Note from the webmaster: If this article touches you, and you would like to comment on them. You can write Roger at:england@2asisters.org. Mr. Taylor has requested that you do not send attachments as he will not open them.  Please copy and paste any information that you would like to send him with in the original e-mail.
 
 

TALES FROM ENGLAND - Roger Taylor

Contents :
        Introduction
        Welcome to the land of common sense gun laws
        The lessons of history
        Let's have some real common sense
        A broader view
        A way forward?
        11th September
        Appendix
 

INTRODUCTION
The Second Amendment Sisters think I might be able to contribute to your gun 'control' debate and have kindly given me space on their web site. I really hope I can help because the US has already gone much further down the UK road than many of your realize, and it has only one end.  Be warned by our experience - you must not only call a halt to new gun 'control' laws, you must undo what has been done, and the single most powerful argument you have against the fundamental fatuity of these laws is their complete and abject failure after years of harsh field-testing in the UK. If you find my observations helpful, please feel free to post them as far and wide as possible. If you want to discuss any particular matter I can be reached on england@2asisters.org
 

WELCOME TO THE LAND OF COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS - 
An Unfairy Tale (Health Warning - people of an independent disposition or suffering from an irony deficiency may find this disturbing) "In the land of 'common sense' gun laws, no one is allowed simply to
walk into a shop and buy a shotgun.  Good heavens!  Anyone might buy one and we can't have that, can we?  Would-be gun owners must obviously be approved by the police.  They must fill in a form, have it countersigned by a respectable citizen, and hand it to their local police together with a large fee and several photographs.  The police will check their criminal record, interview them, and examine where the shotgun is going to be kept when not being used.  All that done and all being well, they will be given a Shotgun Certificate and will be able to buy and sell as many shotguns as they wish.  Of course, details of each gun bought and sold and details of the seller or buyer must be written on the Shotgun Certificate and sent to the local police by both buyer and seller on pain of severe punishment, including cancellation of the Shotgun Certificate and the loss of all guns.  When the shotgun isn't being used it must be locked up, also on pain of severe punishment, and that includes leaving it on open view in a locked car.  And if someone steals it - wow, are *you* in trouble!!!

In the land of 'common sense' gun laws, no one is allowed simply to walk into a shop and buy a rifle (or a shotgun holding more than three cartridges) either, because these are *very* dangerous.  Would-be rifle
owners have to fill in an even bigger form and must provide two referees.  They also have to say what kind of rifles they want to buy and give a reason why they want each one.  They are checked out, interviewed, have their home security inspected.  Oh, and for target shooting, they have to be members of a government-approved club.  If they want to hunt or shoot vermin then the police will check out the
land they want to shoot on.  Well, we can't have these people shooting just anywhere, can we?  All being well a Firearm Certificate is issued. This states how many of what kind of rifle the holder is allowed to buy
e.g. one .22 rifle, one bolt action 7.62 rifle and how much ammunition. When a rifle is bought, all the details of the gun must be written on the Certificate and sent to the local police by both buyer and seller.
If the holder sells a rifle he must send all details of the transaction to the local police and must apply to them again if he wants to buy a replacement rifle.  Each time he attends his government-approved club
they have to make a note of his attendance, what guns he has used and what competitions he has shot in so that the police can examine their records to make sure that the guns are being used regularly.  It they
aren't then the Firearm Certificate can be cancelled.

In the land of 'common sense' gun laws, no one is allowed to have a semi-automatic centre-fire rifle or a pistol - unless it's a muzzle loader.  After all, no right thinking person would want something so dreadfully dangerous, would they?

Of course, thanks to these very strict rules criminals can never obtain firearms, people leave their doors unlocked, the air is constantly filled with happy voices raised in song, the sun shines every day, the
lion lies down with . . ."

At this point the author was taken away by kindly men in white coats. However, an appeal is being made for his release on the grounds that "the land of 'common sense' gun laws" actually exists.  It is that great
bastion of democratic freedom, the United Kingdom.  Pistols were banned and confiscated in 1997, semi-auto CF rifles in 1989, the Shotgun Certificate was introduced 32 years ago, and the Firearm Certificate in 1920.  The procedures described have been simplified but the only factual error lies in the last paragraph.  Violent crime, including crime involving firearms, has been growing relentlessly for decades and shows no sign of diminishing.  For some reason the law has not prevented criminals from obtaining firearms whenever they want  and shootings are so commonplace now they rarely make the headlines.  And there was one significant omission.  Only target shooting, hunting and vermin control
are 'acceptable' reasons for owning a gun - personal protection is not. To allow that would be to admit that the Government and the police cannot protect citizens in their own homes and that can't be true, can
it?  After all, look at what the police bring to this problem:  Tony Martin was a recluse living miles away from anywhere.  He had been repeatedly burgled.  Eventually he let fly in the pitch dark with a shotgun, killed a burglar and was jailed for murder.  Asked what action should be taken when faced with burglars, the Chief Constable for his area said, "You should give a loud cry for help."

