Jerry wrote:cyprusgrump wrote:Jerry wrote:cyprusgrump wrote:CopperLine wrote:But the motive for banning guns might just be that people with guns kill. And some people don't like the idea let alone the actuality of being killed. Nothing puritanical about that motive.
[sarcasm] Well banning the public from owning guns has certainly solved the gun-crime problem in the UK… [/sarcasm]
Difficult to prove Grump but my guess is it would be much worse if hand guns hadn't been banned, the fact that criminals are reduced to converting replica guns partly bears this out. It has also been claimed that a lot of weapons came to this country after collapse of Soviet bloc.
Quite frankly if the price we have to pay for banning handguns is the prevention of
one Dunblane massacre then I think it's worth it
So you think the entire UK Population should be punished because of the actions of one madman?
Thomas Hamilton only killed seventeen. How about the three thousand killed on the roads every year? Should we ban the UK population from having vehicles to save that massacre?
How about terrorism? There are apparently thirty credible terrorist plots facing the UK at the moment – should we ban Muslims from the UK to prevent another 52 innocents being killed in terrorist attacks?
I would not call it a punishment. For a start the entire population of the UK have never owned hand guns. If you are dead set on shooting in the UK you can still get a shotgun and if you like pistols for target shooting get an airgun.
The car argument is nonesense, they are designed and used in the main for transport not for killing, and you don't have to be a Muslim to be a terrorist. If you extend your argument we would simply just ban people.
I wonder if you would have the same view if your child had been one of the seventeen.
Well, it
was a punishment for the thousands that owned and enjoyed using handguns and had to hand them in or sell them at below market value. Also see the UK Olympic shooting team.
I do actually own a shotgun, and owned one in the UK too. I like guns, if allowed I would own a handgun but I am not. However, my owning of a handgun does not a mass-murderer make…
You clearly dislike guns and I respect your view on that but you base your arguments on flawed assumptions.
You ‘guess’ that gun crime in the UK would be worse if guns had not been banned but you have no proof of that? How many gun crimes were carried out with legally held firearms before the ban?
You also assume that Thomas Hamilton would have been happily sitting at home doing the crossword had he not been allowed to own a handgun. In reality he could just have easily burnt the school down, blown it up, run over the queue of kids at the bus stop, etc. You do not know in fact what he would/could have done had he not owned a gun.
You say my car argument is ridiculous yet you stated that banning handguns was a worthwhile price to pay for saving seventeen people when thousands are killed by cars every year? Surely, if life-saving was your aim rather than banning guns based on your obvious dislike for them then there are other better methods of doing so? I guess you own a car?
Yes, I agree that to take my argument to its ultimate conclusion would require the banning of cars, trains, motorbikes, aircraft, etc. a complete change in our lifestyle and civil liberties…
And yet that is what you condone when you state that firearms should be banned from being legally owned by law abiding citizens.