UK Gun Control Group's Demands a Harbinger of What Will Come

AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty

There shouldn't really be a gun debate in this country. The fact that we have the Second Amendment should, at least in theory, prevent a push for gun control.

However, we all know how that worked out.


Despite several Supreme Court cases making it clear that the Second Amendment preserves an individual right to keep and bear arms, there are legions who think that it really just means the militia can have guns, not you and me, and that's just one example.

But let's also be real, if the anti-gun advocates got everything they said they wanted at this moment, they'd find a way to justify the next set of demands. We've literally never seen a gun control group get what they wanted and then declare, "That's it. We've done what we set out to do. We're closing up shop now."

No, they just ask for more.

And a recent discussion in the UK makes it pretty clear that it'll never be enough. After all, the UK has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, and yet, one incident seemingly justifies still more.

A gun control group, set up in the wake of the Dunblane massacre, fears its predictions over the government using delaying tactics has come to fruition after the Prime Minister announced a July General Election.

Last year the Gun Control Network met with the Home Office to encourage the government to fully implement all of the recommendations made by senior coroner Ian Arrow following the five-week long inquest into the deaths of five people tragically killed in Keyham on August 12, 2021.

In his series of Prevention of Future Deaths report Mr Arrow urged further review of all certificates seized, refused, revoked or surrendered and subsequently returned over the last five years, not just by Devon and Cornwall Police, but by all forces. He asked for greater training by judges and others involved in firearms licencing decisions. 


However, last June the Crime and Policing Minister Chris Philp admitted the Government would not be taking on board a number of Mr Arrow's recommendations, claiming "shotguns are already subject to significant controls" and that further changes to the Firearms Act were "unnecessary" and have a "negative impact" on their legitimate use by farmers and those involved in "rural pursuits".

Instead he launched a consultation, the findings of which have still not been published, despite requests from Plymouth's Labour MP Luke Pollard and the SNP's Pete Whishart, MP, chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

It was later revealed that the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Therese Coffey let slip to the BASC [British Association for Shooting and Conservation] that she had been instrumental in stopping the recommended changes to the gun laws.

The Gun Control Network - who in April 2023 said they feared "vested interests" would try to water down or even prevent firearm reform, has now criticised the government, arguing it has cruelly used delaying tactics to kick any chance of reform into touch.


Let's understand that the official word is that there won't be additional restrictions. That's it. Moreover, this was the opinion of a single person, a coroner, and thus don't necessarily mean jack squat.

But Mr. Arrow said he thinks there should be more restrictions and The Gun Control Network figures that's good enough.

And really, do we really think it would be different here?

The UK has extensive gun control laws--laws many of our own advocates claimed prevented mass shootings--and then they had a mass shooting. They didn't get the message that the laws didn't actually work to stop bad people. 

Our own gun grabbers won't stop even if we were to pass measures to replicate the UK's gun control laws as they currently stand. Just like the UK's crowd, our own would simply look for opportunities to further restrict gun ownership.

That's because it's always predicated on you not being able to have a gun.

They might trust themselves to own one, mind you, but you're an unknown and thus should be deprived of your rights. They can have all the restrictions in the world, but if there's a slim possibility that someone might own a gun, they'll crusade to make that impossible.

Don't believe them when they say, "I support the Second Amendment but..."

They don't support any such thing. All they support is making you powerless.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member