I think we should all give a loud cry for help!
 

THE LESSONS OF HISTORY
I can understand that many Americans will find it difficult to believe the above, but let me assure you,  everything there is true.  In fact the reality is worse as I had to simplify matters for clarity.  Can I suggest that you sit comfortably, shut your eyes and spend a few moments imagining yourself living under such laws.  If the hairs on your neck do not start to stand on end and your stomach feel uneasy, you haven't read it properly!

Of course, some of you will say, "Serve the god-damned limeys right, they shouldn't have let it happen."  I can understand this as well, but it's a tad harsh.  The basic Firearm Certificate system for 'controlling' rifles and pistols (until they were banned) was instituted in 1920.  It was already long established before most shooters, myself included, were even born.  When I eventually got round to taking up pistol shooting as a hobby I had no choice but to be part of it unless, that is, I wished to be a criminal.  Thus, as restrictions became tighter and tighter on their relentless way to the inevitable - the complete banning of pistols - we had to fight with our political arms and legs tied behind our backs - ignoring the ban, for example, was just
not an option - all our names and addresses and full details of our firearms were known to the police.

I suspect however, that the most common response will be, "that couldn't happen over here."  One of the problems of living in your big and splendid country is that its 'wide open spaces' can lead you into a
seriously false sense of security, which is why I am trying to give you a warning shout.  Speaking personally, I have always preferred to learn things the easy way, i.e. by trying to understand what someone was telling me.  It hasn't always worked, but it has been my consistent experience that if I did not learn something this way then, literally or metaphorically, life would kick it into me - a process which usually took a lot longer and was generally far more uncomfortable.  More elegantly Sir Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants", and, of course, there is the ancient wisdom, "Those who do not learn the lessons of history will be destined to relive it."

So what is the warning I am shouting?  What lessons has the UK to offer you?  Firstly, and crucially, we demonstrate, as a matter of observed fact, that even in a country with no culture of firearms, very few
firearms, and even fewer people interested in them, the most draconian and vindictive laws, rigorously enforced, have not prevented bad and mad people obtaining and, increasingly, using firearms.   Secondly, we are not Nazi Germany nor the USSR.  We are, like you, a people who set great store by our freedom, and who have paid a great price for it in the past.  Yet through years of neglect, complacency, and  countless small 'common sense' compromises, we - shooters - have allowed a basic right to be eroded to such an extent that the Government was eventually able ruthlessly to scapegoat an innocent minority for purely political ends. Does that ring any bells?

I understand you already have some 20,000 separate statutes dealing with firearms.  This is a measure of your own neglect and compromise.  Be under no illusions about where you are heading or how far along the road you are - denial is a grievous error.  'It' can and will happen in the USA unless you set in train, NOW, a strategy not merely of preventing further erosion of your rights, but of winning back those you have lost. You, above all, can do this.  You *must* do this.
 

LET'S HAVE SOME REAL COMMON SENSE
Unfortunately, in these days of instant gratification, media hype and generally short attention spans, snappy words and phrases can sometimes acquire power enough to influence even politicians and policy makers -
it's always much easier to mouth off than to think.  This is both bad and dangerous, of course, but it *is* the way things are and to ignore it would be foolish to the point of negligence. 

'Common sense gun laws' is one such phrase.  Snappy, glib, easy to remember and chant at demonstrations.  And quite reasonable - at first glance - after all, who could argue against common sense?  Small wonder the anti-gun lobby are running amok with it   Time we took charge of it, I think.  It doesn't really suit their case.

Personally I've always found that appeals to 'common sense' tend to be used in a vague arm-waving kind of a way by people who don't have the intellectual wherewithal to look at matters in depth.  When pressed, anti-gunners in particular will usually shy away, often with the disdainful or pitying look of the true believer, and declare, "Well, it's obvious, isn't it?"  However, such a vague and airy dismissal is
not available to us.  *We*, as gun owners, lay claim to responsibility and must take a more realistic and practical attitude. 

