I wrote yesterday about a silly proposal in the United Kingdom to ban long kitchen knives.
Some people objected because the story was from last decade, but that misses the point. Proponents of the Second Amendment are vigilant against encroachments in part because we’re worried about the slippery slope.
I predicted in yesterday’s piece that at some point the Brits would resort to banning long knives. I hope I’m wrong, but my prediction is based on what the U.K. government has done with gun control.
Ever since 1920, the government has made it more and more difficult for law-abiding people to possess weapons. And in a perverse example of Mitchell’s Law, the failure of one policy is then used to justify the next policy.
That’s how proposals that sound radical and foolish sometimes get implemented many years later.
We don’t know if this will lead to a knife ban at some point, but we can look at evidence showing that gun control in the U.K. was a precursor for a gun ban. And we also know such policies don’t reduce crime.
Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of George Mason University has a column in the Wall Street Journal, looking at the impact of anti-gun policies in the United Kingdom.
…the Firearms Act of 1998…instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison. The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time.
By the way, it’s not just gun crime that has gone up. The U.K. has become a much more dangerous and violent society – almost surely in part because the thugs don’t have to worry about armed resistance.
Heck, if you are one of the few legal gun owners in the nation and you shoot a burglar, you get arrested instead of a pat on the back.
The U.K.’s draconian restrictions on individual liberty lead to some Orwellian consequences. Professor Malcolm offers up two examples.
Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: “In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant.” Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release. In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.
Amazing…and nauseating. I already had written about the unjust treatment of Mr. Clarke, but Mr. Nightingale’s legal nightmare is just as absurd.
Gun control laws are utterly perverse. They don’t work, just like prohibition didn’t work in the 1920s, and just like today’s Drug War is an unmitigated failure.
Gun bans turn law-abiding people into criminals, while simultaneously making life easier for the low-life scum of society.
And as the welfare state begins to fall apart and civil unrest becomes more common, the deadly impact of these bad policies will become even more apparent.
International Liberty 
[…] Over and over again, I’ve shared evidence showing that gun ownership deters crime. […]
[…] British veteran of the Iraq war was arrested after his local trainees included a gun when mailing his possessions back to […]
[…] British veteran of the Iraq war was arrested after his local trainees included a gun when mailing his possessions back to […]
Travis:
Some of the US reporting on the UK and crime/guns is correct. But most of it is poorly researched and some of it is simply nonsense.
‘Do you mean the history of thousands of Americans answering Briton’s plea and sending their private arms and ammunition so Brits might defend themselves with more than sticks and stones.
Perhaps you mean the history of American pilots and soldiers volunteering and serving in your armed forces long before the U.S. officially declared war on Germany.
Perhaps Santa should tell us of the American ships and seamen lost from the massive convoys bringing food and fuel and arms so that you might not perish.
And, perhaps…. Well, let’s just say the list is long enough already.’
I know that history, and I and every decent British person is grateful for those American men. BUT thats not what the poster was saying. He was making the usual ‘we saved your a*s’ type comment. Not the intelligent reply you gave.
James,
I am an American gun owner that has long believed the traditional American thought about the UK regarding guns, hunting and self defense. I would love to hear more from someone who is in the know as I have learned long ago that our media is full of lies and deceit. If you can respond to this reply I will send you a temporary email address where we can converse out of the public view.
Yes, history books.
Do you mean the history of thousands of Americans answering Briton’s plea and sending their private arms and ammunition so Brits might defend themselves with more than sticks and stones.
Perhaps you mean the history of American pilots and soldiers volunteering and serving in your armed forces long before the U.S. officially declared war on Germany.
Perhaps Santa should tell us of the American ships and seamen lost from the massive convoys bringing food and fuel and arms so that you might not perish.
And, perhaps…. Well, let’s just say the list is long enough already.
‘As far as the British not wanting to own many guns, little need, as they can always depend on the U.S. to come to their aid when needed, rather than defending themselves.’
