Britain’s already-tight gun control laws are set to get even tighter in the wake of the shooting death of two girls who got caught in the crossfire between two drugs gangs at a party; it’ll soon be illegal to be in possession of a number of varieties of airgun, particularly those that are built as firearm replicas and those that can be modified to shoot live ammunition. The problem is that the legislation that has been introduced over the past decade or so- often coming conveniently behind events like Dunblane- has done nothing to reduce the weaponry carried by Britain’s criminal class, and everything to disarm the general law-abiding public. Combined with a trend of punishing people for defending their property, the effect is to cow the people who respect the law, and empower those who don’t. “Not to worry,” says the nanny state; “We’ll protect you. If you see a crime, move along and let the trained professionals deal with it.”
This problem wouldn’t be anything more serious than an affront to self-respect- “the government thinks we’re all incompetent babies” -if the nanny state was actually any good at protecting its people. Unfortunately, all the numbers indicate that the British nanny state is actually rather bad at its self-imposed job, and instead of actually doing the hard work necessary to get itself on track with its goals, it takes the easy way out by blaming the victims of violence: “We’ve taken away all your guns, but since there is still gun violence, you’re obviously still engaging in behavior that provokes it. We obviously need to take away anything else that you could possibly use to defend yourself. We’ll be back shortly to take your slingshots, peashooters and water pistols.”
Having spent nearly four years living in a country that still respects an individual’s right to look after himself and his property, I don’t find the prospect of returning to live in a country that apparently does not particularly appealing.
</incoherant rant>
Mark Steyn says it better.
Couldn’t possibly disagree with you more.
I agree that banning peashooters and slingshots is a lot exessive. Just like me being asked to break off the file on my nail clippers before I got on the plane to come here is excessive.
But your argument is classic rhetoric for pro-gun people, which in my opinion amounts to the same thing as spoilt children complaining that mommey’s taken their dangerous toy away.
Hunting arguments aside, people DO NOT NEED GUNS. Rare is the occasion that people actually need to defend themselves with lethal force… but the moment people are allowed to carry guns, lethal force is an option. And suddenly, it’s ok to shoot someone to save your car. Or your clothes. Or your flower bed. A case in england convicted a man who shot in the back and killed a burglar as he was running away. Justice was done, in my opinion.
Pro-gunners say “guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” but in the words of eddie Izzard: “I think the gun helps.”
Though I think guns are cool, I don’t think people need to arm themselves. More guns in circulation will necessarily mean more gun deaths. Which surely is what we want to avoid.
-thedickens