Mr. Speaker.
However dubious, I shall accept your statistic as being well-researched and accurate. I should expect no less from a reliable source such as yourself.
What you fail to elaborate on is what exactly those crimes are?
Criminals are not just random people lurking around the neighbourhood looking for a house to break into.
The man that shoots the windowcleaner thinking he was an assailant, he is a criminal.
The man that accidentally shoots his wife while cleaning his firearm, he is a criminal.
The man who leaves his gun cupboard unlocked thus allowing his son to commit suicide, he is a criminal*.
Even the man that shoots a guy breaking into his house, he is a criminal.
They are all criminals.
But as for those robbers that do break into your house and do have a gun, the question is where did they get that gun? Did they buy it from some black market stall in a dark alleyway from a tall man with a bushy beard and a large coat? Or did he walk into a Wall-Mart and buy one over the counter?
That man is not a criminal until he uses the gun to shoot you with it.
If gun controls were tighter, he would not have the gun at all.
Would he go to the bother of visiting the bearded man in the dark alley? Probably not, unless he specifically was out to murder you. In all likelyhood, he probably just got into a fit of anger and rage and fury and decided to kill you using the gun he had at home, perfectly legally.
Would some criminals still visit the bushy man on the black market stall? Certainly. The next step is of course to investigate where the illegal firearms are coming from.
As possession of a firearm would be totally illegal, anyone in possession would be arrested. This way, you would arrest the man before he commits the crime. Instead of arresting murderers, you're arresting people with guns.
This "fight fire with fire" vigilante attitute is not a sustainable or a sensible long-term option.
It does not make sense for the government to have a policy to expect citizens to protect themselves. The government should be protecting them.
This is like the government scrapping fire fighters and expecting citizens to put out their own fires and rescue their own cats, or closing down hospitals and expecting citizens to perform their own open-heart surgery.
And I do believe Mr. Kirby has addressed the point of firearms making a household only more dangerous.
*possibly.
[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited July 20, 2004).]
However dubious, I shall accept your statistic as being well-researched and accurate. I should expect no less from a reliable source such as yourself.
What you fail to elaborate on is what exactly those crimes are?
Criminals are not just random people lurking around the neighbourhood looking for a house to break into.
The man that shoots the windowcleaner thinking he was an assailant, he is a criminal.
The man that accidentally shoots his wife while cleaning his firearm, he is a criminal.
The man who leaves his gun cupboard unlocked thus allowing his son to commit suicide, he is a criminal*.
Even the man that shoots a guy breaking into his house, he is a criminal.
They are all criminals.
But as for those robbers that do break into your house and do have a gun, the question is where did they get that gun? Did they buy it from some black market stall in a dark alleyway from a tall man with a bushy beard and a large coat? Or did he walk into a Wall-Mart and buy one over the counter?
That man is not a criminal until he uses the gun to shoot you with it.
If gun controls were tighter, he would not have the gun at all.
Would he go to the bother of visiting the bearded man in the dark alley? Probably not, unless he specifically was out to murder you. In all likelyhood, he probably just got into a fit of anger and rage and fury and decided to kill you using the gun he had at home, perfectly legally.
Would some criminals still visit the bushy man on the black market stall? Certainly. The next step is of course to investigate where the illegal firearms are coming from.
As possession of a firearm would be totally illegal, anyone in possession would be arrested. This way, you would arrest the man before he commits the crime. Instead of arresting murderers, you're arresting people with guns.
This "fight fire with fire" vigilante attitute is not a sustainable or a sensible long-term option.
It does not make sense for the government to have a policy to expect citizens to protect themselves. The government should be protecting them.
This is like the government scrapping fire fighters and expecting citizens to put out their own fires and rescue their own cats, or closing down hospitals and expecting citizens to perform their own open-heart surgery.
And I do believe Mr. Kirby has addressed the point of firearms making a household only more dangerous.
*possibly.
[This message has been edited by Mort-Hog (edited July 20, 2004).]
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. " - Bertrand Russell
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
The Triumph of Stupidity in Mortals and Others 1931-1935
