When It Comes to ‘Gun Violence,’ the UK Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet
A common argument raised by the citizen disarmament lobby is that the Brits suffer from much less “gun violence.” That’s generally followed by crediting the gun ban that took place after the Dunblane school massacre, along with the assurance that similar draconian laws would yield similar results in the U.S.
Common counter-arguments, while true, are generally incomplete. Those typically center on a cultural proclivity to be less violent, especially when such cultures are homogeneous, like the UK for the most part, or Japan.
Two points that are raised less frequently:
If violence were caused by guns, the millions of members of the NRA and other gun groups wouldn’t have statistically insignificant “gun violence” rates that are lower than those in the “gun-free paradises” by an order of magnitude.
The other point is, we can’t draw reliable long-term conclusions from short-term trends, which is a matter of perspective, and things are still unfolding. There are those still living for whom European genocide is a personal memory. And there are those living now who may be alive in the future after a comparable span of time. Whether they’re living free has yet to be determined.
We can see two other related trends:
“The number of homicides in England and Wales rose by 71 to 574 in the 12 months to September 2015 – an increase of 14% fuelled by rises in knife and gun crime, official statistics show,” The Guardian observed in January. “The rise in the number of homicides brings to an end a decade in which the murder rate in England and Wales has been falling despite the continued growth in the population.”
The other trend is the reconstitution of the population and culture through government-directed invasion. We see accelerated effects in Europe, which can act like a canary in a coal mine for what can be expected here. We see the results of population replacement reflected in naming trends for newborns, in elections for office, and in the emerging, inevitable territorial disputes.
And, as usual, we see government being not just totally ineffectual, but helping to bring about conditions that will produce opposite results from stated goals.
“ Scotland Yard is to offer cash rewards of up to £2,000 to criminals in a bid to reduce the number of guns on the streets following a worrying rise in shootings over the past three months,” The Telegraph reports. “The initiative follows a spike in shootings across the capital since the beginning of the year with 122 weapons being discharged resulting in 62 people being injured and two killed.”
“As we’ve seen in Europe, particularly looking at France and Belgium, if we allow easy access or allow any liberal approach to the possession of firearms for criminals, then it allows the possibility that terrorists get hold of it,” Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, claimed.
“The regulation of guns in Belgium is categorised as restrictive,” Gun Policy.org, a project of the decidedly anti-gun Sydney School of Public Health counters. Ditto for France. For Hogan-Howe to characterize either as a “liberal approach” suggests either an Inigo Montoya rejoinder is in order, or more simply, that he’s a statist liar.
“The scheme has been deliberately designed so that gangsters cannot obtain weapons and then make a profit by handing them over and claiming the reward,” The Telegraph explains. Interesting choice of a word, “scheme”…
We have similar “schemes” here, anonymous snitch lines, where you can rat out a fellow citizen and collect a nice bounty from the police state. Talk about a “progressive” idea.
What those proposing and praising such ventures never seem to consider – or at least admit – is that it also creates an incentive to get the government to eliminate rivals, and more insidiously, to give oath-breaking “law enforcers” a convenient way to get around supposed search and seizure protections — just anonymously call in a tip on someone you suspect but have no hard evidence for, and you’re well on your way to establishing probable cause.
In any case, the ludicrous “scheme” is just a sop for the press that they’re “doing something.” It will have absolutely no slowdown effect on hostile foreigners — with the competing goal of establishing a new order — from getting their hands on all the weaponry they want when they’re ready to “progress” from the fast breeding phase.
Who thinks the UK will still be maintaining that low “gun violence” rate within 20 years from now?
And, putting arms export control “legalities” aside for a moment, would anyone fall for another “Send a gun to defend a British home” appeal again? Would you?