Quote:
Originally Posted by imawindowlickr  Yeah haven't dedicated time to quote. Sorry. So gun control has it's positive aspects, but at what point does keeping firearms from the bad guys hinder the people who have the right to own. At what point do you just enable more people to be victims? Sorry 48 hour of work kinds wokkys the gray matter. I do however agree with you. Trying is better than not. |
Well, first there's the question of how to define "have the right to own" - I do NOT think that anyone should have the right to own a gun just because he/she wants to or "to defend oneself", that is the law enforcment-agencies work and, as I have said, I think that way of thinking only increases the insecurity of the society and therefore the violence.
Military and police should, obviously, be allowed guns at work but when they're not at work they should be considered civilians.
Who should be considered allowed to own guns? I can only think of two groups right now (but there may be more): Those who train and compete in marksmanship (sadly, the finnish shooter seemed to have been one but I will adress that momentarily) and hunters.
In both those cases there is obviously (tradgedly so) a great need of control. All persons in both these groups should be tested to see if they are to be trusted with guns and from time to time both them and their guns should be checked up on. Not necessarily annualy but at least every third year or something. I know that it would cost a lot of money (more so in US than in Sweden) but can ANYONE truly believe that there is a pricetag on a human life?
If anyone from these groups are reading this. I am one of you. I have a hunters license, my father has been taking along hunting since I was 7 and I love the feeling of the cold october woods early in the morning. But there is need for greater control if we are to continue what we do. Responsiblity.
Finlands sak är vår
P