> How about the school shooting where the principal
> went to his office, grabbed his legal concealed carry piece and took out the
> gunman (gunchild?) before he got a chance to run rampant through the entire
> school? Or the woman who watched her parents be killed in the cafeteria
> shooting in Texas knowing that her legal handgun was in her car out in the
> parking lot? Because of the state law, she wasn't allowed to carry it into the
> restaurant, so she didn't. Many people died in a situation where one armed
> citizen could have stopped it early, and the means was 30 feet away because she
> obeyed the law.
How about the school shooting that never took place because there weren't any guns
in the society and so the pupil would not have had one and thus the head-teacher
would not have needed one. In Scotland a couple of years ago there was a terrible
incident in a town called Dunblane where a man called Hamilton who owned several
guns through a gun-club went to a local primary school and shot 16 kids and their
teacher. The response by the British government (with the overwhelming support of
the British population) was to completely ban all hand guns of greater than 0.22
calibre whether individually owned or owned in a gun club (ok so the rules were a
bit more complex than that). This response seems rather sensible. Now Britain is
going to do even worse in the Olympics, but did anyone watch the shooting events?
Your response would be exactly the opposite to that of the British government -
"Someone got shot, let's arm everyone!".
Gun owners should be honest first and then argue later. People want guns for many
reasons including hunting, target shooting, macho reasons, gun collections,
enjoyment of the weapons etc. Why don't you all say that? The British gun clubs
were horrified by the Dunblane hand gun bans. They had to use a whole range of
different arguments to those the NRA use because no one could justify gun ownership
for self-defence in a country with such low baseline gun ownership. They protested
that the ban would not affect illegal gun ownership despite the fact that Hamilton
had a legal gun licence. Now a potential mass-***er like Hamilton can not
legally own a hand gun under any circumstances.
I'll be honest. I would be happy if NO ONE IN THE WORLD outside of an army, police
force or those dealing with very dangerous animals was allowed to own a gun of any
description (air rifles, shotguns and cross-bows included). I don't give think that
hunting, target shooting etc have a lot to recommend them and are certainly not
worth the injury of but one child. Hunting with guns is a grossly one-sided sport
where the quarry often belongs an endangered species or is inedible. In particular,
people who hunt European Bears and European Bison in Poland should be thoroughly
ashamed of themselves.
Personally, I like that I live in a society with a low *** rate. I don't think
gun fanaticists in the States should have the right to subject the rest of their
population to a high *** rate. Still, it's not my country, so it's not my choice
(altough I gather that it has a very marked negative effect on your tourist
industry - you only need a handful of Brits killed in Florida before others start
to think twice about visiting). We seldom see firearms in this country, even our
police don't routinely carry them. I've never held a real handgun and when I visit
other countries and see armed police, it shocks me to think that cop could so
easily kill someone. There's a lot wrong with this country, but in this one area we
have it completely right.
Cheers,
Paul
