they get hurt trying to rescue an old lady. If you take action to defend yourself or someone else in Great Britain, you will probably go to jail (if they can find room, the jails are pretty full over there). Consider these examples from Reason Magazine…..
In 1973 a young man running on a road at night was stopped by the police and found to be carrying a length of steel, a cycle chain, and a metal clock weight. He explained that a gang of youths had been after him. At his hearing it was found he had been threatened and had previously notified the police. The justices agreed he had a valid reason to carry the weapons. Indeed, 16 days later he was attacked and beaten so badly he was hospitalized. But the prosecutor appealed the ruling, and the appellate judges insisted that carrying a weapon must be related to an imminent and immediate threat. They sent the case back to the lower court with directions to convict.
In 1987 two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, “My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life.” In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.
In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal.
You would like to think that US is immune to that type of nonsense. But I have seen a member of the police force of this country argue that it should be illegal for the general public to buy bullet proof vests. And if I remember correctly, she argued this in the context of cabbies buying bullet proof vests to protect themselves from being knifed by their passengers!!!
It goes with out saying that she was against anyone having guns…….