Originally posted by Widewing
Okay, but feelings are often diametrically opposed to reality. Whether you feel less secure isn't the question. The question is: would you actually be less secure? Evidence here in the States points to the answer as being no. Properly trained, law abiding gun owners are an asset to any community.
Lazs wasn't asking about "in the states". The question related to that fair in Nottingham. You cannot compare the gun situation in the states to that of Britain. Long may that continue. You would undesrstand me better if you read Nashwan's posts more closely...
Nashwan nailed it, again:
"No, the whole point of gun control is it targets supply. If you make it difficult for anyone to get a gun, you make it difficult for everyone, criminals included. The American system makes it easy for everyone, including criminals."Many pro-gunnners here are still missing the point made by Nashwan and Spook (and Curval, in the past). Removing guns from the equation (as Australia has done) or preventing a flood of guns in the first place (as Britain has done) isn't designed to penalise law abiding people. It's to make it difficult for
anyone to get a gun, by targeting supply. In an ideal situation, the bad guys can't get guns and the good guys therefore don't need guns. Those wanting to participate in range shooting can keep the guns at the club. Now as I've said (about 500 times, actually) no laws work
perfectly, and British gun control laws are no exception.
My original reason for posting this thread was the situation in Nottingham, where a 14 year old girl was recently shot and killed as she walked home from a fun fair. My 19 year old niece walked home from that very same fair on the same night, and was very upset when she heard this news. As for Danielle Beccan's murder:
- If a gun had not been available to the killer, would he have used a kitchen knife instead? No, and she would still be alive. It was a drive-by shooting, and I heard that an automatic weapon had been used.
- Some of you are saying that more guns is the answer. I ask again: Do you think it would be correct to arm 14 year olds attending fun fairs? Would that be legal where any of you live? Would Danielle still be alive if she'd been allowed to be armed? No, no and no. She never had a chance. Even Lazs would not have had a chance against such an attack.
- Would anyone like to live in a society where you had to carry a gun, just to feel safe? I know I wouldn't, but FWIW I don't think I have to carry a gun in America to feel safe. I was in New York just last month, and felt safe. And before any wise arse says "that's because of all the armed police/citizens around you", I feel even safer in my little town of 7000 people, and two nights ago even walked home across the park, shortly before midnight.
The American stance seems to be that if the law abiding are armed, the criminals will be deterred, and somehow there will be less crime, ie fewer homicides. THAT is a fool's paradise, and one need look no further than the homicide stats for the evidence.
As even Mr. Toad would concede, gun homicide in Britain is next to nothing (but IMO is still way too much). That compares with around 10,000 people shot and killed in America every year (including around 70 well trained and heavily armed police officers), and more than 300,000 in a 25 year period. And yet folks still persist with the comfort value of guns - probably because they have never experienced life in an unarmed society. Most of the pro-gun arguments I see here would be applicable only in America.
More guns less crime? Hmmm... doesn't seem to work too well - read Nashwan's remark in my sig...
