Previous Post
Next Post


I’m heading to Beantown for a couple of days, then on the UK to watch my eldest daughter graduate from college. I’ll be disarmed throughout. I’m not happy about it. I consider a gun my best defense against a violent attack. If the excrement hits the rotating air circulation device while I’m away from my beloved Lone Star State, I’ll do what I can to protect myself, my girlfriend, my children, yes even my first ex-wife. But I’m no ninja. And the UK’s violent crime rate, the recent Tunisian terrorist attack and a general awareness of criminality fills me with no-firearm failure foreboding. And for what? Why does MA and the UK see fit to deny me my natural right to self-defense? Here are three reasons . . .

1. For my own safety

By making it impossible for me to carry a gun, the government makes it harder for criminals to get or carry guns, making it less likely criminals will use a gun on me. I know what you’re thinking: A) that’s ridiculous and B) since when?

Yes, it is ridiculous. Criminals being criminals, they’ll sidestep, end-run, ignore or break any and all laws attempting to deny them a firearm. This is true in both Massachusetts and the “gun free” UK. And everywhere else on planet Earth. Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm has no impact on criminal access to guns.

Or does it? Common sense tells us that the greater the pool of unarmed potential victims, the more brazen the criminals. Well, more than common sense. Get yourself a degree in statistics and the strongest coffee known to man and read More Guns, Less Crime. The facts support that assertion.

The other way a gun ban protects me: disarmed citizens don’t confuse police responding to a violent crime. In other words, because I can’t carry a gun I’m less likely to be shot by the cops, who are free to assume that anyone who isn’t a cop who has a gun is a bad guy. While this approach results in “blue-on-blue” homicides and civilians mistakenly shot by police officers, it’s a net positive for society. In theory.

2. For the safety of others

By making it impossible for me to carry a gun, the government protects society from me. Wait. What did I do? Nothing, obviously. But it’s what I might do that must be stopped.

I might accidentally shoot someone. I might shoot the wrong person during an attack. I might let a child get ahold of my gun, who might use it to shoot themselves, a playmate or some other innocent person. I might “allow” criminals to steal my gun, who might use it to shoot someone. I might go psycho and open fire on someone who pissed me off or a random group of innocent people.

Why I’m just as much of a risk as a criminal with a gun! Then again, I might use my gun to save my life or other innocent life from an attacker. I might use it to stop a terrorist, kidnapper or robber. I might aid a policeman. Just carrying a gun – especially openly – might deter crime. But as far as the government is concerned, the potential negatives outweigh the potential positives. If bad things happen because I’m disarmed, oh well. It’s a net positive for society. In theory.

3. Because they can 

By making it impossible for me to carry a gun, the government protects itself from legally armed citizens. I’m not saying the government has a conscious desire or indeed plan to disarm citizens (subjects in the UK) and send them off to FEMA death camps (or the UK equivalent), in case they might mount a violent insurrection. But I am saying that armed citizens are a PITA to governments bent on expanding their power. Which is, let’s face it, all of them.

It’s no coincidence that many if not most gun owners identify themselves as conservatives. Not Republicans. Conservatives. Small government types. Gun ownership is the ultimate symbol of individual sovereignty. By degrading and destroying gun owners’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms [strike the last two for the UK], big government removes the most potent symbol of opposition to ever-increasing statism. And yes, defangs the snake. In theory.


These arguments for civilian disarmament try to justify my disarmament while visiting The Bay State and The Land of Hope and Glory. Needless to say, I don’t buy any of them. Of course, I could choose to restrict my travel to places where I can legally keep and bear arms. But I’ve decided to take the admittedly low risk of straying off the pro-gun reservation to show my GF my old stomping grounds and commune with the kids.

When I return I will follow God’s example and bless Texas. And all those Americans clear-headed enough to reject the anti-gunners’ logic. Knowing that they will never allow themselves to be disarmed by a government that justifies its tyranny with clear-headed delusion. In theory.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I spend several weeks a year in the UK, and I have to say that I find it one of the most pleasant and safe places I’ve ever traveled to in the world.