So let's have a look at the idea of 'common sense gun laws'.

First and foremost, common sense means down-to-earth - practical.  A common sense law must be a practical law.  It must do a job, and do it efficiently, otherwise there's no point having it.  So what job is our 'common sense gun law' to do?  Well, for their very different motives, some of our more twitchy politicians and would-be Praetorian law enforcement officers, together with the usual clutch of starry-eyed
utopiasts and the generally emotionally adolescent amongst us, have fantasies about an entirely unarmed population.  Most of these however, have enough wit to stay silent about this character flaw so the publicly
admitted job of our 'common sense gun law' must presumably be, "to prevent the bad and the dysfunctional obtaining firearms for the purposes of crime".  Who could possibly object to that?

So, if our law is to work, then it must be able to identify clearly and easily, the bad and the dysfunctional amongst us, so that it can be properly applied to them. 

Oops! 

If *any* society could readily identify its bad and dysfunctional, not only would law enforcement be vastly different, the whole world would be vastly different!

Let's not give up, however.  Let's look at this another way.  Common sense - practicality - means paying heed to things the way they are - to reality.  One real fact about guns, for example, is that anyone who
wants one with which to commit a crime can get one.  That's certainly the case here in the UK even though there are few guns and very strict and long established gun 'control' laws, so how much more so must it be
in the US?  It is also a fact that the availability of firearms does not cause crime.  The Swiss, for example, have more firearms per head of population than the US and precious little violent crime.  And even in
the UK, before 1968, though shotguns could be bought over the counter without restriction, the gun most favoured by the few criminals who wanted them was the pistol - a weapon massively 'controlled' by a
'common sense gun law' since 1920. 

It is also a matter of common sense, not to say common justice, that before any law is passed, its purpose should not just be baldly stated, but statistically and economically justified.  How many people have
'impulsively' bought a gun in order to commit a crime, for example?  How many convicted felons have bought guns legitimately?  How many *would- be* felons have bought guns legitimately?  And would our common sense laws have stopped any of them?  Would they have stopped any robberies involving guns, drive-by shootings, spree killings?  And what will be the cost to society of the diversion of police and civic resources away from real crime fighting and social improvement schemes in order to
administer these laws? 

And so it goes.  Our 'common sense gun law' as a crime prevention exercise withers at the first whiff of real common sense. 

"But if they save just one child" is the last-ditch plaintive cry, to which the reply is "But if they help get one woman raped and murdered."

However, it is also a matter of common sense that while there are robberies involving guns, drive-by shootings and spree killings, there will be fear and concern in the community and, rightly, anxious cries
for "something to be done".  These crimes however, are about far more than mere gun 'control'.  They are symptoms of deeper social problems and they will not - fundamentally *can not* - be solved by politicians
making laws from afar or by pouring ever more public money into increasingly militaristic and oppressive policing.  They can only be solved by concerned friends, neighbours, LEOs and civic officers working
together in goodwill, house my house, street by street, town by town, problem by problem.  Many politicians would sneer at such an idea, obsessed as they are with the notion that laws alone can get things
done, but it is the *only* way forward, and if these temporary trustees of our authority do not even *aspire* to it then they are not remotely fit for office, and should go - now.  More than anything it is their
task to set the tone of trust, tolerance and co-operation that will support, facilitate and encourage such endeavours.

The reality is that, world-wide, guns are readily available in vast and unknowable quantities, and we gun owners have an obligation to find practical, workable ways of dealing with their misuse - the anti-gunners
won't, they are problem-makers not problem-solvers.  But where to start? Well, Marie Curie said, "Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood", and I would suggest that the only practical way forward is education.  *Our* common sense gun law would repeal all the others - it shouldn't be difficult to show they haven't worked - and put the money currently being wasted on them into nation-wide gun education schemes.  After all, teaching the correct handling and use of guns, either for sport or self-defence, is hardly difficult.  It's certainly far easier than teaching someone to be safe with a car, for example. And the goodwill that would be generated by such an open, honest and clear-eyed venture would wash over into other areas - goodwill always does.  So let's not leave the devil (ignorance) with all the best tunes - let's get out there and demand our own 'common sense gun laws' ! Revocation and education.
 

