It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 11:59 AM


By Robert A. Waters
April 7, 2003

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choir boys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.

Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens. During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands." All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns?

The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?


"..It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 12:04 PM
It's really sad that somthing like that can happen. I think that America may be on the same track.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 12:11 PM
Getting Americans to give up their guns will be harder than getting us to give up hamburgers and pizza....with the NRA around, it'll never happen...thank goodness.

Not that the NRA are saviors....let's face it, nobody needs an M60 for home defence, but at least as long as they're around, we won't have our guns taken....

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 12:17 PM
No, I'm talking in the future. It will be a while, but I can already see people trying to get rid of them.

They'll have a hell of a time getting rid of our guns, but that's why they'll do it extreamly slow, so we don't even realize it. Then-BAM-no gun fo yoo.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 12:32 PM
another tragedy is that when he came up for early release, they asked him if the circumstances were repeated would he do the same again. Being the honest guy he is he said yes. Early release denied, denied for defending himself against a low life scum who is also trying to sue him. Scum that has criminal convictions as long as your arms.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 12:39 PM
I commend him for being honest. I would have said no, just to get out. No one should have to be subjected to the public humiliation that this person was. Sometimes I just wonder why people don't think.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 01:13 PM
And what if he'd called the police, picked up a hockey stick/baseball bat/broom handle, and busted their kneecaps till they couldn't walk (FYI, a person with a knife or club can attack faster and more effectively at close range than a man with a gun)?

Answer: he'd have been a free man.

He could have made many choices. Not all of them would lead to the death of a man and many of those other choices would have led to freedom for him and a lot of jail time for the others. And for every "shot burglar" you can show, I can show you 10 or more "accidentally shot friend (child)" or "shot someone in road rage" or "shot kids at school" or "murdered wife and kids with gun".

Guns aren't the answer. A different way of solving problems would be a better answer, methinks.

posted on Apr, 7 2003 @ 01:20 PM
I have to argue on this persons behalf.

There were two of them.(people breaking in) And one of them was supposedly holding a crowbar. I think that if he were to attack them with a club of some sort, he'd get his arse handed to him. He may have even been the one who ended up dead.

No, I think he was justified in the use of a gun.

top topics


log in