    I’m not advocating for being disarmed, here or there. And I would prefer to carry my firearm. Here and there. But I will say without any reservation that I feel safer in Britain unarmed, than I do in Detroit armed.

    • It’s a “dry” safety. Your talking about a palpable/quasi-semi-palpable sense of safety you feel in relation to the persons in your immediate surround.

      MEANWHILE (back at the ranch) Your missing the proctology exam that you are getting from your ‘a-hole neighbors needing jobs’ (a/k/a: [everywhere it is found] “government”).

      “Poop to that” – Marvin Boggs

    • In terms of criminality, the UK is quite safe. Then again, so is Canada, but we have greater firearms freedoms. The same applies to most of the United States, but again with even greater firearms freedoms (ignoring places like Jersey). For the vast majority of people, most places are quite safe- or if not safe, the danger is reasonably easy to avoid. But if we examine history, we can see that the UK was equally safe for the majority of people even when the gun laws were more balanced and relaxed.

      I think one of the greatest problems we have in the fight for freedoms is the conflation of correlation and causation. When you combine that with Presentism, we get a real crisis on our hands.

      • The UK safe as in criminality? Not according to UK’s own crime stats. Except for murder, They have a highest violent crime rate in western europe, even greater than the US.

        • But it is true- for the average person, the UK is quite safe. The same applies for the US, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, and most other developed nations. For most people, most of the time, violence is distant and confined mainly to certain high-risk groups. That applies whether the gun laws are excessive or reasonable (having said that, we do see a measurable decline in violent crime in places with sensible gun laws, like Vermont, Kansas, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming). In fact, we can see that people were perfectly safe even back when the UK had much more reasonable gun laws. Therefore, in the interests of maximizing freedom, returning to the previous system makes good sense to me.

        • As much as I love the 2nd amendment, you have to compare apples to apples, not oranges to apples. The way UK defines a violent crime is much different than the way the US defines violent crime; therefore, you can’t compare the two country’s numbers without comparing the same crimes. There’s been many folks who have debunked the myth that the UK has higher violent crime rate than the US. It’s quite the opposite, and by a large margin. UK has slightly higher robbery (133 per 100,000 for US, 164 per 100,000 for England and Whales), but US is higher in nearly every other category: burglary: 716 per 100,000 US, 523 per 100,000 UK; murder rate: 5 per 100,000 US, 1.49 per 100,000 UK; rape (also defined differently – US defines it as only vaginal rape, UK defines any orifice, basically): 56 per 100,000 US, 51 per 100,000 UK. If these were reported apples to apples the rape discrepancy would be even higher. And these are only reported cases. The unreported cases are much higher.

      • So you haven’t been there in quite some time, eh? London and Birmingham are up to their crumpets in all manner of crime…you think that march to turn in knives was just a publicity stunt? Awash in crime….

    • Feeling safe? Depends, like anything, on location.

      If you were in the ghetto areas of London, completely unarmed, (because in England, you are outlawed from carrying ANYTHING that you intend to use as a weapon) or in Chicago armed, I’ll take Chicago.

      • Then, of course, even if you are able to defend yourself with just your bare hands, if you end up hurting your attacker, you will probably be charged with assault and end up in jail.

        • Very likely true, the police tend to take the loser to the hospital and arrest the winner of most physical altercations.

      • Lol that was my reaction too.

        Also to the guy talking about how you can’t compare violent crime in UK to US, the flip side to that is that the UK covers up their murder rate by not counting murders if there is no conviction for murder. So unsolved murders are not part of their statistics.

        • Murder rates are the wrong metric. Cross-country murder rates are worse still.

          The reason murder rates in developed countries are as LOW as they are has little to do with any tendency toward becoming more civilized. The improvements are much more a function of dramatically-improved emergency medicine, improved telecommunications and improved EMT care. If the victim survives the first few minutes following the assault then he has a sporting chance of receiving medical attention that will save his life.

          Both intra-country and inter-country we ought to pay much more attention to the aggravated assault rate. These are life-threatening criminal incidents. If I’m more likely to be shot, knifed or beaten to death in one time vs. another or one place vs. another then that one place/time is more dangerous than the other.