A BROADER VIEW
'Right' is an awkward word to apply to self-defence as it is not something bestowed on us but as basic part of our nature as breathing. Self-preservation came long before the law and it transcends it.  Not
only *should* it not be constrained by statute, it *will* not be.  No government can protect all the people all the time, (or even a few of them for very long) - indeed both in the UK and the USA the police have
no legal obligation to protect individuals - and they should not pretend that they can or be expected to do so.  In an ordered yet free society the only condition that should be placed on the 'right' to self-
protection is that it is a social and moral duty.

In talking to Americans I have been taken by the common ground in our efforts to deal with the insidious growth of gun 'control' laws in our two countries.  It is a battle being fought against both fearful
ignorance and rich, powerful and quite unscrupulous vested interests, by 'plain folk' - letter writers, leaflet producers, fundraisers, organizers etc - people who, for the most part are working in their own
time and at their own expense because they know that something bad is happening and want to do something about it - responsible, caring and concerned people - practical common-sense people.

While some are new to the war, and others, like me, have been plodding away for longer than we care to remember, we all become weary and heartsick at times.  It is hard, dealing with the obdurate stupidity and
apathy of others (both shooters and non-shooters) and the short- sightedness of politicians who do not like to remember they are temporary trustees for *our* authority.  So let's consider the broader
implications of this fight, because it is about far more that mere gun 'control'. 

We are actually dealing with a deep and growing distrust between governments and their electors.  Anyone who thinks this "doesn't matter, we can do without government" should take a look at Northern Ireland (classic case of what an armed minority can do to an unarmed majority) or Yugoslavia to see what civilized countries can degenerate into when trust in government breaks down:  civic and economic collapse, and mindless, horrific and futile bloodshed as new robber barons fight to fill the vacuum left by the old order.  And then hatred that lasts for generations.  It would be profoundly naive to imagine that it "couldn't happen here" - wherever 'here' might be. 

Granted, such extremities might not be imminent, but both our countries are heading in that direction beyond any doubt.  When Tony Blair won the last two General Elections in the UK, the really significant figure was not the massive majority his party won, but a staggering 80% increase in non-voters.  This is very bad.  Humans are pack animals - we follow leaders - and if we can no longer trust our elected leaders, we will follow others - demagogues, 'religious' lunatics, gangsters - anyone who offers simplicity and the option of removing personal responsibility from us.  Sad, but true.  History is full of such examples. 

How this sorry situation has come about is doubtless interesting but not particularly relevant.  We are where we are and we must play the cards we are dealt.  It is up to *us* to put things right - governments can't or won't.  In fighting against gun 'control' laws we are really fighting for integrity, honesty and openness in government - for government that trusts and can be trusted - no slight thing, but something we *must* aspire to and strive for, as best we can, for all our sakes.  There can be no more searching question than "What kind of a government is it that does not trust its people to be armed?"  The answer, of course, is, "a bad one".  Be it insecure, incompetent or just downright sinister it is not remotely fit for office and should change its ways or go. 

I find that when weariness, or a sense of futility sets in, awareness of this broader conflict can be very sustaining - especially as I have children and grand-children who will eventually inherit whatever we
leave behind.  I need to be able to look at myself in the mirror.
 

A WAY FORWARD?
I know very little about your many gun laws and ways of political protest, so it's likely that I'm teaching some of you to suck eggs.  I apologize for this, but I'd rather risk stating the obvious than let something important slip by for want of a word.  And too, there are always new people  joining this fight and the lessons of history will never be learned if we don't make an effort to teach them!  It's clear that while frustration, anger and concern about gun 'control' laws are high, "what to do" often presents problems.  Here are some ideas.

1.  The Goal
The immediate goal is to restore the basic right of any responsible individual to own and use firearms of his or her choice be it for recreation or self-defence.

However, as outlined in 'A Broader View' above, this fight is just part of a larger and much more serious conflict:  that of restoring trust between ourselves and the politicians we make temporary trustees of our
authority.  We have to remind them that they are public servants whose task is not to rule but to establish conditions in which people can tend their own affairs in peace and freedom under legal restraints "so gentle
and moderate . . . that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened,"  (William Blackstone, Commentaries, 1830).  We also have to remind *ourselves* that with rights and freedoms come responsibilities and that we all have duties towards one another.  These include opposing ill-considered laws. 

