Tom Armstrong's article, "Returning the Right to Bear Arms to Great Britain," published on June 10, 2025, in American Thinker, argues for reinstating the right to bear arms in the UK, rooted in historical precedent and necessitated by contemporary challenges. Armstrong traces the historical evolution of Britain's approach to firearms, highlighting a shift from a tradition of armed citizenry to stringent gun control. He grounds his argument in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which affirmed that Protestant subjects could bear arms for defence, subject to legal and status-based conditions. This right, supported by a militia system that required men to train with weapons, reflected a civic duty to contribute to national defence, particularly in the absence of a standing army.
The article notes that minimal regulation persisted into the 19th century, but the Firearms Act of 1920 marked a turning point, driven by post-World War I fears of civil unrest rather than crime prevention. Subsequent legislation, including the Firearms Acts of 1937, 1968, 1988, and 1997, progressively tightened restrictions, culminating in a near-total handgun ban after the Dunblane massacre. Armstrong argues that this shift reflects a philosophical change: firearms, once a presumed right, became a state-granted privilege, with citizens viewed as inherently suspect.
Armstrong contends that Britain's strict gun laws have failed to curb violence, pointing to surging knife crime in London and public distrust in overwhelmed or "selectively responsive" state authorities. He cites the case of Tony Martin, a farmer prosecuted for shooting intruders, as evidence of the state's prioritisation of its monopoly on force over individual self-defence. This situation, coupled with rising crime and immigration-related tensions, prompts Armstrong to question whether the state should exclusively determine who may be armed.
Drawing comparisons with the United States and Switzerland, Armstrong suggests Britain could adopt a balanced approach. The U.S., with its Second Amendment and 400 million civilian-owned guns, demonstrates widespread defensive gun use, though marred by urban gun violence. Switzerland's militia system, where conscripted men retain rifles at home, combines high gun ownership with low crime, emphasising cultural responsibility. Armstrong proposes a UK model with background checks, psychological evaluations, regular training, and clear legal protections for justified self-defence, ensuring responsible armed citizenship. He concludes that reviving the 1689 principle could restore dignity and security amid faltering institutional trust.
The right to bear arms in the UK is not merely a historical artifact but a fundamental principle of liberty, rooted in natural law and historical precedent. The 1689 Bill of Rights explicitly recognised the citizen's right to self-defence, a reflection of the Glorious Revolution's rejection of arbitrary state power. This right, conditioned but not negated by law, aligns with the natural law principle that individuals possess an inherent right to protect their lives and property. Denying this right, as modern UK laws do, leaves citizens vulnerable to rising violent crime, knife attacks in London rose by 20% from 2020 to 2024, and an overstretched police force that cannot guarantee protection.
The UK's gun control regime, justified as a public safety measure, has failed to deliver. While gun-related homicides are low (0.02 per 100,000 in 2023), overall violent crime, including knife attacks, has surged, with 50,510 recorded knife crimes in England and Wales in 2023/24. The state's monopoly on force, exemplified by cases like Tony Martin's prosecution, prioritises bureaucratic control over individual safety. This imbalance violates the social contract: if the state cannot protect citizens, it has no moral authority to disarm them.
The U.S. and Swiss models offer practical frameworks. In the U.S., studies estimate 500,000 to 3 million defensive gun uses annually, empowering citizens to deter threats. Switzerland's militia system, with 2.3 million firearms among 8.7 million people, maintains a homicide rate of 0.5 per 100,000, proving that responsible gun ownership can coexist with safety. A UK system could require rigorous training, background checks, and recertification, ensuring only responsible citizens are armed. Clear legal protections for self-defence would prevent miscarriages of justice, restoring trust in the system.
Critics argue that arming citizens risks escalating violence, citing U.S. gun homicide rates (4.4 per 100,000). However, Switzerland's success demonstrates that cultural factors, not gun ownership alone, drive outcomes. The UK's cultural emphasis on civic duty could support a responsible armed citizenry, reducing reliance on an ineffective state. Denying this right perpetuates a dystopian reality where law-abiding citizens are defenceless, contradicting the principles of liberty that Britain once championed.
Australia's near-total prohibition on firearms for self-defence, cemented by the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) following the Port Arthur massacre, is a grave injustice that strips citizens of their natural right to self-defence. The 1689 Bill of Rights, part of Australia's inherited legal tradition, affirms the right to bear arms, a principle echoed in common law and natural law. Yet, Australian law denies this, requiring firearms to be licensed solely for hunting, sport, or occupational purposes, with self-defence explicitly excluded as a valid reason. This leaves citizens defenceless against violent crime, which persists despite strict laws, Australia recorded 1.1 million assault victims in 2023, a 7% increase from 2020.