    • Do not believe that any country in Europe is safer than the US. I was an USAF LEO stationed in Europe for about 7 years. First, many of these “utopia’s” do not air their laundry. I was stationed on one base near a city park. A criminal gang frequented that park, and attacked and raped women in that park nearly once a week. It was never broadcast in the news. The only reason we found out about it was by talking to a friend who was a host nation police officer. Second, because their sentences were very light and many of their prisons are no more intimidating than a college dorm, criminals are rather brazen. I worked an air show once where we search everyone entering the base. A gang member broke a wine bottle, and slit someone’s throat. We apprehended the assailant, and he promised us he would be out within 2 years. He was right. Trust me, it is bad. It may not be as bad as the worst areas of Chicago, but it is bad. Feeling safe is easy when you don’t know what happens to the other guy….until it happens to you.

    • That’s not saying much. I lived in Russia, and just got back from another trip to Mexico. I’ve felt safer in both of those countries than in Detroit, too. Or NYC in the pre-Giuliani era, for that matter.

      Though I agree, my travels in the UK never left me too uneasy.

    • If they have a government then you aren’t really safe. It is an illusion. The biggest criminals in history have always been governments. If they aren’t kept as fearful servants, they become cruel masters.

  2. Frightened desperate people are easier to control, if your sense of security physical, economic, social, whatever, is compromised you should turn to the government for help, then you’ll do what you’re told.

    • “government” – why do we even use the term.

      We have servants (consisting of our fellow citizens, our “neighbors”) that work for us because they asked/lobbied/campaigned for the job. We let them have the job with the hope that they’d do a good one, that there wouldn’t be a usurpation of our rights, and/or our personal sovereignty by the appointment.

      They, and every other actual U.S. Citizen, can hold the index finger of their right hand in the air, that digit represents the maximum number of citizens that they can ever hope to equal, and there is no higher position to attain until they leave this life.

      If your neighbor said “I cannot protect you until you give up your means with which you can protect yourself.” You’d (likely) reply “great, but I didn’t f-ing ask.” If your government says I cannot do __________ , until you do ______________ , only the first part of their statement is true.

      • +1 for closing the loop on the singular capabilities of our elected officials and +1 for the logical conclusion of their ultimate inability to appreciate the doublespeak BS they employ in saying, promising and doing nothing.

        I live in MA and hate the current laws because it is blatant registration and they have continued the Clinton-era AWB that includes outlawing any magazine over 10 rounds. I hate this because it meant that I had to keep my guns in storage up in Maine. I don’t care if I can use 10-round magazines in my weapons, it is the registration and CLEO sign-off the keeps me from cooperating in the commonwealth’s illegal gun infringement policies. When we elected a new conservative governor, one of the first things he did was to declare/issue an executive order* stipulating that the commonwealth shall analyze and reconsider any law that conflicts with federal laws and presumably make transformative changes to equalize laws to the same standard as at the federal level “To Reduce Unnecessary Regulatory Burden”. One of the more interesting stipulations is in Section 3, Part 3, which states:

        “Section 3. In conducting such review, which shall be coordinated across all Agencies and participating governmental bodies, only those regulations which are mandated by law or essential to the health, safety, environment or welfare of the Commonwealth’s residents shall be retained or modified. In order to find that a regulation meets this standard, the Agency must demonstrate, in its review, that:

        3. the regulation does not exceed federal requirements or duplicate local requirements; …”

        If the governor is serious about implementing positive change, then this aspect has the potential to restore our 2A rights; if he isn’t committed to the level of our liking, then we do have the opportunity to hold his feet to the fire by proving that the laws don’t work, are an unnecessary burden and actually make residents less safe in the process. I don’t think this is a forum where the wild speculations of gun-haters will hold much sway in the face of strong statistics that aren’t cherry-picked like the VPC, Johns Hopkins and Bloomberg’s ilk would construct.

        That, plus our Rights to defend ourselves, our families and community from those who respect no laws and who enjoy the protection of “gun-free zones” are not negotiable based on the fear, uncertainty and doubt or general ignorance of the anti “gun violence” minority. If these close-minded citizens want to stop “gun violence”, then it makes little sense that they concentrate their attention on the law-abiding citizens who pose no threat and are quite often willing to risk their lives for total strangers – many of whom could be a member of the “no guns” crowd.

