This article by a regular columnist in a national magazine here about sums it up for me.
It would seem we have many parallels with parts of North America.
Jacko, I am proud to call myself a liberal, and on many things we agree; but not this time.
EYES RIGHT
RICHARD PROSSER
My Home, My Castle
Several years ago when the Government reneged on yet another contract with the people, I was required to renew my “lifetime” firearms licence.
The local sheriff visited my home, to ensure that the security provisions I had installed to prevent my arsenal (a .22 rifle and the slug gun I was given for my thirteenth birthday) from falling into criminal hands, and to inquire of my then partner as to my suitability to be entrusted with the responsibility of owning guns.
He left, impressed with my safe, and leaving my good lady impressed with the image of a handsome young man in uniform.
My next task was to present myself at the local Constabulary to fill out some forms, pay some money (of course) and answer a few questions.
Amongst them was a simple one-liner: “Would you use a firearm in self-defence?”
“That’s a tricky one isn’t it?” I inquired of the constable reading the questions from a list.
“That’s why we put it in,” she replied.
After a moment’s contemplation I answered; “In all honesty, I have to say yes.”
“So would I,” said she, and stamped the form.
Now it would seem that a Northland farmer is to be prosecuted by the same Police force, ostensibly for doing just that.
Police have announced that they will, after all, be laying charges against Kawakawa farmer Paul McIntyre, in relation to his shooting of one of three men involved in the attempted theft of a $20,000 four wheel farm bike from Mr. McIntyre’s remote Northland farm.
The charges are that Mr. McIntyre “caused injury with reckless disregard for the safety of others”, and that he “discharged a firearm without reasonable cause.”
In shooting at the tyres of the would-be thieves’ vehicle, rather than at the men themselves, as will probably be argued in court, Mr. McIntyre was presumably attempting quite deliberately to avoid harming anyone, which can hardly be called reckless disregard.
As for the second matter, much depends on what society is prepared to class as “reasonable cause”.
Put yourself in Mr. McIntyre’s shoes for a moment. Three intruders arrive at your farm in the dead of night. They are intent on violating the sanctuary of your home and stealing your property. They are armed. Who knows what else may be on their minds?
Your family is inside; you and your firearm are all that stands between them and violence.
Is it reasonable to expect you to nothing?
The nearest Police Station is forty-five minutes distant over gravel roads, and it isn’t manned at night. By the time your emergency call rouses the duty officer, help is at least an hour away. Faced by armed criminals, is it reasonable to expect you to wait this long?
They outnumber you by three to one, and they have the means and the intent to take your property, doing you harm in order to facilitate this if necessary. Is it reasonable to expect you to remain passive?
If you sit back and allow your property to be stolen, taking a chance that you and your family will be unharmed, you will still suffer loss; true, insurance will cover the cost of your stolen farm bike, but you will still have to front up with the excess, and your premiums will rise as well, not just now, but through all the future to come. If you want cover in the future you will have to increase your security, with better locks and more alarms, all at a direct cost to yourself. Is it reasonable to expect you to simply pay out for this because some criminals decide to break both the law and society’s code of conduct?
Is it reasonable for society to expect you to allow yourself to be violated because that same society is uneasy about people “taking the law into their own hands”?
The Police, in remote rural New Zealand, are quite simply not capable of protecting people. They have not the manpower, resources or budget. Is it reasonable, under these circumstances, that they insist you do nothing, and leave it all up to them? No, it most certainly is not.
If you, as an honest and law-abiding citizen, take the only action you can in order to protect your life, your home, family, and possessions, against those who have no regard for the law or for the rights and property of others, can this be called unreasonable? I think not.
If one of those intending criminals is injured as a result of your actions in defending yourself, can he claim that he has been treated unfairly? No, he damned well can’t, and neither can society or the Police claim that.
Honest citizens have a right to be protected. This right over-rides any that those who would violate that right may have. If society and its Police force are not capable of offering you protection, then they do not have the right to prevent you from protecting yourself. If criminals are injured in the course of committing crime, well, that’s just tough. No-one forced them to be there.
The hand-wringers and the bleeding hearts can say what they like; until society abandons its liberal guilt mentality and demonstrates that it is prepared to get tough, until we are prepared to put the rights of decent folk above those of thieves and low-lifes, the criminal menace will remain. The wholly contemptible “better red than dead” approach of wets and pacifists contributes nothing to the building of a better society.
A man’s home is his castle, and it is his right to defend it; and to defend his family and his possessions, and to offer his protection to his neighbour.
Stand tall, men of New Zealand, and be proud; defend your rights and your way of life, as did Paul McIntyre. The man deserves a medal. I would say he had far better than “reasonable cause” to discharge his firearm.
Richard Prosser