Capslockbroken said:
You're making a lot of common anti-gun arguments, and have demonstrated a common paradox in the reasoning. You claim that a gun's only purpose is killing, the destruction of life, etc., but you also claim that police should have them. Are the police supposed to be professional murderers? Are we employing government death squads to slaughter all the undesirables?
Obviously, I know that isn't what you are saying. What you are saying, whether you meant to or not, is that *you know* that guns have a purpose other than killing. You understand very well that the police need them to defend themselves from those who wish to do them harm. You know that they perform this function, most of the time, without ever leaving their holster, let alone being used to kill a person. You know that the threat of deadly force can actually prevent violence, simply by it's presence.
So why don't you think it works the same way with responsible, law abiding gun owners?
In a society protected by policemen, who gain respect for their authority, but partly the fact that they are armed, people should not need to carry weapons.
And I realize I did not make my point clear enough: Gun ownership should be limited, not banned. Of course a responsible, law abiding citizen should have the right to carry a gun. But in a well run society, he should have no need to.
Look, what Im saying is that the police (atleast here in Finland) go through very thorough psychological and physical training, and only people suitable for the force are accepted to the academy or for service. That way it is ensured that the police are well trained and well accustomed to their sidearm, and that no future police officer is somehow unable to function in dangerous situations. Notice that the police training takes several years. Eventually, the graduates are highly trained professionals. Anyone not suitable has at some point been deemed as such, and thus expelled from the academy. Naturally, a "bad cop" might get through once in a while, but these cases are extremely rare,(again, these are finnish statistics.) and are usually noticed and taken care of after a while.
" You know that they perform this function, most of the time, without ever leaving their holster, let alone being used to kill a person. You know that the threat of deadly force can actually prevent violence, simply by it's presence."
Yes, of course. They are *trained* for this.
Now a civilian person might suddenly get the urge or somehow start to feel the need to carry a gun. Something might happen near his home that makes him want to get a gun, just to feel safe. But compare the weapon training a policeman goes through with the procedures of getting a gun license. Not nearly as much. They dont even recieve training. They are (again, these are finnish gun laws) analyzed, have their background checked, and then they have to wait a certain period of time. And even that is just not enough.
Then, they can purchase a handgun, rifle or a shotgun, depending on their license. These are people who have no experiece with firearms. They just see them as a means of "defending themselves". People like these are unfit for gun use. They are poor marksmen. They aren't used to guns. Their maintenance of them is in general poor. And most people are very afraid to fire a gun. Eventually, their gun might end up hurting them or their family. This just because of how unused they are to firearms, and because they do not know how to treat or handle them.
Now, this is the majority of people who ask for gun licenses in the world. People who have never, or once or twice, fired a gun.
Then there's people who are used to guns, who respect them and treat them well. People who know how to handle conflicts. People like this should be allowed to handle guns, if they wish to. But the problem is just determining if someone really is one. If these are " responsible, law abiding gun owners", then yes, they should be allowed to carry a gun.
This is what limited gun ownership should mean. Making sure only the people who really, really know what they're doing should be able to own firearms. Course, I do not know how to improve the procedure of finding out who is and who isn't suitable. But I think that very restricted gun ownership is the best possible solution, as of now.
. I agree. Who is more badass? Master Chief or Kratos?