The NFA reduced gun suicides and homicides (0.1 per 100,000 in 2023), but its impact on overall violent crime is questionable. Home invasions and assaults remain prevalent, with 243,000 reported break-ins in 2023. The state's expectation that citizens rely on police, who face resource constraints and response times averaging 8–10 minutes, ignores the immediacy of threats. Posts on X highlight public frustration, with users advocating for a "castle doctrine" to protect homeowners, reflecting a growing sentiment that self-defence is a natural right denied by law.
Australia could adopt a hybrid model, blending U.S. and Swiss approaches. A licensing system with mandatory training, psychological assessments, and safe storage requirements would ensure responsibility. Unlike the U.S., where concealed carry is widespread, Australia could prioritise home defence, allowing firearms for protection within one's property. Switzerland's low crime rate with high gun ownership proves this is feasible. Critics claim that guns would escalate violence, but Australia's disciplined culture and low baseline gun crime suggest otherwise. Restoring the right to bear arms would empower citizens, aligning with the natural law principle that self-preservation is inalienable.
Australian law's rejection of self-defence as a legal justification for using any weapon, firearm, knife, or improvised tool, creates a profound injustice, particularly for vulnerable groups like the elderly and women. The Criminal Code Act 1995 and state laws (e.g., Crimes Act 1900 NSW) permit "reasonable" self-defence but impose strict proportionality requirements. Courts often deem any weapon use excessive, especially against unarmed or less armed attackers, even if the defender faces multiple opponents or a physically stronger assailant. For example, a 2019 case in Victoria saw a homeowner convicted for using a baseball bat against intruders, as the court ruled his response disproportionate. This leaves the elderly, women, and physically weaker individuals defenceless against more powerful or numerous attackers, effectively nullifying their right to self-defence.
This legal stance conflicts with natural law, which holds that self-preservation is an inherent, inalienable right. Philosophers like John Locke argued that individuals have a duty to protect their lives when the state fails to do so. In Australia, where police cannot respond instantly and violent crime persists, denying citizens the means to defend themselves, whether with firearms, knives, or other tools, violates this principle. Women facing domestic violence or elderly individuals targeted in home invasions are particularly disadvantaged, as they cannot lawfully counter physical disparities with weapons. X users have voiced outrage, noting that laws seem to protect criminals while punishing victims, with one user stating, "The government wants us all dead" by locking up citizens for self-defence.
The absence of a legal right to use weapons for self-defence undermines equality before the law. A physically strong man may fend off an attacker with fists, but a weaker individual cannot, creating a de facto hierarchy where only the strong have practical self-defence rights. This must be rejected as a violation of natural justice. Australia should adopt a "castle doctrine," allowing lethal force against home intruders without fear of prosecution. Non-lethal options, like pepper spray (banned in most states), should also be legalised. These reforms would restore the natural right to self-defence, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of physical ability, can protect their lives.
Tom Armstrong's article powerfully argues for reinstating the right to bear arms in the UK, a principle equally applicable to Australia. Both nations, heirs to the 1689 Bill of Rights, have abandoned their historical commitment to armed citizenship, leaving law-abiding individuals vulnerable amid rising crime and declining state efficacy. The U.S. and Swiss models demonstrate that responsible gun ownership can enhance security without chaos. In Australia, the denial of weapons for self-defence, particularly for the elderly and women, violates natural law by stripping vulnerable citizens of their inherent right to self-preservation. Restoring the right to bear arms and reforming self-defense laws in both countries would reaffirm the principles of liberty, responsibility, and equality, ensuring that citizens are not left defenceless when the state fails to protect them.
"Returning The Right to Bear Arms to Great Britain
The right to self-defense, and by extension the right to bear arms, has a long and complex history in Britain. Today, many see strict gun control as a hallmark of British law, but this was not always the case. Indeed, Britain has a robust tradition of armed citizenry, rooted in common law, enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights, and eroded only in the modern era.
British society faces unprecedented strains, from mass immigration, rising crime and public disorder to distrust of the State, so it is worth re-examining whether Britain has moved too far from its historic principles.
The roots of Britain's approach to bearing arms can be found in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The overthrow of King James II and the ascension of William III and Mary II resulted in the English Bill of Rights in 1689. Mostly focused on the abuses of State (Royal) power, it contained a clause declaring:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.
While limited by religious qualification (reflecting the Protestant-Catholic tensions of the time), the Bill of Rights enshrined a foundational acknowledgment of the citizen's right to bear arms. It was not an unlimited right. It was conditioned by status and subject to the law, but it established that the government could not arbitrarily disarm the population.
