No products in the cart.


When It Comes to ‘Gun Violence,’ the UK Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet

Would you? And who thinks with the way the world is going that they’ll forever maintain relatively low rates of “gun violence”?

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, 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?



David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (, and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.



  1. the problem with that argument is that you can also compare the us with canada, uruguay or other countries where weapons are not banned, oi i believe the main problem its not cultural diversity but poverty.

    Then you could also make a comparison with countries with restricted gun laws like mexico, and how recently civilians got guns and solved several of the problems they been having for years.

    Another argument would be that altough guns might potencialize other social problems their main justification was not to fight crime but to keep an armed population and to avoid weapons monopoly by the goverment and considering this argument they no longer serve that pourpose entirely because of new technologies.

    1. It’s the last argument that motivates what the U S Government has turned into to try to disarm Americans.

      I believe that (for whatever reason or reasons) they intend to reduce the population of what we used to call “Americans” by actively infesting the country (or allowing the infestation) with unknown hundreds (maybe thousands) of violent foreigners who hate Americans.

      I don’t believe that U.S. legislators (who are no longer “our” legislators) don’t know what is going on, and aren’t aware that a disarmed population would be easy prey for Obama’s Preferred People.

  2. Thanks, David. I’m sure I have no idea what Hugo just said, but what you presented is quite clear. I have and may again give to others a useful and essential tool, but only to those trusted to “keep my back.”
    It’s also been the occassion that sometimes in comparing gun violence between nations, populations and density are not always taken into account.

  3. Great article David. Thanks.

    Is this poster current, or from a past effort? It is not clear.

    Bottom line: if only law abiding, responsible citizens give up their weapons; only criminals and government will have them. Not a good thing either way. The citizens become prey for both when this happens. As mentioned in David’s article, we see what happened in Mexico once citizens managed to secure weapons, with which to defend themselves from the cartels and criminal gangs.

  4. I live in Alabama everyone and his brother is armed to the teeth down here — my point is
    we have very little gun violence[ trouble] very nice place to live– take our guns away– I hate to see what would happen

    1. I haven’t checked statistics, but I would guess that we have much more violence perpetrated here in Texas by illegal aliens (who murder about 4,500 Americans every year, and kill another roughly 4,500 in drunk driving incidents) than gun violence perpetrated by American citizens.

      The papers in the larger (and sadly, liberal) Texas cities usually avoid admitting that illegals have been guilty of violence by not giving their names or legal/illegal status, but word gets out (too many Texans know people who have been on the receiving end of such events).

      This is arranged and supported by the U.S. Government as a deliberate act of destruction against the people of America (who are forced to fund it), and as guilty as Obama is, he isn’t the first president who has refused to get tough on illegals.

  5. There has never been a great deal of armed, violent crime in Britain, including 100+ years ago when there were no restrictions on firearms. This is a result of British culture, but British culture is being destroyed by the importation of millions of Muslims and other third-world lowlifes. These people are not averse to the use of arms, but see armed violence as an assertion of their manhood and often as a duty to their religion. The Brits can look forward to a huge increase in the number of weapons in their country, and regular use of them in terrorism and crime — regardless of laws to the contrary. There is a price to be paid for their insane immigration policy in recent times, and this will be part of it.


  7. Quote: “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.”

    Trust the (rabidly liberal) Guardian to twist the truth to suit their own agenda.

    The reality is that gun crime in general – as distinct from homicides – has been rising relentlessly, ever since Tony ‘Liar’ Blair passed his firearms bill in 1998. At the time, he swore this bill would “drive the gun culture off the streets of Britain.”

    In contrast, my local police force’s firearms liaison officer (a retired senior cop) said it wouldn’t save a single life. In his career, he had dealt with numerous murders, and pointed out what should have been obvious to a blind man in a thick fog; if criminals are prepared to break the law by murdering or threatening to murder someone, why would any rational adult think the same criminal will take any notice of firearms laws?

    So, who was right? You can judge any law by its results. By 2001, gun crime had increased in Britain by 60%; by 2007, it had DOUBLED.