        I’m going to “ask the governor” at the next opportunity when he appears on WGBH Boston to ask him directly about the potential impact to the overly-restrictive firearms laws here and I’m going to volunteer to be on a citizen oversight committee (and suggest its formation if they haven’t done so already). I’m going to be as neutral and matter of fact as possible, just pointing out that there is a big gap between federal & MA laws in many areas and that my belief is that laws violating Constitutional Rights should be addressed as a priority, and that the gun laws were a fine example to begin with, as the numbers and results will be easy enough to justify realistic reformation of our overly restrictive laws.

        Wish me luck, and I could use some backup if any other locals can see themselves helping from a grassroots level because when politicians make promises that are impossible to keep, usually only the squeaky wheels get the grease.

        Governor Baker’s office:
        888.870.7770 (in state)

        *Executive Order #562:

  3. Have you tried applying for a non-resident license to carry in MA? That would solve at least one of the two.

    • MA’s version of non-resident permit is somewhat superficial; and deserving of criticism. It requires an in-state interview for issuance and each year for renewal. It’s expensive. So, it probably works for someone who lives in an adjacent State and regularly travels to MA.

      Even so, a RI resident put-off getting his MA out-of-State one month too many because of cost and inconvenience. On the one occasion when he went armed to MA he was attacked and killed his attacker. MA was very gracious about the self-defense homicide; sent him to prison for 3 years for permit-less carry.

      If, as in Robert’s case, you might travel to Boston just once every few years, it’s totally impractical to maintain a non-resident MA permit. MA is a good argument for National Reciprocity.

      I think our best argument for National Reciprocity is this:

      The Won’t-Issue States have brought National Reciprocity upon themselves. They have left the People of the US, and their elected representatives, no alternative to asserting their liberty via NR.

      We could admit that a reasonable argument MIGHT be made to allow each State to retain control over it’s own carry laws. If each State would Shall-Issue Non-Resident permits on a reasonable basis then the States would be left in control and most of the demand for inter-State carry would be satisfied. But such is not the case. States like NJ issue non-resident permits in theory, but not in practice. States like OR won’t issue non-resident permits to residents of States not contagious with their own boarders. States like MA issue non-resident permits only on terms too onerous to be acceptable to most travelers.

      The Won’t-Issue States Won’t-Issue and Won’t-Reciprocate on reasonable terms which they could tailor to their own tastes. So, now, they must accept National Reciprocity as the only means of enforcing the 2A right to bear arms.

      • Good information. A friend told me of a MA story, it included a friend of his, so take it for what it’s worth, but a middle aged man was attacked by a teenager under 18 in his own home, and the man retreated to his upstairs closet where he had access to a shotgun, and as the story went, after being pursued by his attacker upstairs and being cornered in a closet, the younger attacker broke through the closet door an at that point was fatally shot. The older man served prison time.

        • Both of the men you guys referred to obviously voluntarily agreed to their convictions and sentence by taking a “plea deal” and did not assert their natural rights as protected by the US Constitution and BoRs against the court/judge and prosecutor!

          Otherwise, the court was corrupt in convicting and sentencing them and the judge and prosecutor are guilty of Corruption of Authority, warring against the BoRs/Constitution, violation of Oath of Office, Violation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law, as a minimum.

          18 USC Sections 3, 4, 241, 242
          42 USC Sections 1983, 1985, 1986
          14th Amendment
          Numerous jurisprudence references.

          Plus, others I’m sure.

      • I really don’t understand why so many only wish to assert some nebulous “national PERMIT reciprocity” PRIVILEGE instead of INSISTING UPON and ASSERTING our fundamental, natural right to to arms as protected by the Constitution.

        We should be fighting for CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY THROUGHOUT THE U.S. and its territories, possessions.

        Constitutional Carry is the RIGHT (NOT privilege) to keep and bear any arms for lawful purposes, an individual desires or can afford , anywhere they are, whatever they’re doing, loaded (if a firearm etc) and available for immediate employ in the event of spontaneous confrontation.

