The anti-self defense crowd that believes America will be better off when guns are banned wants us to learn from other countries that have much stricter gun control.
I think they have a point. We can learn from other countries. Can we agree starting out that we will apply here the lessons we learn there?
Let’s look at England. England has the kind of gun control that President Clinton, Senator Schumer and Sarah Brady of Handgun Control, Inc. would like to see here. If they did not want a gun ban for the whole country they would not tolerate the gun ban in Washington, DC which is by the Constitution under Congress’ legislative control.
For decades, the only gun a Brit could own was one that was registered with the government. When the gun banners decided a couple of years ago to ban them all (with insignificant exceptions), it was no problem to get them all.
But all is not well in the gun banners’ island paradise. According to a study done by the Clinton Justice Department and Oxford University in England, the British violent crime rate is now greater than that of the U.S.
British police officials estimate that there are some 3,000,000 illegal firearms, many of them machine guns, illegally in the hands of criminals.
The country’s media has labeled the city of Manchester as “Gunchester”.
The government’s commitment to disarming the people reached a new peak of absurdity when in April an English lawyer lost his court battle to recover his shotgun. Turned out the authorities thought he was too careless with how he stored it — his octogenarian mother knew where the key was for the safe where the gun was stored.
If a gun ban on an island has not kept criminals from getting their hands on guns, how will submitting Americans to a background check, or imposing a gun free zone around schools, churches, post offices and other places keep guns out of criminal hands?