Re: Oregon college shooting
Posted: 10 Oct 2015, 20:22
I see both sides of the debate.
Obviously I agree with background checks being done on all firearm owners, although as aforesaid, that wouldn't prevent some ordinary person from cracking, and you're right in that the criminal element'd still obtain the weapons whether they were allowed to legitimately buy a gun or not.
I'm not quite sure what you mean about if guns were taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, they'd be at the mercy of the government. Of course they have guns, as do our own security forces, but we don't think: "Well THEY have them, so we should be able to as well". Over here, the general public don't feel under threat at all, even in areas which have a higher proportion of criminal activity. It's only those who might be connected to these people who feel the need to arm themselves in defence.
I concede that during the last London riots, where burning and looting spread to other cities as well, it was pretty scary. A couple of people had their doors broken down and rioters got inside. It must've been terrifying, although the residents weren't hurt. We have a bit of gang-related crime, which usually stays within the confines of their "patch", and there are infrequent outbursts from folk who just flip - as anywhere - but we still don't see the need to arm ourselves for personal protection, because law-abiding folk aren't the usual targets. The wealthy have more to worry about. Several professional football players've had intruders in their homes (one very recently), and they lived in gated mansions where security's supposed to be high, but again, these two were frightened, but unharmed.
If I found some threatening stranger in our property, I'm sure I'd feel that carrying a gun'd give me more confidence to deal with the situation, but we have them for sporting purposes only, and I wouldn't fancy blasting someone to kingdom come and going to jail, just for the sake of a knee-jerk reaction.
When you have a law which allows anyone to own a weapon like that, you're bound to have more casualties/fatalities, and the simple fact is, that yes, prohibition wouldn't stop someone from making a bomb or running riot with a machete, blah blah, but yes, I DO think that incidences'd drop.
It's difficult to argue for or against, because there're advantages and downsides to both. When you live in a place where gun use's frequent, it seems normal to want to protect yourself, but for those of us who live life at a slower pace and have no reason to fear being targeted, although it COULD happen, and occasionally does, most of us see the problem differently.
Obviously I agree with background checks being done on all firearm owners, although as aforesaid, that wouldn't prevent some ordinary person from cracking, and you're right in that the criminal element'd still obtain the weapons whether they were allowed to legitimately buy a gun or not.
I'm not quite sure what you mean about if guns were taken out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, they'd be at the mercy of the government. Of course they have guns, as do our own security forces, but we don't think: "Well THEY have them, so we should be able to as well". Over here, the general public don't feel under threat at all, even in areas which have a higher proportion of criminal activity. It's only those who might be connected to these people who feel the need to arm themselves in defence.
I concede that during the last London riots, where burning and looting spread to other cities as well, it was pretty scary. A couple of people had their doors broken down and rioters got inside. It must've been terrifying, although the residents weren't hurt. We have a bit of gang-related crime, which usually stays within the confines of their "patch", and there are infrequent outbursts from folk who just flip - as anywhere - but we still don't see the need to arm ourselves for personal protection, because law-abiding folk aren't the usual targets. The wealthy have more to worry about. Several professional football players've had intruders in their homes (one very recently), and they lived in gated mansions where security's supposed to be high, but again, these two were frightened, but unharmed.
If I found some threatening stranger in our property, I'm sure I'd feel that carrying a gun'd give me more confidence to deal with the situation, but we have them for sporting purposes only, and I wouldn't fancy blasting someone to kingdom come and going to jail, just for the sake of a knee-jerk reaction.
When you have a law which allows anyone to own a weapon like that, you're bound to have more casualties/fatalities, and the simple fact is, that yes, prohibition wouldn't stop someone from making a bomb or running riot with a machete, blah blah, but yes, I DO think that incidences'd drop.
It's difficult to argue for or against, because there're advantages and downsides to both. When you live in a place where gun use's frequent, it seems normal to want to protect yourself, but for those of us who live life at a slower pace and have no reason to fear being targeted, although it COULD happen, and occasionally does, most of us see the problem differently.