. . . The United Kingdom has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world. . . .
Sigh . . .
These superficial "examinations" of strict gun control nations and holding them as an exemplary path for the US to follow to combat our gun crime, is only a "Trojan Horse" political argument. The UK's gun control was
not enacted in response to crime and was not enforced to impact criminal misuse of guns (until very, very recently with questionable results).
Britain's strict gun control has been in effect for centuries and only existed to exert political control and I believe it is evident that arguments like yours are only advanced to
reverse engineer similar political control here (as in reverting to exactly what we discarded and revolted against - LOL).
Disarming the citizenry is always a political action even if it is presented as the epitome of what a helpful, caring government should be doing for its protectorate. Problem is, "Liberty", at least as understood by our founders / framers, was always recognized as being violated if not extinguished when such a program is initiated.
Perhaps you are not aware, shortly after our Republic's establishment the British condition and modes of political disarmament of her people was laid-out, condemned and set-apart from the American condition. In 1803
Tucker's American Blackstone was published and was received as the first treatise on American law written for the needs and conditions of the American legal profession. The treatise consisted of Blackstone's four original volumes, (of English law, written between 1765 -70) fully annotated by Tucker with extensive appendices on the differences between English law and the American Constitution and law. The five-volume work was the standard work on American law for a generation; almost every prospective lawyer of the period began his studies by reading Tucker's Blackstone and the "American Blackstone" became the textbook of American law for decades.
This is how Tucker explained the then teenaged 2nd Amendment, standing as a rebuke of British political disarmament:
"8. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4.
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."
Tucker's American Blackstone,
Vol. I, Appendix, Note D, Section 12 - Restraints on Powers of Congress, #8
It's evident your ideas are hardly new or unique. The political outcome of your goal was recognized long ago as undesirable and incompatible with the US Constitution and a strong distinction was drawn between US citizens and the subjugated, disarmed condition you pine for, no matter what civic benefits your Utopian disarmament is intended to achieve.