        Our Right to Life does not end at our front gate nor when we exit our personal means of conveyance and neither does our Right to DEFEND that life, regardless of what some oath-breaking, USURPER wearing a black robe “opines.”

        Supporting “national PERMIT reciprocity” is surrendering your natural right to the state and BEGGING for PERMISSION to exercise it subject to their UNCONSTITUTIONAL conditions.

        But, I’m just weird I guess.

        • Aye! I don’t want some damned privilege masquerading as my right. Constitutional carry throughout is the only correct way. We never should’ve allowed government to deviate from it and we damned sure better never let it happen again.

        • “I really don’t understand . . . ” Do you want to understand the issue in question? Or, do you just want to vent?

          What are our options?
          1. – Cry out: “To the barricades!” and launch a new Revolutionary war
          2. – Cry out: “We will settle for nothing short of complete restoration of all of our rights; and we want it NOW!”
          3. – Figure out how the political process works and manipulate it towards our goal.

          The first question I ask myself is: How did we lose our rights? It seems to me that we lost them bit by bit over a long period of time. To the extent that we have regained some rights, how did that happen? Seems to have happened bit by bit over a long period of time. Didn’t we get Shall-Issue as a form of Right-to-Carry one State at a time over about 30 years? Didn’t our other restoration of rights come State by State, one or two bills at a time? How did we add about a half-dozen States to VT as Constitutional Carry States? Was it one at a time?

          If we first lost our rights one bit at a time; and recovered some of our rights one bit at a time, is this a sign of what seems to be working?

          What is the difference between a “RIGHT!” vs. a “PRIVILEGE”? Is it a distinction without a difference? I have a marriage “license”; is that merely a PRIVILEGE? I have a driver’s license and a radio transmitter license; are these really merely instances of PRIVILEGE? When I moved to PA was I in jeopardy of a DMV clerk refusing – purely by withholding her grant of grace – to give me a new PA-issued driver’s license? All of this seems to be fumbling about concerning terminology.

          What we ought to be debating – with our law-makers – is substance. Is there a RKBA? Yes. Does it apply to handguns? Yes. Is there a RK-A in the Home? Yes; this much we have learned recently by means of the customary process of a SCOTUS ruling. Is there a R-BA outside the Home? This seems to be what we are struggling with now, isn’t it?

          Where are we in the struggle? Well, let’s see. We have 40 States that have – one way or another – recognized a R-BA outside the Home; at least, to the extent that the person is a member of “the People” and not “disabled” of his 2A rights by any law. This is a pretty good start; admittedly, not yet complete. 40 States; that’s a lot! It’s 2 more than would be sufficient to adopt an amendment to the Constitution. Looks like the handwriting is on the wall for our judiciary and legislators to read. Just how is Right-to-Carry implemented by these 40 States?

          In VT, it’s simple. It’s legislature simply hasn’t seen fit to consider the question at all; benign neglect serves as it’s R-BA. In another half-dozen States it was by a recent affirmative act to remove previous legislation requiring a permit to bear concealed. In many more States OC is permitted without a permit. In lots of these 40 States there is a permitting/licensing procedure with more-or-less onerous impediments.

          I have 4 permits and a 5’th in-process. My home State’s most burdensome requirement was to track 20 miles to and from the Sheriff’s office. I considered the $21 fee cheap. It took only 14 minutes in/out of the office with the card cooling in my hand. Other States had a modest training requirement; two States had a modest range test. I wish that my complaints about government encroachment on my liberties were no more than these fees and tests. All in all, I don’t have a really harsh complaint about Shall-Issue.

          My greatest objection is the Won’t-Issue policies of my immediate neighbor, NJ; and then NY and MD. Tell me, how do you think I might most likely achieve relief from these 3 States? By participating in a new Revolutionary war? By insisting that these States alter their laws to my liking, as a non-resident and non-voter in their elections? How much influence do I have. How about I go about these States urging their voters to take up 2A rights as a top priority with their State legislators? How likely is that to work?

