posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 04:30 PM
My first post, so don't be gentle.
I really don't understand nor relate to the British stance on firearms, or at least what I understand of it. It's like the old, worn-out saw --
when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Silly, right? But where I grew up, in northern Idaho, everybody had a firearm or two; they were
tools. There was no crime. People hunted for meat, fished, and murder/robbery/burglary was unheard of.
You know what? In this same part of the country, it is still so. Gun control really doesn't work. Firearm education works. As a child, I
would no more have touched my parents' guns as I would have contemplated sawing off my arm. I knew better, and I knew there were severe
consequences. I was taught how to safely handle firearms and I was taught to not shoot any animal I wasn't prepared to eat.
Why shouldn't people have firearms for home protection? Well, if they aren't willing to take complete responsibility for their gun ownership --
including education of their family/children -- then they shouldn't have them.
Trouble is, many governments want to remove guns from the people. Many governments have. What does that leave? Guns in the hands of the
lawmakers, and guns in the hands of the criminals.
Look at places like Sweden, where gun ownership is mandatory. Very little crime. You folks in the UK -- it should be your right to protect
yourselves, because criminals aren't going to yield. Criminals are cowards -- they prey upon the vulnerable, they are opportunists.