There are few things worse in governments, corporations and societies than the mentality that ‘something must be done’. Mostly because nothing needs to be done or that which is done is entirely the wrong thing.
Following the dreadful shooting incident in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996 – tennis star Andy Murray was one of the children who escaped – the government decided that something must be done. They clamped down on gun ownership in the United Kingdom. A classic non sequitur type of reaction which, as far as we know, has achieved precisely nothing.
What it did was to clamp down on legal gun ownership by people, for example in shooting clubs, and while farmers and some others were allowed to retain shotguns, the rules about ownership and storage are restrictive and comical. I have a colleague who lives in the countryside and has the occasional need for a shotgun to control vermin around his extensive property. He also has an antique – deactivated – shotgun. He must store his active shotgun in a separate room from the antique one. The reason for this is unknown; perhaps enlightened TNC readers can shed some light?
But what restricting gun ownership in the United Kingdom, or any other country, does not achieve is the ownership of guns by criminals and lunatics. They are not going to hand them over or decide they should not own one. After all, for both criminals and lunatics, possessing a gun is not the worst aspect of having one, it is what they intend or are likely to do with it.
Gun ownership in the United Kingdom is low (almost negligible following Dunblane and not very high before it), certainly in comparison with the United States (32%). I am unconvinced about the Second Amendment right to bear arms in the United States and, in my view, they have the gun death figures to prove it. While correlation is not causation, across the world gun-related deaths do correlate strongly with the extent of gun ownership.
But all things are not equal. In the United Kingdom – almost uniquely – ordinary police on the beat do not carry guns. In the United States, given that almost anyone could be carrying a gun, the police are much more likely to pump you full of lead for the most minor of misdemeanours if you do not comply with instructions or decide to scratch your balls.
As an aside, we should, perhaps, be thankful that British Bobbies do not carry guns. Imagine how many people would be killed by our largely overweight police force who, instead of running after criminals, just took out their weapons and shot them. That, and the number who would most likely shoot themselves in the foot and be off work for months.
Meantime in Australia, where gunmen whose motivation was unknown (Islam) have slaughtered defenceless Jews celebrating one of their major religious and social festivals. Like every state across the world (except, notably, the United States), the Australian Federal Government has settled on that timeless adage ‘something must be done’. Registered gun ownership in Australia is around 20%.
The action of the Australian government is to clamp down on gun ownership and, like similar actions in the United Kingdom, this is likely to achieve the square root of bugger all. They are proposing three things: a gun amnesty; ownership of guns restricted to one per household; and gun ownership being restricted to Australian citizens.
So, we have three proposals with which there are only three things wrong. Criminals, lunatics and Islamic fundamentalists (with considerable overlap between those last two categories) are not likely to respond to a gun amnesty. It is hardly possible to imagine the mullahs preaching on a Friday afternoon that gun ownership is un-Islamic, lest they find themselves in receipt of a hail of bullets for not being Islamic enough.
Restricting gun ownership to one firearm per household is equally unlikely to appeal to criminals, lunatics and Islamic fundamentalists. They would be as well changing the law to issue a restriction to only one Muslim per household, which is never going to happen. Mind you, that glorious specimen of womanhood and good sense (no sarcasm intended) Pauline Hanson is not Prime Minister yet.
Restricting gun ownership to Australian citizens is equally unlikely to have much effect on the usual suspects. But I suppose the lefties now at the helm in Canberra could not bring themselves to say that gun ownership should be restricted to non-Muslims. Mind you…see reference to Pauline Hanson above.
Personally, I see no good reason why ordinary citizens need to own firearms, but I also see no reason why legal ownership should be restricted due to the actions of some Koran-crazed evil followers of the prophet Muhammad. Ordinary Australians can see that their country, in common with many across the civilised world, has a growing enemy within. Nothing effective will happen until their government, once so good at keeping Australia white and solely for Australians, catches up with them.
Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
(Photograph: Lorie Shaull from St Paul, United States, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)
The concerning issue for me in the UK is the only groups to have guns in any meaningful volume are the usual criminals/jihadists and the police. Neither of whom I trust to be answerable to the electorate.
Why oh why do people vote for the likes of Starmer and albanese ? I am truly dumfounded
‘Cos they believe propaganda, all others are ‘nasty’ which is the worst crime imaginable in 2025.
Lack of choice. in the UK. all the parties were distrusted but someone has to win. it just happened to be Starmer’s. In Oz, it is insufficient differences between the parties and a weird voting system which forces one to vote for someone, anyone, whether you want them or not, on pain of a fine – used to be $1000 in the 80s and probably higher now. And somehow to place up to 10 candidates in order of preference when one cannot place a wafer between them.
I HAD to vote after I had been in the country two years even though I had absolutely no preference and very little knowledge of the main personalities or their parties.
What I don’t understand (please enlighten me) is in countries with high legal gun ownership, why don’t the legal gun owners take out the illegal shooters at the scene if atrocities? Presumably the legal owners keep their firearms at home for protection but don’t take them out? Of course, the Police would be incapable of differentiating between an indigenous gun holder and one shouting Alan’s Snackbar, so perhaps my question is moot.
Gun ownership and citizenship? Anyone and everyone who emigrates to Oz can become citizens. My own citizenship ceremony in Canberra was a farce. An immigrant who could not read (or perhaps pronounce) English properly read out the citizenship affirmation statement to which a group of about fifteen of us made assenting/grunting noises. Heaven knows what we were assenting to because I hardly understood a word. Then a recording of Advance Australia Fair was played, after which we queued up to get our certificates of citizenship. And there you had it – the right to an Aussie passport. I hope they checked the criminal background of everybody. Perhaps in those days they did, but with the hordes of third worlders Australia has taken in recent decades this would have been impossible.
Notice that no one ever had to demonstrate a positive action which suggested they would be a net benefit to Australian society.
Not a criticism of Australia only – the UK positively welcomes immigrant criminals on a daily basis.