Throughout the medieval and early modern periods, the English militia system required men to possess and train with weapons to ensure that defense was a civic responsibility, not a purely professional one. Far from fearing private firearm ownership, the State encouraged it, not least because it lacked a standing army and viewed armed citizens as vital to national defense.
This tradition continued well into the 19th century. Gun ownership was common; regulation was minimal. This changed after World War I, which left Britain with a surplus of weapons, a newly politicized working class that knew how to use them, and an Establishment fearful of a Bolshevik revolution, culminating in the Firearms Act of 1920, the first major piece of modern gun control legislation.
The Act required civilians to obtain a certificate from the police to purchase firearms or ammunition. Framed as a public safety measure, declassified documents later revealed that it was aimed primarily at preventing civil unrest, not at reducing crime. As the Home Office wrote privately at the time, "It is not in the public interest that firearms should be freely available."
And so, gun ownership became a privilege granted by the State, rather than a right presumed by the individual. Naturally, further legislation followed:
The Firearms Act 1937 consolidated earlier laws and expanded police discretion.
The Firearms Act 1968 reorganized firearms legislation and introduced more stringent requirements.
The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, passed after the Hungerford massacre, banned semi-automatic rifles and introduced registration for shotguns.
The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, in the wake of the Dunblane school massacre, effectively banned all handguns.
These acts marked a profound philosophical shift: where the Bill of Rights enshrined the subject's right to bear arms, modern Britain came to treat firearms as inherently suspect.
Britain now has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, but violence or disorder increases. Knife crime, particularly in London, has surged. Average citizens find themselves in a dilemma, for they are told to rely entirely on State authorities for protection while those authorities are overwhelmed, under-resourced, indifferent, or 'selectively responsive.'
In cases of robbery or violent assault, Britons have a limited legal right to defend themselves. The prosecution of individuals like Tony Martin, a farmer jailed for shooting intruders, illustrates the lengths to which the State will go to assert its monopoly of force, even when applied in clear-cut cases of self-defense.
This state of affairs raises a fundamental question: if the State cannot guarantee protection, should it have the exclusive right to determine who may be armed?
The United States enshrines the right to bear arms in its Constitution. The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, reads:
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.
Despite opposition, this principle remains embedded in American culture, with an estimated 400 million civilian-owned guns, more than one per person.
Critics cite American gun violence statistics as evidence of failure, and the U.S. does have high levels of gun-related homicides, especially in urban areas with significant 'socioeconomic' challenges. However, the American model offers instructive lessons. Numerous studies suggest that defensive gun use is common in the U.S., even if underreported.
In many states, gun ownership entails training, legal knowledge, and safe storage, fostering a culture of responsibility among law-abiding citizens. States set their own policies, allowing experimentation and local governance over firearms rights and responsibilities. Britain opted for prohibition. The U.S. has opted for managed empowerment.
A more apt comparison for Britain, because of its unitary government, may be Switzerland, which maintains a system in which the citizen is expected to be armed. Swiss men are conscripted into military service and, upon completing their training, retain their issued rifles at home as part of the national militia system. Civilian gun ownership is widespread and culturally normalized. Importantly, Switzerland has low levels of gun crime, demonstrating that high rates of gun ownership can coexist with low crime when underpinned by a culture of responsibility and civic trust.
Given the erosion of public safety and the rise of systemic distrust, Britain would benefit from revisiting the question of civilian armament and cherry-picking the best of the US and Swiss models.
This could include background checks, psychological evaluation, and a demonstrated understanding of firearms safety and the law. As with the Swiss model, gun owners could be required to undertake regular training and recertification.
Importantly, the law must clearly state when force is justified and provide protections for those who act in good faith.
Local governance and police authorities could administer and review licenses, ensuring accountability, but subject to the provision that a citizen of good standing has the right to own a weapon, with the burden of proof on the authorities should they seek to deny that right. Law-abiding citizens of good character should not be denied the means of defending themselves.
Britain's historical stance on arms has shifted from a nation that valued the armed citizen to one that views any such person with suspicion. Yet, this shift has coincided with increased crime, diminishing state efficacy, and growing public anxiety.
The time has come to reassert the 1689 principle: that citizens of good standing and proven responsibility should not be denied the right to bear arms for their defense. Both the United States and Switzerland offer models, different but instructive, on how armed citizenship can function in modern societies.
Reviving the right to bear arms in Britain could mean restoring a sense of dignity, responsibility, and security in an age where trust in institutions is faltering. When the State cannot be trusted, citizens must not be left defenseless. The case for responsible armed citizenship is not a historical curiosity; it is a contemporary necessity.