Of course, all Right Thinking People™ had wanted to ban guns for decades, going back at least to 1945 and probably back to the late 19th Century and the Fabian Society. Explicitly socialist and utopian, the Fabians were wildly influential. Since 1945 at the least, essentially all British intellectuals have been cut from that cloth.
The Fabians thought that the State should control much of the physical, economic, and social aspects of the Kingdom. A monopoly on the legitimate use of violence was explicit in their program. After all, they reasoned, with the Right Sort Of People™ in charge, and the proles obediently following their orders, what could possibly go wrong?
You hear from the left the comment that "taxes are what I use to buy Civilization." Always, they're arguing for more taxes, more Government control, more "Civilization".
Well, welcome to your Utopia.
Their road to this Hell was paved with the very best of intentions. Dunblaine was a shock, and nobody wanted a repeat. And so the State gathered the reins of power to itself, suppressing the (natural) remaining instinct of the people to defend themselves.
The only surprise is that the Right Thinking People™ are surprised that the State does not have a monopoly on violence. Indeed, the rioters and looters seem to be quite contemptuous of the State's security teams. The advice the Security Apparatus gives to Her Majesty's subjects caught in the violence and flames is to keep out of the way, don't fight back, call the Police. They'll get around to setting things right, sometime. Maybe.
But don't you subjects take things into your own hands.
It's a shame. I met a lot of nice people there: smart, well mannered, the sort who are exactly the ones you want to have a pint with. But they're subjects. (Needless to say, I didn't hang out with the fruit of a century of Fabian Utopianism, who as we can see have gone feral.)
When I write about firearms and the Second Amendment, I tend to approach the topic from the psychological perspective. I wrote of when I got my first firearm, a simple (but dear to me) .22 rifle:
This is my rifle. There are none like it, because it marks the transition from a subject to a free man.The British people have been essentially enslaved by their government. Step by well-intentioned step, they have been brought to where they cannot defend themselves, or what they own. They cannot have arms. They live precariously, and at the discretion of the State who clearly cannot defend them. They are, in essence, the State's property.
No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.
I, for one, choose not to go gentile into that Good Night of riot and flames. I will not live precariously, and at discretion. Like James Burgh, I see myself as a freeman.
Too bad. Britain used to be a fine place. It used to be Great.
Inspired by a post at American Digest, who tells a story of his own.