Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking
How would it make a difference? Guns are banned in this country, but gun crime still exists even though we didn't have much of a gun culture before the ban.
Restricting ownership would need to be on a clear cut set of rules. Otherwise decisions would be continually challenged. That is why gun ownership in this country was based upon the principle of allowing it, unless there was a clear identified reason not to allow it.
A lot of attacks are "out of the blue", so there tends not to have been a clear reason for banning gun ownership. Also the attacker may not be the owner of the guns used, it might be the parent. In one case the attacker used the parents guns with which they had been trained to use, so training doesn't exactly help.
|
in one case...
Out of over a thousand in three years.
Bringing in drink driving laws reduced drink driving, bringing in seat belt laws reduced deaths and injuries caused without seat belts, smoking restriction have reduced the number of people affected by smoking related sicknesses, but somehow bringing in gun control laws won't reduce gun crime. Just because drink-driving laws, and the punishments attached, haven't completely eradicated drink driving, should we abolish those laws?
Re gun control laws, Australia's example proves they can make a positive difference..