guns v no guns

[aguero93:20]

The real gun problem is the use of the hand gun in urban areas for criminal purposes, NOT the peaceful and lawful ownership of handguns and long guns in the "hinterlands." Accordingly, because it is lawful to own a gun under certain conditions, it is then up to someone to ensure those lawful conditions are strictly enforced. However, when a father buys his disturbed son a weapon, we sometimes see the effects on the national news and the entire furor over guns returns to the top of the news again....especially when it was legally purchased!

I'd also have a problem with legal automatic weapons. Your point about your mate and the mountain lion doesn't stand up at all mate, most countries in Europe will allow people in rural or remote areas a license for a shotgun or rifle.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Preventing law-abiding people from owning guns clearly has no impact on violent crime, and if anything causes it to rise because the criminals know their victims will not be able to defend themselves.

Accordingly, the carriage, use, and possible death associated with illegal ownership of a gun should be extreme. Today, because the jails are full of minor drug offenders, we have nowhere to put violent criminals for long periods of time. With the largest prison population on earth, one would think we would have eradicated violent crime from the streets, yet the powers that be have chosen "The war on drugs" as their pinch point, and today we live with that folly. Thankfully, that mindset appears to be changing slightly, but it will take a generation before we realize the folly of locking up stoners instead of violent offenders for considerably longer.

Speaking to your point, it is the toothpaste & tube problem to which I referred earlier. We are never going to rid America of guns, so we need to concentrate on ridding America of illegal gun ownership and use. Only then will we approach a society of gun ownership that was envisaged by the Founding Fathers...legal and owned by those with the knowledge and ability of intended use.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I'd also have a problem with legal automatic weapons. Your point about your mate and the mountain lion doesn't stand up at all mate, most countries in Europe will allow people in rural or remote areas a license for a shotgun or rifle.

Automatic weapons are not legal in the US, and the term "semi-automatic" merely denotes another bullet enters the chamber, but the trigger still needs to be pulled again. If you watch any old cop show, where he pulls out his 19th century technology revolver, that is a "semi automatic." Fully automatic is something entirely different, denoting pulling AND HOLDING THE TRIGGER DOWN and the weapon firing until it runs out of ammunition. It is not too difficult to turn many semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic, but this goes back to my call for more extreme penalties for such things.

 

[chrishull]

Have you ever thought that young thugs, like those that engaged in this riots in Tottenham and then Manchester, might think twice about it if the store owner was armed? The police were armed? Maybe those looted sneakers and sportswear might not seem so loot able under the penalty of death?

Not espousing, just asking.

Like they did in LA in the early 90s?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Like they did in LA in the early 90s?

Yes, but you are conflating issues. British kids are not used to having guns. Many of the people on the streets in LA were! It only takes picking off one person in front of many to make pussy looters scatter like roaches in the noonday sun!!

 

[Citizen in Pakistan]

Have you ever thought that young thugs, like those that engaged in this riots in Tottenham and then Manchester, might think twice about it if the store owner was armed? The police were armed? Maybe those looted sneakers and sportswear might not seem so loot able under the penalty of death?

Not espousing, just asking.

That's one way of looking at it but what's the opposite ? Those same thugs commiting crimes on gun point,not just robbing stores but threating the law abiding public at large,and using something (gun) which is suppose to defend as a mode of agression . It's . double edge sword which is completely not worth having

 

[Ancient Citizen]

All fit young men in Switzerland are required to keep a firearm at home.
Why is gun crime not paramount here?

 

[Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot]

If we all had guns then how would British gang members feel superior and intimidating?

 

[SilvaDreamachine]

All fit young men in Switzerland are required to keep a firearm at home.
Why is gun crime not paramount here?

could be to do with the restrictions of use and a sense of civic responsibility?

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Preventing law-abiding people from owning guns clearly has no impact on violent crime, and if anything causes it to rise because the criminals know their victims will not be able to defend themselves.

Wrong. The reality of the situation is the exact opposite of what you just said