An ongoing situation in London, England explains why gun rights are so crucial to individual freedom and well being.
On April 4, Henry Vincent and his suspected accomplice, Billy Jeeves entered the London home of 78-year-old Richard Osborn-Brooks and his wife. Defending his property and his wife, Osborn-Brooks stabbed and killed Vincent and forced Jeeves to flee.
Now, however, friends of Vincent, who was known for carrying weapons, have established a tribute memorial to the dead burglar opposite Osborn-Brooks’ residence. While the tributes were removed on Monday evening, Vincent’s friends have since returned to put them back up. As the BBC reported, “most neighbors are reluctant to talk publicly, for fear of being drawn into a dispute that may not be over.”
Osborn-Brooks and his neighbors would not have to live in fear, were they allowed to possess firearms for self-defense. The 78-year-old would also have been able to go to sleep at night, confident that he could equalize the threat posed by two much younger and presumably far stronger men. His home would really be his castle again.
What about the neighboring residents now being harassed by Vincent’s friends? Would they feel safer if they had their own firearms? Again, I would say yes. In response to this career criminal’s comrades putting up memorials on their private property, his neighbors could ask the miscreants to leave, with neighbors in the background, on their porches, firearms resting prominently in a display of gentle persuasion.
After all, the vast majority of defensive uses of guns in the U.S. don’t involve shooting or even pointing them at anyone. Firearms don’t simply offer a means of active defense, but also relative freedom from fear and relief from undue stress. If a resident has a gun, the balance of security lies inherently in his or her favor. Yes, the criminals might also be armed with guns, but burglars would generally prefer not to get into shoot-outs. The possibility that a potential burglary victim is armed is enough to persuade most American burglars to be very careful about breaking in only after the residents are gone.
I speak here from personal experience, having grown up in Britain. I knew that if my family’s home was ever invaded, I would have had to protect my mother by grabbing a kitchen knife and targeting the intruder’s carotid arteries. Would I have succeeded? Maybe, but that takes a lot more skill, and perhaps physical strength for a close-quarters battle, than shooting at short range.
Osborn-Brooks and his wife face a far worse dilemma. They have now been forced into relocation and their fellow residents are hiding their homes, hoping that the police can protect them, which apparently they can’t, judging by their complaints to the British media.
In the end, Osborn-Brooks deserves a public service medal. He courageously took reasonable action to defend his family and property. In contrast, those now threatening him and his fellow residents should have their memorial shredded.
