Despite Severe Gun Controls, UK Warns of Terrorist Gun Attacks

Terrorism
Despite Severe Gun Controls, UK Warns of Terrorist Gun Attacks
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)
National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- This week, UK authorities effectively admitted that the “gold standard” of gun control is not enough to protect the country from extremists that are intent on using illegally obtained firearms to commit terrorist violence.

Warning that terrorists could bypass the country’s strict laws, the UK’s National Crime Agency and National Counter Terrorism Policing have issued a desperate appeal to the public for any information that could prevent terrorists and other criminals from acquiring firearms.

In an October 31 press release, NCTP head Mark Rowley made clear, “The current threat to the UK from international terrorism remains ‘severe’, meaning an attack is highly likely.” Rowley went on to note, “Despite our good work we know that firearms can enter the criminal market through a variety of means, including thefts from legitimate holders or dealers.” NCA Director General Lynne Owens also noted that criminals bypass UK law, stating, “Criminal networks, who think nothing about who they sell firearms to, present a significant route by which extremist groups will try to access the sort of weapons used in recent attacks in Europe.”

U.S. politicians could learn something from this episode. Efforts to ban commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms or prohibit firearm possession based on secret, and dubious, government lists won’t prevent terrorist violence.

Most of the UK prohibits nearly all semi-automatic firearms, and the licenses and certificates required for gun ownership can be denied for the thinnest of reasons. Further, the UK has strict firearms storage requirements, which subjects gun owners to government inspections of their firearm storage arrangements. UK law enforcement seems to have little doubt in the ability of terrorists and other criminals to bypass these stringent measures.

Attempting to stop committed terrorists or other violent criminals by restricting law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms is a fruitless endeavor. However, there is an option pointed to by former Interpol Secretary General Ronald K. Noble that could help to thwart terrorist violence, while respecting gun rights.

Back in October, 2013, shortly after a terrorist attack in a mall in Nairobi, Kenya that killed 67, Noble granted an interview to ABC News. Noble suggested that an armed citizenry could help to combat terrorist violence, stating, “Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem…. One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that.”

Noble went on to note,

Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly? … What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control.  It makes citizens question their views on gun control.  You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?' This is something that has to be discussed… People are quick to say ‘gun control, people shouldn't be armed,' etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: ‘Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you're in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?

In a similar vein, during recent periods of unrest, Israeli officials have relaxed the country’s gun laws in order to permit more citizens to exercise their Right-to-Carry for the defense of themselves and the public.

UK law enforcement’s warning on terrorist gun attacks is a stark illustration of the fundamental flaw of gun control. Rather than scheming of new firearms restrictions that violent offenders will simply ignore, policy makers should be looking for ways to empower the law-abiding to better provide for their own defense.

About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

  • 9 thoughts on “Despite Severe Gun Controls, UK Warns of Terrorist Gun Attacks

    1. I THINK AUSTRALIA IS THINKING ABOUT THE MISTAKE THEY MADE – WHEN SOMEONE CAN JUST WALK INTO YOUR HOUSE WITH A BASEBALL BAT AND TAKE ANYTHING THEY WANT, IT’S TIME TO REARM THE CITIZENS THAT CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES. CRIME RATES IN AUSTRALIA HAVE RISEN FOR MUGGINGS, HOME INVASIONS, ROBBERIES. AUSTRALIA AT MY LAST CHECKING DIDN’T EVEN HAVE A HOME ROBBERY/INVASION LAW TO CHARGE CRIMINALS WITH. WELL, I GUESS GOVERNMENTS CAN MAKE MISTAKES THAT THEY NEED TO CORRECT IN THE FUTURE.

    2. This proves the government can not protect you, and they want to take away your right to protect yourself.
      The uk and AUSTRALIA need to get there head out of the sand and smell the roses

    3. A BIG AMEN BROTHER TO THAT. I DO NOT THINK THAT THE UK AND AUSTRALIA WILL ALLOW JUST ANY KIND OF FIREARM TO BE KEPT BY CITIZENS, BUT A GOOD START MIGHT BE PUMP SHOTGUNS AND REVOLVERS ALONG WITH CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS. THAT SHOULD GO A LONG WAY TO SOLVING THE CRIME PROBLEMS IN BOTH THE UK AND AUSTRALIA.

    4. I WONDER IF THERE MAYBE A BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT COULD GO ON IN THE UK AND AUSTRALIA BY THE CITIZENS TO GET THEIR RIGHT TO BE ARMED RESTORED AND BLOCKING THE GOVERNMENTS FROM EVER TAKING AWAY THEIR RIGHTS AGAIN. COULD HAVE PROVISIONS FOR CHECKING THEIR BACKGROUND AS HERE IN THE U.S. AND NOT TO CONVICTED FELONS/ADJUDICATED INSANE PERSONS. WHICH GOES BACK TO THE PROBLEM OF CRIMINALS BEING ABLE TO GET FIREARMS BUT AT LEAST HONEST/LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WOULD HAVE A MEANS OF DEFENSE AGAINST THE CRIMINALS. THERE COULD EVEN BE A PROVISION THAT THE GOVERNMENTS COULD/COULD NOT KEEP LISTS IF ARMED CITIZENS (SO IF YOU ARE NOT ON THE LIST OF APPROVED, IT’S INSTANT JAIL FOR 10 YEARS IF CAUGHT WITH AN UNAUTHORIZED FIREARM((THIS PROVISION COULD SATISFY THE GOVERNMENTS TO ALLOW ARMED CITIZENS IN THE UK AND AUSTRALIA AGAIN)). THERE COULD BE A PROVISION THAT THE GOVERNMENTS COULD NOT VOTE TO TAKE AWAY ARMS UNLESS APPROVED BY 2/3’S OF CITIZENS VOTE. THAT COULD PUT A BIG DENT IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS AND PREVENT THE GOVERNMENTS FROM TAKING ARMS. SO WHAT ELSE COULD/CAN BE DONE BY THE CITIZENS OF THE UK AND AUSTRALIA TO RESTORE THEIR FIREARM RIGHTS?????????????????????????? ASKING ALL COMMENTATORS FOR INPUTS.

    5. Check out our constitution and bill of rights which those countries don’t have. THATS WHAT ALL THE VOTE TURN OUT WAS ALL ABOUT IN THE ELECTION!

      1. oldvet, I do understand our Constitution and Bill of Rights – since I have no idea if there are any provisions for citizens in the UK or Australia to address a grievance with their governments, that is way I was asking if anyone knew about the RIGHTS OF CITIZENS in the UK and Australia.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *