Dunblane Lies, Brits Want Their Handguns Back!


“These [common law] rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty and of private property…to vindicate these rights when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self preservation and defence.”

“Commentaries on the Laws of England”
Lord Justice William Blackstone

The publication in 1972 of Firearms Control, by Chief Inspector (later Superintendent) Colin Greenwood, of the West Yorkshire Constabulary, was a landmark in the study of the law relating to firearms and its effects in England and Wales. Based on his research at Cambridge University, Superintendent Greenwood, who is now editor of Guns Review, demonstrated for the first time how the right of the individual to own firearms was firmly embedded in British law, and that the level of armed crime was far lower before the restrictions imposed by the Firearms Act 1920 and subsequent legislation than it was afterwards.



Every place that has been banned guns has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.

For an example of homicide rates before and after a ban, take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997 (source here see Table 1.01 and the column marked “Offences currently recorded as homicide per million population”).  After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996.  The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates.   The homicide rate only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004.   Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate.



Released Cabinet papers, and the diaries of the then Cabinet secretary, reveal that although the government of the day claimed to be introducing the Firearms Act 1920 as a measure to control armed crime, the Cabinet’s real purpose was to prevent the workers from obtaining firearms in what it believed was an imminent Bolshevik uprising. Before 1920, the right of the individual to own firearms was firmly established in law, reaffirmed in such documents as the Bill of Rights of 1689 and Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765), and successfully defended by members of Parliament throughout the 19th century. During the “Tottenham outrage” of 1909, for instance, two Russian socialist-anarchists carried out a wages robbery, shot dead a policeman and a 10-year-old boy, and were pursued by armed citizens and the police, who borrowed at least four pistols from passers-by. (One robber shot himself, the other hid in a cottage where he either shot himself or was killed by the police.) Even under the 1920 Act, and in the 1937 Home Office Memorandum of Guidance on the Implementation of the Firearms Act, personal protection was recognised as a “good reason” for the issuance of a firearms certificate. Although in 1946 the Home Secretary, James Chuter Ede, stated that self-defence was no longer an acceptable reason, as recently as 1979, Clement Freud, Liberal MP, told the Commons that

It is important on the grounds of security to bear in mind that the more people can learn about the use of firearms, the safer, and not the less safe, this country will be….The more people can be encouraged legally to use firearms, the safer and not the less safe will this country be. (quoted on page 314)

pillarsThe Dunblane massacre was an example of the category of homicide known as “spree killing” or “amok killing”, which no gun control law can prevent. In the words of John Douglas, recently retired chief of criminal profiling for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, “You could deprive Hamilton of his guns. But someone like him is mission-oriented and where there is a will, there is a way, even with strict gun laws” (page 284).Mr Stevenson suggests that it is to the problem of development of mass murderers to which our attention should be directed, and not to the further restriction of lawfully-owned firearms.



Dunblane Primary School. ’16 children from this class were shot dead.’The official story is that, on 13 March (7)1996 (7), a mad loner called Thomas Hamilton shot dead 16(7) children at a primary school in Dunblane in Scotland.


Listen to Mick North: 743 rounds and 700 children, did we see our first modern crisis actors at Dunblane?

Don’t Blair and his ilk just love the 7’s: London 7/7/2005…777

All coincidence of course.


He just won Wimbledon 77 years after the last Brit ish male, on the anniversary on the 7/7 bombings by MI5/6 and Mossad, he broke Djokovic’s serve on the seventh game of each set…777






About Duncan:

reclaim your Sovereignty,
Quote | This entry was posted in Follow The Dead, London 7/7 bombings, paedohile network, right to keep and bear arms and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Dunblane Lies, Brits Want Their Handguns Back!

  1. Pingback: England's Handgun Ban Anniversary - Trents Ruminations

Comments are closed.