It might sound a little portentous to say that we are maintaining the eternal vigilance that is the price of freedom, but we are, nevertheless.  We can do this in safety and comfort only because generations past have suffered and died for it.  For the debt we owe them, and for future generations we should not allow this sacrifice to lure us into the soothing self-deception that safety and comfort are ours by right and need no further defending. 

Freedoms are being taken from us one at a time relentlessly - quietly, insidiously, albeit often with good intentions - and we must win them back the same way.  If we do not, then, because reality always comes
home to roost, we may be suddenly jolted into wakefulness to find we have to take them back by force with all the horror that that implies both for ourselves and for our children.  Far better that change be
evolutionary not revolutionary.

2.  A strategy - revocation
Bad news - you will *not* achieve your goal by continuing the way you have been.  This is in no way to denigrate the considerable and important efforts of those who have held and are holding the line -
without them, your guns would have gone long ago.  But you have fallen into the trap that we in the UK fell into, to our bitter cost - you are fighting a defensive war and are thus doomed to failure.  As practical
people, you get through your days by negotiating and compromising - it's a civilized way.  However, if you woke tomorrow to find your neighbour had moved his boundary fence four feet on to your side, would you say, "ok, we'll settle for two feet"?  Unlikely, I suspect.  Yet, like us, that is precisely what you have been doing for years with your gun laws. It's always the other side who have attacked - a little restriction
here, a little there, all for 'common sense' reasons, and oiled along with political blandishments.  Then, all of a sudden, cutting quarter of an inch off your shotgun barrel makes is 'especially dangerous', or
this, that, and the other gun is banned outright - and all by distant political diktat - no reason, no logic, just hand it in - or else! 

Whoops, how did that happen?

Step by step, while you weren't watching the overall picture, that's how.  And it will continue while you fight defensively.  Be under no illusions - gun 'control' laws have only one end - confiscation. Stopping or moderating other people's 'common sense' proposals is vital, but it's not enough.  You *must* attack.  You *must* undo what has already been done.  Each of your many gun statutes - local, state, federal - must be tested with the questions, "What was this law supposed to do and how, and has it?"  Hard-edged, statistical answers are needed to these questions, not emotional flim-flam and vague feel-good "what-
if?" conjectures.  Where these answers cannot be found or are unsatisfactory, the law should be repealed immediately.  It is serving no practical purpose and is an unnecessary and unwarranted restraint on
free people.

Bluntly, if you (plural) are not prepared to fight like this, then give up now, scrap your guns and save yourself a lot of time and effort. 

3.  A prime tactic - conversion
This is *not* a game with winners and losers.  If these freedoms are not regained, everyone loses.  To this end, the guiding principle must not be the 'defeat' of those who disagree with us, but their *conversion*.
Every individual who changes their mind increases our political advantage by two, and we need numbers.  Besides, there is really no such thing as 'victory' or 'defeat', there is just change and opportunity.
People bested in a bitter conflict invariably recover and return as determined as ever - what doesn't break you makes you strong.  There is not one single, logical argument proving the effectiveness of gun
'control' laws while, on the contrary, it is an observed and measured fact that they don't work.  This is fundamentally important - we have reason and hard data on our side - reality.  What we have to do is find
ways to reach out to the others and educate them - no slight task, but, hey, no one said this was going to be easy.  You want your rights back? You sweat, one way or another.

I accept that abusing the opposition can be very satisfying at times but it is the road to mob rule and no use as a long-term tactic.  The first step to tyranny is to develop an "us and them" ethos.  We label people
so that it becomes easier to dehumanize them and subsequently 'deal' with them.  So we have 'Jews', 'Arabs', 'Blacks', 'Whites', 'Liberals', 'Conservatives' and worse - the list goes on and on.  It's so much
easier than looking another person in the eye and saying, "Here is another like me, unique in all time, a creature of infinite resource and complexity yet heir to the same frailties as I."  To think like this is to set aside our darker nature, but then, if we're all going to be owning guns, dealing with our darker nature is a must!  And how do we deal with it?  First and foremost, by educating ourselves - by pausing and listening and thinking - by using that which separates us from the animals - our intellects.

So, we have constantly to remind ourselves that most anti-gunners are not just ranting bigots, servile members of the cowering classes, incapable of taking personal responsibility for anything and willing to
throw every hard-won freedom out of the window for a quiet life.  They are concerned citizens, parents, spouses, siblings, like us, only more ignorant and thus confused and fearful.  They have not thought about the question, "If *you* are going to overrule my judgement about how to keep me and mine safe, will *you* take responsibility for them?" They just need a little help, a little education.  Would you deny them
that?

