Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Love Them Guns

Entry 516, on 2007-04-19 at 15:40:55 (Rating 4, News)

OK, I didn't really want to comment on the Virginia Tech shootings but I just can't help it. I'm sure its all been said before, but I need to add my own comments to this debate because I just heard that the pro-gun lobby has said that the shooting might not have happened if everyone there was armed. Sounds like they want a return to the wild west!

This seems to be a very American phenomenon. Other "civilised" countries don't seem to suffer to the same extent from gun related crimes and accidents. For example, I found these stats: In 1992, handguns killed 33 people in Great Britain, 36 in Sweden, 97 in Switzerland, 60 in Japan, 13 in Australia, 128 in Canada, and 13,200 in the United States. This year the figure for the US is 30,000.

And don't be fooled that these shootings were for legitimate self-defense. In the year 2000, five children and teenagers died every day as a result of accidental shootings and suicides. Another survey puts the number at 4000 per year. What can possibly justify this?

Since the shooting, people seem to be agreeing with the gun supporters because gun sales have soared. Do they really think this is the answer? I read a statistic somewhere which said that for every self-defence shooting there are 30 accidents. They say guns don't kill people, but obviously they do - why else would shops have AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifles and .45 "dum-dum" rounds for sale?

No one wants excessive government control and removal of freedoms, but people already have many of their freedoms curtailed by government regulation. They aren't allowed to drive around at 100 miles per hour, for example, because its dangerous to other people. But Americans are allowed to have hand guns. Of course, nothing will change under the current administration - because dang, they sure do love them guns - but maybe in the future America might grow up before too many more innocents die.

Comment 1 (2044) by scrubdog on 2009-05-28 at 11:51:39:

You're an idiot mate. Historically for 6000 years Governments have disarmed their citizens so they can't revolt as draconian laws are imposed. Traditionally it is the first step to a dictatorship. It has absolutely nothing to do with crime rates. In simple terms that even you may understand, it means tougher and tougher, more restrictive laws, greater and greater tax takes... can be imposed while disarming the population and increasing the power of the police. This political philosophy dates back to early Egyptian times when the poor were used as slave labour. Disarming the population stops the poor from revolting against a government that has enslaved them in ghettos on unemployment. It happens in all countries where there is a huge gap between the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy get scared and scream for tougher gun laws. You never see the people in the slums screaming for tougher gun laws yet that is supposedly the source of the criminals. Think about that.

If you have nothing left to lose then you couldn't care less because nobody is going to steal from you anyway. You only need to look at Northern Ireland to see how gun control works. The Govt tried to disarm the poor Irish Catholic population so they couldn't fight back as their country was taken from them.

Gun control is about politics not criminals. Duh!

Comment 2 (2045) by OJB on 2009-05-28 at 17:11:14:

So you say gun control allows governments to introduce more restrictive laws without the threat of the people fighting back? Would that not mean that, as the level of gun ownership goes up, the amount of dictatorial government should go down? I don't have the stats to support this (do you?) but it seems to me that the opposite is more likely to be true.

Comment 3 (2046) by OJB on 2009-05-28 at 17:19:53:

Have a look at this table of gun ownership. I see countries we should traditionally think of as "free" at the top and bottom. And I see countries with oppressive governments at the top and bottom as well. Is there a pattern there?

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.