Oh dear. Looks like you should asked Santa for some history books.
‘No matter what defenses are made of British gun control laws, the greatest oppression of its citizens are exemplified by the fact that otherwise law abiding citizens are arrested, charged, and have to defend themselves as if common criminals, considered guilty until proven innocent. It is of no consequence and of little conciliation that they may be found innocent of their “crimes” of defending themselves and their homes. Ordinary citizens have to think twice before even defending themselves from grave bodily harm, rape or even death. ‘
Complete myth. This nonsense is believed by Americans because of a tiny amount of cases like the Tony Martin case. This myth ignores the many cases where homeowners in the UK have killed invaders and face no punishment (there was a case recently in Manchester for example). Those cases get ignored by US talk radio and the media.
From this there is now a pernicious and frankly silly myth that the Brits have no right of self defence or home defence. In fact, the current and even the last (PC) govt STRENGTHENED the law again in even stronger favour of the homeowner in the UK.
BTW, yours truly was a homeowner who was burgled and attacked 9suffering a cut hand) in Sept 2008 by a junkie, and who had to use violence to stop and subdue said junkie burglar. All I got from the police was a pat on the back. And in fact a suggestion that I could have used MORE violence (I punched the scumbag twice in the face) . So I know first hand (pardon the pun) the issue.
[…] The Bad Results and Unjust Consequences of the United Kingdom’s Gun Ban […]
No matter what defenses are made of British gun control laws, the greatest oppression of its citizens are exemplified by the fact that otherwise law abiding citizens are arrested, charged, and have to defend themselves as if common criminals, considered guilty until proven innocent. It is of no consequence and of little conciliation that they may be found innocent of their “crimes” of defending themselves and their homes. Ordinary citizens have to think twice before even defending themselves from grave bodily harm, rape or even death. Nothing has changed in the U.K. since the 1500’s that has altered the view that our American ancestor’s leaving was a good choice, and we are still very glad they did. As far as the British not wanting to own many guns, little need, as they can always depend on the U.S. to come to their aid when needed, rather than defending themselves. After all, if one is not prone to defending his own home, what motivation is there to defend his own country.
[…] rarely leads to good results, as the history of gun control shows. As Dan Mitchell likes to say, https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com…gdoms-gun-ban/ “Bad government policy leads to more bad government policy.” If the previous […]
[…] Dan Mitchell likes to say, “Bad government policy leads to more bad government policy.” If the […]
‘By the way, it’s not just gun crime that has gone up. The U.K. has become a much more dangerous and violent society – almost surely in part because the thugs don’t have to worry about armed resistance.
Heck, if you are one of the few legal gun owners in the nation and you shoot a burglar, you get arrested instead of a pat on the back.’
1–The British public has never been a gun owning populace. A fact that seems to get ignored. Thugs in 1950 or 1970 or 1990 didnt have to worry much about an pistol packing British homeowner anymore than they do now.
Now, I am a gun owning British man, and pro-gun, and anti-gun control, but I have to type the above because its the simple truth, irrespective of what you believe in. The British have never been big gun owners. The largest amount of legal weapons pre-1997 and the UK mainland handgun ban (which the Cullen Report btw never suggested, merely tighter controls) was 1.6m handguns, rifles and shotguns in 1996.
2–Actually there are thousands upon thousands of legal gun owners.
3–You get arrested because that it the British procedure, where in the event of a discharge/use of a gun and/or death, everyone essentially ‘gets nicked’ and taken to the local police station for questioning. The hoo-haa we see here ignores that the homeowners/gun owner usually gets released straight away.
I agree it looks a bit backward, but it is much less oppressive than Americans think. Its just a basic police procedure.
‘Some people objected because the story was from last decade, but that misses the point. ‘
No it dosent. Because dragging up a story from 2005, about a tiny group whose call for a ban was completely ignored by both the UK public and politicians, is nothing but scaremongering and distortion.
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.