4.  Other tactics - some ideas
These are in no particular order of significance.  I'm sure you're familiar with most of them, as you are undeniably better at lobbying than we are but, for the newcomers to the fray, some of them might be
useful, perhaps even thought-provoking.

a.  "There are some seriously nasty characters in the anti-gun movement."  So there are, and there are some in the pro-gun movement too.  Neither has anything of value to contribute to the debate or, for
that matter, to civilized society.  Extremism breeds extremism.  They are best sidelined by uniting the quiet majority. 

b.  Don't - *please* don't - be seduced by your wide open spaces into denial and parochialism.  Look up and look around you.  The world is very small these days.  What happened to us not only *can* happen to you, it *is* happening and will continue if you let it.  Have no illusions about that whatsoever!

c.  In the USA you are only entitled to about a one in two hundred million say in how the country is run.  However, just by writing to your politicians, you'll shorten those odds radically.  Keep your letters
polite and short - resist the temptation to put the many arguments into one huge letter, they just won't read it - take one point at a time. Always ask a question so that they have to reply to you.  And ask it again if they don't answer properly.  You are absolutely entitled to a reasonable and reasoned answer to a reasonable and reasoned question from any public servant being paid out of your taxes.  See you get it.
Persistence is everything.

d.  If you are going to use statistics, check them and their source carefully - preferably use the Government's own.  Properly used they are a diagnostic tool for obtaining a realistic measure of a problem and if you don't like the answers they give, tough, deal with it, because it's the way things are.  *Never* use figures out of context (dishonestly) to bolster an opinion (prejudice).  That's lying, and if you're found out, your *whole* argument is tainted.  Similarly, test the opposition's figures very carefully.  All in all, however, it has to be said that statistics are tricky.  It's important to know some but they soon become
complex and difficult and are best used by people who understand them properly once you get into serious debate.  It is not insignificant that successive UK Governments have *never* tried to justify gun 'control' laws statistically, they have always resorted to emotive rhetoric and media hype.  That is because the statistics do not give them the answers they want.

e.  Attitude.  This is *so* important.  If you and your family want to be able to walk anywhere, any time, free from danger, be it political or criminal, then your help is needed.  I know we all have lives to live
and livings to earn but what you can do, you must, however small *you* think it might be.  It is not for you to judge the effectiveness of your action - *never* underestimate the effects of a small action.  You never
know when someone might be teetering on the edge of changing their minds and, at worst, if you have told someone the demonstrable truth, they cannot forget it, much as they might wish, or even pretend to - you'll
have slowed them down even if they don't know it.  Do what you know to be right.  Don't waste too much emotional energy on the irredeemably apathetic, they have shrivelled souls - just set an example - take
responsibility - lead - set the tone.  Expect no one else to do anything and you'll be pleasantly surprised by the number (and quality) of the people you find quietly joining you.  To do something is to help make
change evolutionary.  To do nothing is to risk its becoming revolutionary.  That "evil prevails when good people do nothing" is not a cliché, it's a simple fact. When you get downhearted don't forget that we are flawed creatures and human progress tends to be three steps forward and two back on a good
day!  It's not important what happens, only what you do about it and, to this end, don't forget that how you look at events is *your* choice. Nothing has power over you except what you give it with your mind.  It's entirely up to you whether you choose a disabling or an empowering view. 

f.  "Roger, you're preaching to the choir."  I know, I know.  But some of the guys in the front stalls don't know what's going on behind them, and quite a lot don't know all the words yet.  It's my hope that the
information and thoughts here will help *you* carry the reality of gun 'control' to the uninformed.  You have no stronger argument against gun 'control' than the decades of hard-nosed practical field testing it's
been given in the UK:  for over 80 years, truly draconian 'control' laws have been rigorously enforced - the gun has no cultural significance to us - there are very few guns and even fewer people interested in them, and yet the 'control' laws simply have not worked.  Violent crime has been growing relentlessly for decades and is continuing unhindered, criminals have no difficulty in obtaining firearms or reluctance in
using them because they know for an absolute certainty that their victims will be unarmed.  Both police and government are growing ever more militaristic and repressive as they flounder to contain the mess
that their persistent neglect of the real problems has caused.  Other ways have to be found.  It will not be easy, but it cannot be avoided. The social problems that gun 'control' laws are meant to address are
deep and intractable.  Solutions cannot be imposed from above, they can only be found street by street, town by town, by concerned people working patiently and co-operatively in goodwill and, above all, trust. 