          What I can do – along with gun owners in these 40 “free States” is to encourage my Representative and 2 Senators to support National Reciprocity. The bills now pending aren’t bad; they seem to accommodate residents of the Constitutional-Carry States. If these bills can make it into a “must pass” bill (e.g., a budget bill) then we will have a national Right to Carry scheme based on the notion of Shall-Issue or Constitutional-Carry State laws. Not perfect; but plenty good enough for me.

          What I think is really far more important for the long haul is that “carry” will be introduced – ever so gradually – into the last 10 Won’t-Issue States. Voters in these States will discover what we in the 40 free States already know; the streets are not red with blood; they are all still black asphalt. Guns really as scary as they had long been taught to believe.

          In my opinion, none of our “rights” has any practical meaning unless at least a majority of the voters acknowledge and agree to support them; and, only to the extent that they are willing to support them. In that regard, the polls seem to indicate that we are winning hearts and minds. Our goal should be to keep on that track; to win another million voters’ hearts and minds each year.

          What will win another million voters per year? Does huffing and puffing about our demanding our RIGHTS accomplish this? What would we expect these voters to say to their representatives in Washington? “We won’t vote for you in the next election unless you vote to repeal all Federal laws regarding guns!” Or, might we have a little better luck if we ask our friends and neighbors to urge their representatives to make a few incremental changes to remove the most egregious infringements step by step?

          Ultimately, if we don’t get our way, we may have to cry out: “To the barricades!” and start a new Revolution. If we expect that day to come – or dread it’s arrival – wouldn’t it be a good ideal to have devoted the previous years to currying support among our fellow citizens for our viewpoints? Wouldn’t our chances for success in a 2nd Revolution be significantly improved by lining up support for the notion of liberty in advance? Indeed, should we achieve widespread support for notions of liberty we might – in fact – avoid the tragedy of a 2nd Revolution. Wouldn’t that be an even better outcome?

          What we have been doing over the past 30 years seems to be working; and, the pace seems to be accelerating. Not with perfect uniformity, but over-all, the net seems to be going our way. What is there to learn from this recent success? Is incrementalism a winning strategy?

    • @Warlocc, when RF was a resident of RI, he did have a MA non-resident license to carry (LTC). It’s not that hard to get when the applicant has a license from his home state, as RF did.

      But as previously noted by MarkPA, maintaining the one-year-only non-res LTC is impossible when living in Texas.

  4. Safe trip and congrats on the succesful daughter. Stay safe because as we all know, laws don’t deter crime.

  5. Okay, I get it — but what’s going to protect you from that hideous British food? That garbage killed more Brits than the Luftwaffe.

      • Someone should organize a “taste-off” between fans of Marmite and Vegemite. The last one to barf wins.

    • Interestingly enough, it appears that the British tradition of cooking food to death goes back centuries to medieval times when the peasantry, which subsisted mostly on grains and vegetables, fertilized their fields with human waste; hence, it was necessary to cook everything down to an unappetizing sludge in order to make it safe to eat. Those cooking “skills” have been passed down and continue to this day.

      • Interesting, since current British “cuisine” is about as nutritious as human waste and — although I have no point of reference — probably tastes the same.

        • I think that’s why they sell those diabetes-inducing sugar cookies. To decimate the “flavor” of whatever they ate before.

  6. First and foremost, stealing this~ “Gun ownership is the ultimate symbol of individual sovereignty.” While I will agree there are situations where a gun is impossible, that should not translate to absolute disarmament. My second amendment rights are not just about guns (and these rights are MINE, to be exercised wherever I choose) . Knives are readily available pretty much worldwide, as are other non ballistic defense options. I will make do somehow if a gun is unobtainable. Amazing how many different items can be of use in ways not intended by design.

  7. “Gun ownership is the ultimate symbol of individual sovereignty.”

    Clarity of a simple sentence magnifies its meaning.

    Well done Mr. Fargo

  8. You’ll be fine Robert, your attitude and life experience will count for a lot.
    If your near the Thames Valley or west London and fancy meeting for a coffee, it’ll be my treat.

  9. You are an old fellow. Get a combat cane from I carry one whenever I visit the land of Hope for lost Glory. The Brit police wear lime green jackets so the muggers can see them 3 blocks away and plan their crimes accordingly. You are on your own in the UK.

