… the answer must be more gun control laws!

Only in Britain would you find this line of reasoning:

We have, post-Dunblane, what are said to be the toughest gun control laws in the world. They have actually proved strikingly ineffectual.

Gun crime has doubled since they were introduced. Young hoodlums are able to acquire handguns - either replica weapons that have been converted, or imports from eastern Europe - with ease. With no dedicated frontier police, our borders remain hopelessly porous. The only people currently incommoded by the firearms laws are legitimate holders of shotgun licences, who are subjected to the most onerous police checks.

So what to do? The usually sensible Telegraph says the solution is to enable even more draconian police powers and stiffen sentences for gun offenses.

The truth is that the laws relating to possession of guns are nowhere near tough enough. …

In particular, the ludicrous inhibitions placed on the police when it comes to exercising powers of stop and search have to be lifted. So must the post-Macpherson burden of political correctness, which makes any police officer think twice before challenging a young black man on the street. There is a wider failure here.

NB: in Great Britain merely possessing a gun, other than a registered shotgun, is illegal. I didn’t say “carrying,” but possessing. As in your house, locked inside a safe. Rusted beyond use. Lacking ammunition. It’s still illegal and a British subject will go to prison for that.

The Dunblane reference, btw, is to a “multiple murder-suicide which occurred at the primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane on 13 March 1996. It remains the deadliest attack on children in United Kingdom history. Sixteen children and one adult were killed, in addition to the attacker;” more at Wikipedia.

Crime in Britain has become so severe that in 2003 even the BBC explained, “Why Britain needs more guns.”

“You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.

Of the 13 percent of occupied-home burglaries in the US, most stem from the burglars’ mistaken belief that the home is empty. In Britain, they don’t care because it is actually illegal for residents to defend themselves with force against an intruder. Remember Tony Martin? He was convicted of murder and sent to prison because he shot and killed a home intruder after suffering numerous home invasions in which he had been attacked and injured. The result? Mark Steyn, as always, nails it:

These days, even as he or she is being clobbered, the more thoughtful British subject is usually keeping an eye (the one that hasn’t been poked out) on potential liability. Four years ago, Shirley Best, proprietor of the Rolander Fashion emporium, whose clients include Zara Phillips, was ironing some clothes when the proverbial two youths showed up. They pressed the hot iron into her flesh, burning her badly, and then stole her watch. “I was frightened to defend myself,” said Miss Best. “I thought if I did anything I would be arrested.” There speaks the modern British crime victim.

The British used to be a free people, but no longer.