    I would like to make one point clear, though; it seems to be widely believed by many Americans that Britain (and the whole of Europe, come to that) is a “gun free zone”. That is NOT the case. In both Britain and Europe, people can legally possess guns – though the regulations vary widely from one country to another. In Britain, about 3 million rifles, shotguns and small numbers of cap and ball handguns are in private ownership – and, contrary to another myth, the rifles aren’t “only .22s, and mostly single shot”, nor must they “always be kept locked in a shooting range”; we keep them at home when we are not at the range or out hunting.

    And we have the legal right not only to use force against criminals, but also to use any legally-owned guns in the course of such a defence – up to and including lethal force, if we believe our lives are in danger.

    It’s also worth noting that the numbers of gun owners and guns in Britain have both been rising for at least the last 15 years, and still are. As for the difficulty of obtaining a licence, as long as you don’t have criminal connections or mental health problems, it’s no more tedious or time consuming than getting a first driving licence – and it’s considerably cheaper. The only reason that most Brits don’t own a gun is because – for whatever reason – they don’t want to, but NOT because our laws make it particularly difficult, let alone impossible.

    Not that either the Guardian or Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe (Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police) would say so in public! Bleeding heart liberals, one and all.

  8. I wish we COULD help the average Brit, who undoubtedly doesn’t want to lose his country any more than we want to lose ours.

    Who doesn’t want his 10 year old daughter molested by a Preferred Monster because the Monster Culture says that 10 is beyond old enough.

    Who finds London streets that reek of the urine sprayed on the buildings disgusting.

    Who, being one of a people who love dogs, doesn’t agree that the only dog that isn’t “spiritually unclean” is the Arabs’ Sakuki (naturally).

    Who finds women buried alive in dehumanizing head to toe fabric prisons strange and creepy.

    Who hears news reports of family members charged for having their little girls mutilated, shipping them out of the country to avoid Britain’s laws against mutilation, if necessary.

    Last Thanksgiving we were in Chile with a large dinner group. A 23 year old Chilean woman admitted during a conversation about politics that she thought that things were much better in Chile when it was a socialist country.

    The “padron” at the head of the table dressed her down without raising his voice, calmly informing her that she wasn’t around when the stores had no food and almost everyone walked, rode a horse, or drove an ox-drawn cart, and that had she bothered to speak with old timers, they would have told her what it was really like.

    I had to restrain myself from cheering!

    You don’t hear that here in the U.S. much, and that has to change. We can’t let the country be destroyed to make socialists/communists comfortable.

  9. Britain has already fallen into the hands of the enemy, they have been successfully invaded. It’s new name is Britastan.

  10. For my a whole adult life I have listened to the more evolved people’s of Europe, Australia & every other gun free utopian Paridise talk down to me. Call me a caveman or cowboy or equate the number of firearms in my possession with the number of teeth in my mouth.

    I watched the festivities in Cologne this past new years. Woman being grabbed off the street by mobs of muslim animals to be gang raped in alleys and train stations.

    European men made their bed and now they’ll have to lay in it.
    I feel no kinship with people of the EU anymore. They’re on their own.

  11. Would I send a gun to help the U.K.? Nope I might need it here. What about binoculars? Sorry Charlie, I only have one pair I better keep them.

  12. According to FBI stats, 50% of murders in America are black-on-black, with blacks 13% of the population. And according to HuffPo, the murder rate for Hispanics is twice that of non-black/Hispanic, with Hispanics 17% of the population.

    The math is simple. With a recent overall homicide rate of 4.7 per 100K that works out to the following rates: Black 18; Hispanic 4.5; Non-black/Hispanic 2.2; Homicide rate in the UK? 1.2!

  13. Such a shame, you were making sense until you referred to UK culture as homogenous. I’ve seen this myth often being spread by gun-rights activists trying to discount any comparison between the US and UK. By spreading such a blatant lie you bring into question everything else you say. There are many good reasons not to compare statistics from different countries, you don’t need to pretend the UK is something it’s not.
    More research on the author’s part is definately required.

Comments are closed.