were strong and the ownership of personal weapons widespread.rnNevertheless, ever since the North’s victory in the CivilrnWar, the central government has increasingly viewed politicalrnopponents and nonconformists as lawless rogues whornneeded to be controlled, if not suppressed. This developmentrnwas especially evident in the severe suppression of personal libertiesrnduring World War I, in the “Red Scare” and PalmerrnRaids of 1919-20, as well as in regional conflicts such as California’srn”Little Civil War” over water rights in 1924, whenrnranchers in the Owens Valley blew up the aqueduct to Los Angelesrnand seized the aqueduct’s principal diversion works.rnThree years later, when the bombing of the aqueduct was resumed,rnthe city of Los Angeles sent trainloads of guards armedrnwith submachine guns, and this show offeree proved effective.rnWhile the ancien regime had distinguished between socialrngroups in deciding who could bear arms, the totalizing democraciesrnof the modern world have proved reluctant to vary theirrnpower to control. In Britain, as a result of the Firearms ControlrnAct of 1920 (and its revision, the Firearms Act of 1968), it is necessaryrnto show “good reason” to own a gun —and defensernagainst crime is not just cause. In 1997, the use of handgunsrnwas banned as a consequence of the killing of children by a derangedrngunman in Dunblane, Scotland: by that logic, the motorcarrnshould have long been banned. The Dunblane killingsrnwere in fact the product of the failure of the regulatory system,rnnot of the private ownership of guns. Killings by licensedrngunowners were rare, and the change in the law only made unlicensedrnownership more likely, thus leading in all likelihood torncalls for more and more police surveillance. Thus, unlike inrnthe United States, the British people are more dependent onrnthe police in order to protect themselves, and this, of course, thernpolice are unable to do. Criminals know this, and they knowrnthat their victims will be unarmed.rnCrime and insecurity are both aspects of the crisis of Westernrnsociet)’ at the close of the millennium. This sense of helplessness,rnitself fueled by the government’s monopolization of thernmeans of force, is then used by the cential state to justify suppressingrnstill more personal liberties and the right to self-defense.rnThe state presents this process as natural and logical, asrnthe only solution to the problems that plague us. But it is nothingrnof the sort. It is simply government doing what governmentrndoes best: monopolizing power. <8>rnWouldn’t you like to knowrnwhat Chronicles editorsrndo when they’re notrnwriting for Chronicles’? For a taxdeductiblernmembership donation ofrn$25, you will receive the Institute’srnquarterly publication, Main StreetrnMemorandum, your source for allrnthe hard-hitting commentary andrnRockford Institute news thatrncan’t fit in the pages ofrnChronicles. To join, send arncheck for $25 to:rnTRI JHfrnivieinDcrsiiip ^Hvrn928 North Main StreetT^rnRockford, IL 61103rna ^ ^^oc (If ‘^rn’^”UA / arnJANUARY 1998/21rnrnrn