My point is that making something to kill a large amount of people is not that hard to do. Eliminating guns reduces shootings but it doesn’t reduce killings. Like the old proverb “Where there’s a will, there is a way.” If the Oregon Shooter, for example, didn’t have access to guns, I’m sure he would have figured out a different way to reach the same result.
Again, some very good points. You're opening my eyes to other reasons which aren't quite as commonly put.
You're right, in the sense of if he wanted to achieve x amount of kills during his spree, he could just create some bombs and make his way there. However, at least when crafting some explosives, there's a good chance from the materials purchased to have a pro-active approach to detaining the person before they commit the act. The problem with guns in America particularly, is the purpose is un rendered, and you can literally be buying it to go to your local gun range, or to go to a school and kill kids.
I didn’t assume you felt that way towards the US. The graph was included to show that we, with the immense amount of guns, feel just as safe as you.
I also agree that as a society, laws must be created to protect the people. I believe that there is a healthy balance of safety and freedom. To gain one, you must sacrifice the other. In my personal opinion, I am content with our current balance and I do not wish to lose some freedom to become a little safer. I understand if you disagree, but that’s the beauty of having different nations. To each his own.
I understand your point, the problem is the mass shootings. I do disagree when the result to such thinking on a particular issue kills kids whilst they're at school.
You disagree but I believe there is a need for someone to own a weapon.
According to American Police Beat, the average response time for an emergency call is 10 minutes. Atlanta has the worst response time with 11 to 12 minutes and Nashville comes in at a lightning speed of 9 minutes.
The average interaction time between criminal and victim is 90 seconds:
That translates to you being robbed/ injured/ maimed/ raped/ murdered and waiting for an additional 2 and a half minutes for the police to arrive. The truth of the matter is that the police will almost always arrive AFTER the crime has happened and the criminal has gone.
A gun could save your life in this type of situation and that is enough for me to believe there is a need for someone to own a weapon.
I think it's likely a rare occurrence when a person who requires police assistance, too requires an assault rifle. Do you genuinely believe the person robbing you deserves death as justice for their action on you? Or even assault? Raped/Murdered, fair enough.. However, how often is this?
I agree the gun could save your life. However, it will also take a life in doing so.
I partially agree. I believe it would reduce the amount of mass shootings, but I do not believe it would eliminate the mass shootings.
I’m sure you remember the Cumbria Shootings that recently took place. This occurred after your 1997 Firearms Acts, which banned private possession of handguns almost completely.
I don’t believe your Firearms Acts actually does anything, besides take away your rights. If you look at the U.K. list of massacres (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Great_Britain), it indicates that modern U.K. hasn’t ever had a significant problem. There seems to be just as many killings are there were several hundred years ago.
You have to admit the Firearms Act doesn’t prevent mass shootings, let alone mass killings.
Very good point, I believe or lack thereof this type of offence caused our police unaware or untrained protocol/procedure to follow. However, you're right in what you're saying. And I too agree with the reducing opposed to eliminating. I sometimes get carried away.
There are many ways to “skin a cat”. Eliminating guns limits just one method of killing, while countless others ways are still obtainable. I do, and always will see this as a way to take away our rights. I will not let fear control me and take away my freedom.
I just fear it's too easy to get hold of a weapon and kill numerous people before even changing a magazine. Other methods would prove more difficult. So therefore reducing the overall collateral from an event.
Disarming them is literally the opposite of protecting them. It leaves people defenseless.
However, if the people are disarmed they're still in a fair situation. Gun vs Gun or Fists vs Fists.
It appears your logic is "I need a gun to defend myself against a person with a gun".
Do you follow this line of reasoning with other things as well? "There is no need for someone to own a car! It is dangerous, look how many people are killed by cars every year! No one should ever be allowed to own a drivable death machine!"
No it would appear you follow this line of reasoning, as your reasoning is bad. A car is dangerous so all rules implemented for their use such as a driver's license, speed limits, vehicle services etc are mandatory as they're unsafe. However, a vehicle provides logistics, work further afield from your living location as well as general freedom and connection of people.
Whereas a Gun serves one purpose. To kill a person more easily that it's comparative tools.
Provide me some other uses of an assault rifle for any other reason to kill people, and reason it as I've reasoned the vehicle.
Well, guns, like cars, are extremely useful modern tools that exponentially increase your defense ability, much like how cars are useful modern tools that exponentially increase your transportation ability. No one gets to decide for another person if they get to own a car, decide what kind of cars they are allowed to own, or anything else. Yet, somehow, people think they should be the ones to decide who gets guns and who doesn't?
Oh you did, like a car a gun can connect people, take people to work, get people to the hospital quicker than the emergency response can get to you. Yeah, nice comparison.
No it won't. Overall violent crime & death INCREASED in places like the UK and Australia when they banned guns. Think about if planes were banned after 9/11 because they were deemed 'unsafe', and we would need to make that 'sacrifice' to protect everyones' 'freedom'. Now, almost 15 years later, thousands and thousands more deaths than the original attacks would have been caused by road travel as compared to air travel, resulting in a net negative impact. Sure, it would directly stop 'plane deaths', but at a heavier of lives on the other end.
What?
My argument is completely based on the ability to kill many people without being stopped. The ease in which you can purchase a weapon is far different from the difficulty of hijacking an aircraft.
So reply to this part only Xeiro;
Banning guns, would prevent people from massacring people in a school EASILY.