g.  "But our politicians are self-serving and useless."  That buck stops with us - we put them there, now we must educate them as well, teach them to think rationally - they can't or won't do it themselves.  And
testing the firearms statutes is as good a place as any to begin.

h.  "If it hadn't been for the gun laws, things would have been far worse."  This is a particularly despicable argument.  Not least because it is invariably used by the politicians and police officers whose very
job it is to tend society in such a way that things improve.  Their hand-wringing fatalism - "things can only get worse", "more controls are needed" - is beneath contempt and those espousing it should stop taking
the public's shilling and make way for people with vision and courage who will trust and empower the people who voted them there.

i.  "The media are all against us."  I cannot speak for the American media, but, as a collective, the UK press is self-righteous, sanctimonious, hypocritical, unprincipled and amoral to the point of
sadism.  It goes only with whatever sells.  So start your conversions by making friends with local reporters - establishing decent civilized relations with them - get them shooting if you can.  And start working
too, on the bodyguard-protected celebrities who are so vociferously anti-gun - they too will only go with whatever sells.  Be polite, gentle, reasonable - keep a strong curb on the abuse that keeps bubbling
to the surface, and *never* try to manipulate the media - you'll be eaten alive.  Stick to the simple truth, it'll keep you more or less fireproof.  As conversions spread so the media will turn against the
anti-gunners for their irresponsibility in refusing to take steps to protect themselves and their families.  So it goes.

j.  We each of us must fight where we feel we'll be most effective, but, keeping in mind the strategy of revocation through education and conversion, fight on every front - intellectual, moral, political,
constitutional, practical, emotional.  Get money, get power.  In the UK we won all the arguments but we lost our pistols because we had neither money, political clout nor expertise.  We were ruthlessly scapegoated by egregious politicians and lost a major and bloody battle.  We haven't lost the war, you'll note - they'll have to crush us one by one for that - but, trust me, you *really* don't want to be where we are.  Take heed. Take care.
 

SEPTEMBER 11th
This was a terrible learning.  It demonstrated all too horribly the fact that nothing can protect us against the actions of lunatics except personal and social awareness.  Personal awareness starts with accepting
that you have no conceivable right to expect others to look after you. Social awareness starts with accepting that you must be willing to look after others as well as yourself.  And only in a society which trusts its leaders will those subtle currents of gossip, knowledge, observation and concern - intelligence, as they call it - be heard by those who can act upon them.  In the long overdue "war against terrorism", individual effort is more important that ever.  It should always be remembered that the international situation which gave rise to this atrocity is due to the ineptitude of our politicians, past and present, and we must not leave the solution solely in their hands as there is no reason to believe they will suddenly get it right.  Now more than ever must individuals oppose the continuing erosion of basic freedoms being committed in the name of protecting those freedoms.  For over fifty years we faced personal destruction from nuclear weapons as nation pitted itself against nation.  That threat has now receded to be replaced by the threat of personal destruction through the arbitrary violence of terrorists.  The armies, the technologies, the very thinking that saw us through the cold war are of limited value against such people - we have to learn to be vigilant but unafraid and gun ownership is one contribution to this.  As it protects us against criminals so it will protect us against certain kinds of terrorist activity.  More importantly however, it will send out a clear message to those who would harm us that we are both a truly free people and a nation under arms.

Good luck, America

Roger Taylor
 

APPENDIX
I'd like to claim credit for some of the following but I can't, I've just gathered them together from various sources.  I'm sure you'll find them both apposite and useful.

1 Banning guns works, which is why cops in New York, DC, and Chicago need guns.

2 Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3 Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics"

4 The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5 The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

6 An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

7 A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

8 The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

9 The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

10 The phrases:  "the right of the people peaceably to assemble", "the right of the people to be secure in their homes", "the enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others
retained by the people", and "the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people",  all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

11 In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc, guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings.  In the 1940s, 50s and 60s,
anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school
shootings.

12 The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

13 Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

14 A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

15 Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

16 Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

17 Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

18 The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defence is not really protected by the Bill of
Rights.

19 Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defence only justifies bare hands.

20 Police officers are ordinary citizens in uniform but have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that ordinary citizens can never hope to obtain.

21 Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

22 Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators and who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

23 "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

 
back to the top