  10. Violence is determined by the culture, not acess to guns, as all adults in the room know.If gun laws were repealed, some attempted murders will become successful murders because a gun is a more lethal weapon than most. Then again lawful self defense would increase and determined criminals can often get a hold of guns despite the law. How it would end up statistically on the margins I don’t know and I don’t really care. Rights aren’t determined by perceived utility. And besides, the UK LOVES guns, the ruling class have plenty!

  11. Be sure to engage the locals about the merits of being armed. Show them pictures of all the cool toys you have that they cannot. I had some good discussions about gun rights in America with some locals at an underground cocktail club a couple years back. They got it.

  12. “These arguments for civilian disarmament justify my disarmament while visiting The Bay State and The Land of Hope and Glory.”

    Correction: Those are the arguments used to try to justify your disarmament in those places, but they don’t actually provide true justification.

  13. The UK is safe for most part except for certain neighborhoods in London, Birmingham and some other cities. Its just like going to any big city in the US. Dont go where you shouldnt be and you will be fine. Always be aware your surroundings and the people around you. The big fear is knives as thats what most of the criminals have and they will slice you without hesitation. Any self defense weapon of any kind is illegal in the UK – that includes pepper spray, knives, batons, monkey fists or any of the things that people routinely carry in the US. The UK had a tradition of total disarmament and its been going on since before WW2. When WW2 started the population had already been disarmed for the most part and they came to the US begging for people to send them guns of any kind as they were afraid of the German invasion. The UK gun laws since WW2 have gotten worse and worse along with a lot of 3rd world immigration of undesirables. But thats life in a country that is totally socialist and to the left.

  14. By making it impossible for me to carry a gun, the government makes it harder for criminals to get or carry guns, making it less likely criminals will use a gun on me.

    That is actually true. And the reduction in gun-related crimes in places like the UK and Australia after their bans supports it.

    But it hides two important facts. 1) Some criminals will still get guns, and without any legal firearm owners out there, the criminals will have an overwhelming superiority of force. 2) The criminals who can’t get guns will buy or improvise other weapons to commit crimes with (a baseball bat covered with sharpen spikes seems to be popular in Scotland), and will still have an advantage of force over the unarmed public.

    • I won’t even drive through Maryland , New Jersey or NY , I am fortunate enough to be finically able to avoid them , they don’t get my money in their gas stations , dinners , and hotels .All they get from me is my disdain and a prayer for their citizenry . I wouldn’t travel anywhere or by any means that eliminates my right to self protection .

  15. Hope you’re OK RF. My brother lived in Kingston upon Thames, Holland and Warsaw over 20 years and never had a bit of trouble-and he’s a left-wing a-hole who hates guns and gun owners…and now lives in the gun-shine state surrounded by armed folks. Protecting his dumb azz…

  16. 3. Because they can

    That is really the reason. The rest are merely excuses that they use and useful idiots buy into.

    Be aware, RF, the UK could deny you entry based upon this article alone.

  17. I have been to the UK and have made several friends in their armed forces. Personal weapons and concealed carry has come up numerous times. I use the following thoughts written by a fellow Marine as they sum up my position better than I can myself:

    “The Gun Is Civilization”
    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force . If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it .

    In a truly moral and civilized society , people exclusively interact through persuasion . Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force .

    The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

    People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly .

    Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

    People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV , where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

    The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded . I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!

    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

  18. “But I am saying that armed citizens are a PITA to governments bent on expanding their power. Which is, let’s face it, all of them.”

    Exactly. Despite all the moral justifications, the bottom line reason governments and politicians don’t like armed private citizens is trust—or it’s lack. Expansive governments run by statist, “progressive” politicians so doubt their own legitimacy that can’t trust their own citizens to be armed.

  19. I stand corrected and I appreciate the clarification. I still believe and support those thoughts and I extend my admiration to whoever wrote them.

  20. I feel your pain. We’re driving to Canada soon for a family vacation and I’ve got to remember to check the Canadian knife laws unless I possibly want the family driving home without me. Of course, since I can’t defend them as I could in PA, it could be the same result anyway.

  21. Gun possessors are potential murderers. This is why no one should have a gun, including the Chicago Police.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here