UK ‘unarmed and unsafe’ provides US policy example
March 1, 2009

by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor

There was an unusually common sense editorial headlined “unarmed and unsafe” that appeared in The Waterbury Republican newspaper in Connecticut in late January. The editorial was not signed, but obviously was approved by the newspaper’s editorial board.

Coming as it has after a growing demonstration of support from newspaper columnists and editorialists in Great Britain, Canada, Australia and elsewhere around the globe for a common sense approach toward the right of self-defense, The Waterbury Republicans view is a breath of fresh air in the United States. Certainly the editorial boards of The New York Times, The Washington Post and any number of other wrong-headed American newspapers would be unlikely to allow such a whiff of enlightenment to appear as the newspaper’s perspective. But the small Connecticut paper said a lot that needs to be said in just a few words.

Here’s their view and it seems to track a commentary on the lessons of the Mumbai massacre by Richard Munday which Gun Week reprinted in its Jan. 1, 2009 issue, much to the delight of many readers who sent copies to many of their state and federal lawmakers.

“In the 11 years since England enacted some of the world’s strictest gun-control laws, gun crime there has doubled. No surprise. Wherever they’re tried, such laws only disarm ordinary citizens, making them easier prey for criminals,” The Waterbury Republican began.

“England’s laws also produced a spike in violent crime and contributed to the proliferation of teen gangs. This in turn has led to a nationwide decline in the average age, from 24 to 19, of violent criminals and their victims. Some adults fail or refuse to connect the gun-control dots, but young thugs aren’t so obtuse. They know gun restrictions make crime, by gun, blade or other weapon, easier.

“This lesson hasn’t been lost on the potential targets, either, a new study on gang violence in England’s government schools revealed. Prevented from defending themselves by law and by anti-violence, zero-tolerance school rules, students in growing numbers are adding protective clothing—‘stab vests’—to their wardrobe. Increasingly, too, students are willing to risk suspension, expulsion or arrest by carrying ‘concealed weapons’ such as scissors, screwdrivers, hammers and chisels to defend themselves. As one put it: ‘I would rather be arrested than dead.’

“Out of the mouths of babes. But aren’t England’s schools simply a microcosm of Western civilization under gun control, which requires people to go to extremes, to break the law, to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property against lawbreakers?” the editorial concluded.

Some observers might hastily dismiss the sentiments of that editorial, but not many of the newspaper’s readers who commented on its website. What was especially noteworthy was that several of the comments of agreement came for former British citizens.

“I find myself in total agreement with this article. As a former UK Police Officer, a member of the NRA and now a US resident, I saw at first hand the gradual suppression of gun ownership that led to a total handgun ban in the UK. This was compounded by the liberal lawmakers Blair and co who made a criminal of anyone who used a weapon for self defence. The result was an explosion in armed crime, that led to even more panic laws such as a ban on replica and deactivated weapons. The crime rate continued to climb. The US agenda of the Brady campaign and the Democratic Party is all too familiar to me. Let’s hope that the gun owners of the US are not so easily duped. If they are, then the British Nightmare is also the US Future,” wrote Steve Challis of Lexington, KY.

John in Maryland, another Brit, adds this online:
“As a UK national I am unhappy that I cannot defend myself effectively. But there are bigger factors here than just gun control. The biggest being the way our criminal justice system continues to return hardened repeat offenders back to the very communities they have betrayed, instead of locking them up as they deserve. ‘Prison doesn’t work,’ they bleat; ‘It’s too expensive.’ It’s is up to the criminal to reform, society cannot make them better, and the threat of several years of confinement should act as a discouragement to crime, and several years actual confinement protects society from their predations.

“The expense excuse is also a paper tiger. The government tells us how much it is to keep people in prison. It won’t tell us how expensive it is to put them back into communities were their new crimes add to police work, victim anguish, insurance premiums, health care for the assaulted and the bureaucracy of civil servants involved in ‘community supervision.’ Lock a criminal up for 2 years and if they are only re-offending once a week (a very modest level I might add) that’s over 100 crimes prevented! Even if caught, they will just be released to the community again.

“UK’s drug problem is the same as most of the developed world; people with too much disposable income and no brain cells, fueling gang crime….

“The UK used to be an armed society; we used to be a polite society. Now we are neither.”

Rescue4520 added:
“I could see this happening in the US, they would find some way to take our guns away, while leaving criminals to do what they have always done. I live in Maryland, and I moved here from Pennsylvania where I had a CCW permit. Now, not being able to carry, I found myself taking Martial Arts, and carrying up to 10 knives I bought from (budk). It is a lot more dangerous in MD than PA. I have not applied for a permit yet but I know I most likely will be denied due to the assault requirement. Even though I’m a retired security officer, disabled and cannot run or defend myself. Not to mention I’m a minority that is targeted in this area, I hear on the news about racial and violent crime against my race in Baltimore where I’m at all the time. There even is a restriction on knives, Stun Guns, types of pepper spray, BB guns, and body armor, but I do not have to worry about the armor because I have a 100% clean record which is another reason I should not be denied. I think I may have found a way around the law though. You may want to try also; start your own bodyguard business and apply for the permit through the business, which might just work even though you will have 0 sales, which is another way to get around the Obama law excluding Executive Protection from the ban. There is a school online that will give you the training for this if you do a Google search. I already took the EP class; it’s easy. If I’m denied though you will see me on the news because I’m suing the pants off of the state for not letting a disabled person defend himself. The media would have a field day with that one!...”

And FSilber emailed the newspaper:
“Armed self-defense was outlawed in England because the idea arose that the ‘legal’ use of force by anyone outside the government was uncivilized. Tolerance rampant violent crime was not thought uncivilized, because it was not State-approved.

“There is also the Marxist idea that (under a non-Marxist government) robbers are victims of society, that society is really at fault, and therefore the robbery victims (being members of society) are as much to blame as the criminals—and the state should be cautious about taking sides. The influence of Marxist thought has always been much greater in Europe than in America.”

Thus ends another lesson for policy makers!
Return to Archive Index