In a provocative December 31, 2025, article for American Thinker titled "Globalize the Second Amendment," author Arthur Schaper makes a bold case: Western nations should adopt America's constitutional right to keep and bear arms to restore citizen security. He argues that gun control policies have rendered governments illegitimate by disarming populations, leaving them vulnerable to violence, terrorism, and tyranny — especially amid mass immigration and failures in integration. Schaper calls for the U.S. to leverage its cultural influence to pressure allies like the UK, Australia, and Europe into embracing similar rights.
Central to his thesis is a stark historical comparison: the modern citizen in gun-controlled countries like Australia or the UK is less secure than a medieval peasant. In medieval Europe, peasants often had access to basic arms — knives, agricultural tools repurposed as weapons, or even simple blades — for self-defence against bandits, local threats, or oppressive lords. While regulations existed (e.g., restrictions on certain weapons for non-nobility in places like Spain), armed self-reliance was a practical reality in rural, feudal societies where state protection was limited or distant. Historical homicide rates in medieval cities were high — estimates for 14th-century Oxford suggest around 110 per 100,000 people, and London 36–52 — but individuals could arm themselves against immediate dangers.
Fast-forward to today: Strict gun laws in the UK and Australia mean law-abiding citizens rely almost entirely on police for protection. Schaper contends this dependence is misplaced, as governments "cannot or will not" safeguard people effectively. He points to recent tragedies as evidence.
A key example is the Bondi Beach incident in Australia on the first day of Hanukkah 2025, where radical Islamic militants (a father-son duo) carried out a mass shooting, killing 22 people. Schaper highlights how a brave unarmed resident intervened at great personal risk, suggesting an armed civilian might have stopped the attack sooner. He ties this to Australia's post-1996 gun buyback and confiscation program — launched after the Port Arthur massacre — which he calls a "con" that stripped rights without eliminating threats.
In the UK, gun homicides remain low (around 24–28 annually in recent years), but knife crime surges as a substitute threat. Official data for the year ending March 2025 shows about 53,000 sharp-instrument offenses in England and Wales, with 262 homicides involving knives or similar weapons in the prior period. High-profile cases, like the 2024 Southport stabbing attack on children at a Taylor Swift-themed event, fuel perceptions of vulnerability. Urban areas like London report elevated knife offenses, and critics argue that banning guns has simply shifted violence to blades — easier to obtain but no less deadly in close quarters.
Europe faces parallel issues: Knife and bladed-weapon violence dominates homicides, with urban hotspots and youth involvement driving fears. While overall homicide rates across Western Europe have plummeted since the medieval era (from 20–100 per 100,000 to around 1 in many countries today), Schaper and like-minded voices argue that disarmament creates a false sense of security. When threats arise — from terrorism, gangs, or random attackers — citizens lack the means to defend themselves equally against armed perpetrators.
The article dismisses gun control as "evil" and ineffective, claiming statistics are distorted (e.g., ignoring suicides or urban enforcement failures) and that evil in human hearts requires armed deterrence, not prohibition. Schaper invokes Hong Kong protesters in 2019 demanding a "Second Amendment" amid tyranny fears, and urges the U.S. — under Trump's leadership — to champion this natural right globally.
Critics counter that U.S.-style gun rights would exacerbate mass shootings, and data shows Western gun-controlled nations have far lower firearm deaths overall. Economist John R. Lott Jr.—author of the influential book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (latest edition from 2010, building on his 1997 work with David Mustard) — offers a direct counter. His core thesis: more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, particularly through "shall-issue" right-to-carry (RTC) concealed-carry laws, actually reduce violent crime rates. Criminals, he argues, behave rationally — they weigh risks — and the uncertainty of facing an armed victim deters attacks.
Lott's research analyses county-level U.S. crime data over decades (e.g., 1977–2005 in the third edition), controlling for variables like arrest rates, demographics, and penalties. He finds that states adopting RTC laws see drops in violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault) of several percentage points — e.g., murders down ~7–8% in some models — without increases in accidental shootings or other harms.
On international comparisons and lower firearm deaths in gun-controlled countries:
Lott emphasizes that total homicide rates (not just firearm-specific) matter more. Strict gun laws may shift violence to other weapons (knives, blunt objects), but don't necessarily reduce overall killings. He cites examples like the UK and Australia, where post-ban homicide trends continued downward trends already underway globally, with no clear causal drop from gun restrictions. In some cases (e.g., UK post-handgun ban), certain crimes like armed robbery rose temporarily.
He highlights that when including non-firearm homicides, the U.S. advantage shrinks or reverses in some comparisons. Places with high gun ownership can have lower overall crime if deterrence works.
Lott critiques cherry-picking: Critics focus on firearm deaths (where U.S. rates are high due to availability), but ignore that defensive gun uses (estimated in millions annually, though debated) prevent crimes without fatalities.
On mass shootings:
Lott argues gun-free zones attract attackers (who seek soft targets), while armed citizens stop or deter them. His data from the Crime Prevention Research Center (which he founded) shows most mass public shootings occur in restricted areas.
He challenges claims that the U.S. uniquely suffers mass shootings, noting underreporting in other countries and that concealed carry reduces their frequency and severity.
Thus, Schaper's core provocation resonates in conservative circles: In an age of porous borders and rising ideological violence, disarmed citizens may indeed feel more precarious than their armed medieval forebears, who could at least meet force with force.
Whether "globalising the Second Amendment" gains traction remains doubtful — most Western allies view it as uniquely American. But events like Bondi Beach keep the debate alive: When protection fails, who watches the watchers? And who protects the people? The question challenges gun-control orthodoxy and invites reflection on rights, responsibility, and real security in the modern world.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/12/globalize_the_second_amendment.html