Guns are the problem not the solution

A couple of cops are shot, one killed, when responding to a call of an armed robbery in progress.  And they are “skeptical” that arming the cops would increase their safety.  A couple of hours of simulations with AirSoft guns would answer that question quite decisively but they are so paralyzed by their own hoplophobia they can’t consider the obvious:

Mr Davis accused the government of failing to tackle the source of gun crime and particularly the illegal holding of firearms.

He said gun crime had doubled to around 10-11,000 since 1996 when Thomas Hamilton killed 16 children and a teacher at Dunblane Primary School in Scotland. 

Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the government was keen to learn any lessons from the Bradford shootings.

“My main priority is to ensure that guns no longer have a place on our streets and that armed gangs who terrorise innocent people are brought to justice,” he said.

But he signalled his opposition to arming all police, citing evidence from other countries which suggested it encouraged criminals to carry guns.

“I remain sceptical that arming all police officers all of the time would make them safer,” he said, writing in The Sun.

“Indeed, all the experience from other countries where the police carry firearms demonstrates that this only encourages the criminals to arm themselves and potentially to turn law enforcers’ own weapons on to the police themselves.”

3 thoughts on “Guns are the problem not the solution

  1. This is ghastly;
    “My main priority is to ensure that guns no longer have a place on our streets and that armed gangs who terrorise innocent people are brought to justice,”

    It represents not only complete denial of reality, but also a complete failure to understand the English language. If guns no longer have a place on “our streets”, then “armed gangs” are an impossibility. Given that said impossibility were to occur (armed gangs in a city where guns have no place) then he is apparantly concerned only with those particular armed gangs who terrorize innocent people (other armed gangs having been made a seperate issue).

    Now if all impossibly armed gangs who happen to also terrorize innocent people are in fact brought to justice, what would be the purpose of a gun law?

    Now I also want to have it explained to me how the physically vulnerable human being is supposed to defend herself and her children from a knife-wielding attacker in this magical society of lollypops and gumdrops wherein “guns no longer have a place”. And after failing to answer that, I want someone to tell me when and how the legislators who conspire pass gun laws in violation of their Oath of Office, resulting in injury and death to the disarmed, are going to be punished.

  2. Keep in mind this is the U.K. we are talking about. Gun laws aren’t a violation of their oath of office there.

  3. Very true. I didn’t make that distinction.

    Which is worse; a legislature working under a government that recognises a basic human right, who violates them anyway, or a parliament that doesn’t recognise it at all? Either way, the end result is a higher crime rate. I don’t study the UK, but I’d guess there are demands placed upon public servants, even if only in the form of the infamous “to work for The Common Good”. Certainly, the Common Good is not served by giving criminals a government-guaranteed monopoly on the use of force.

    They’re guilty of incompetence, deception and stupidity, resulting in death, at the very least. What do we call that here when a corporation does it? Criminal negligence, I believe is the term we use.

Comments are closed.