Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Lambs to the slaughter
The Times reports here on a city lawyer who was stabbed and killed in a robbery.
For a change, instead of the usual platitudes about a broken home, deprived childhood and discrimination we get to hear about criminality as motivation for crime (mind you the defence isn't reported as yet). ""The motive was greed"" No! Surely not, it must have been caused by the injustice of capitalism with some having more than others.
"“It didn’t matter to them that this man had worked hard for his position in life. He had a promising career in the legal profession ahead of him. It didn’t matter to them that he was planning his wedding . . . All that was best in life was ahead of him. To them he was a means to an end and they treated him accordingly.”" Why should any of that matter to them? It's not as if they're responsible for their own actions or anything.
Of course the substance of the matter is brutally addressed: "the two robbers attacked him . . . It was two against one, they were armed and he, of course, was not." Indeed he was not armed; we learn: "Mr ap Rhys Pryce, “a proud man”, probably put up a fight,". So it might be reasonable to conclude that had arming himself been a legal option in the UK perhaps he might have been legally armed and the story would have had a very different ending.
The phrase "of course he was not" (armed) sticks in my head, I wonder what he would have done with hindsight had he had an opportunity to arm himself. Lets us say he knew that at some point in his life he would be attacked by knife and (if he couldn't defend himself) killed. He also knows he cannot legally posses a weapon such as a handgun and if one is found upon him it's 10 years in prison. An opportunity is presented, he is able to arm himself illegally, and for the sake of this scenario he can also practice and train in shooting (albeit illegally). What would you chose? What would I chose? Of course, you cannot chose, it's an unfair scenario, you're condemned to death (for no crime) unless you risk prison for 10 years.
That is the reality of our gun laws. We condemn a law-abiding proportion of our number to violent death because we refuse to allow ordinary people the tools for self-defence. As for the robbers, if they get killed good! It stops them re-offending and saves a fortune on their keep. Who would I rather see armed on the streets people like the Mr ap Rhys Pryce or those who killed him? The only arms we can prevent from being on the streets are those in the hands of people like Mr ap Rhys Pryce, the rest we have no control over. Until we grasp these simple facts and start to trust law abiding people to be armed unnecessary tragedies like these will continue.
For a change, instead of the usual platitudes about a broken home, deprived childhood and discrimination we get to hear about criminality as motivation for crime (mind you the defence isn't reported as yet). ""The motive was greed"" No! Surely not, it must have been caused by the injustice of capitalism with some having more than others.
"“It didn’t matter to them that this man had worked hard for his position in life. He had a promising career in the legal profession ahead of him. It didn’t matter to them that he was planning his wedding . . . All that was best in life was ahead of him. To them he was a means to an end and they treated him accordingly.”" Why should any of that matter to them? It's not as if they're responsible for their own actions or anything.
Of course the substance of the matter is brutally addressed: "the two robbers attacked him . . . It was two against one, they were armed and he, of course, was not." Indeed he was not armed; we learn: "Mr ap Rhys Pryce, “a proud man”, probably put up a fight,". So it might be reasonable to conclude that had arming himself been a legal option in the UK perhaps he might have been legally armed and the story would have had a very different ending.
The phrase "of course he was not" (armed) sticks in my head, I wonder what he would have done with hindsight had he had an opportunity to arm himself. Lets us say he knew that at some point in his life he would be attacked by knife and (if he couldn't defend himself) killed. He also knows he cannot legally posses a weapon such as a handgun and if one is found upon him it's 10 years in prison. An opportunity is presented, he is able to arm himself illegally, and for the sake of this scenario he can also practice and train in shooting (albeit illegally). What would you chose? What would I chose? Of course, you cannot chose, it's an unfair scenario, you're condemned to death (for no crime) unless you risk prison for 10 years.
That is the reality of our gun laws. We condemn a law-abiding proportion of our number to violent death because we refuse to allow ordinary people the tools for self-defence. As for the robbers, if they get killed good! It stops them re-offending and saves a fortune on their keep. Who would I rather see armed on the streets people like the Mr ap Rhys Pryce or those who killed him? The only arms we can prevent from being on the streets are those in the hands of people like Mr ap Rhys Pryce, the rest we have no control over. Until we grasp these simple facts and start to trust law abiding people to be armed unnecessary tragedies like these will continue.
