Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.6.2
Site Design by Sekimori

« Counter to Bloomberg media blitz against Sen. Jeff Flake | Main | Colorado recall petitions »

An interesting question

Posted by David Hardy · 27 May 2013 12:44 PM

Why did British witnesses stand by while a solider was hacked to death in public? You can probably guess the reason.

5 Comments | Leave a comment

fwb | May 27, 2013 12:51 PM | Reply

General urban apathy. Fear. Lazy.

Does anyone really believe it would have been any better in NYC or Chicago.

Scott | May 27, 2013 1:02 PM | Reply

The British populace has been conditioned to be good witnesses only, else they be charged with grievous bodily harm if they intervene and injure the attacker.

Jim March | May 27, 2013 8:07 PM | Reply

Strangely, it's connected to the reason why the "punk rock scene" still likes to wear plaid (esp. what looks like Highland tartan patterns). Scotland was where left-wing politics in Britain started, when full-on Communists took over the Scottish Parliament building shortly after WW1. Scottish working-class people respected how Lenin and company took Russia out of the Aristocrat's slaughter-house known as WW1. Scared the crap out of the British upper class and strict gun control was the immediate result.

The Sherlock Holmes stories in which Holmes and Watson pack wheelguns whenever they want in London circa late 19th century is completely accurate. The laws were very similar to Vermont today - pack what you want, no permit needed. I don't know if open carry was common or not; I suspect not but I don't know for sure. Concealed? Not at all uncommon.

wrangler5 | May 27, 2013 9:42 PM | Reply

To elaborate on Scott's remark, I believe that the underlying philosophy is that use of force is the exclusive prerogative of the monarch. Any citizen who uses force breaks the King's Peace. Whoever is left standing after a breach of the Peace is obviously the one who used the most force, so is the most guilty of breach of the Peace, and so should be the first prosecuted. Whoever is not left standing is the "victim" and should be compensated.

It was literally true up until a few years ago that if criminals broke into your house and threatened you or your family with injury or death with knives, guns or clubs, but you were good/lucky enough to subdue them, YOU would be prosecuted and imprisoned, and the government would give free lawyers to the invaders to sue your family for the injuries they suffered at your hands. I gather that has been slightly relaxed recently, but it still remains generally true that if you get involved in violence, even if it is to save innocent victims of crime, you run not only the risk of being injured in the fracas, but are at serious risk of criminal prosecution by the government.

It has become a very sick society.

Nor'Easter | May 30, 2013 2:55 PM | Reply

Some very good points by all, I can only express some surprise at the comment about Lenin and Co stopping the slaughter! I believe that's where the slaughter really began! Also, I believe if any "class" suffered casualties in WWI it was the Aristos themselves. Otherwise, your points are well made.
Aside from the obvious point that the law-abiding citizens are totally unarmed, Britons, steady and brave as they are when part of an official organization, do have a hesitation to involve themselves as private citizens for the reasons you listed.
In Europe generally, it is "against the grain" to take individual action, which is why there is doubt about things like the Kennedy assassination done by a "lone nut". In the rest of the world it would usually be a "Cabal" of some sort.
This self-assertion and independent spirit, is what makes America unique. It's sad that the continuing efforts of our "Ruling Classes" to Europeanize the population are having their effects and the reply by FWB is, by now and unfortunately, becoming true.

Leave a comment