There' s certain instances where that' s encouraged Vx, but for the majority of instances it' s not necessary.
I don' t know how often people get murdered by burglars in the U.S. but here it' s not very often something like that happens.
Burglary not often either, but storefront robberies and carjackings are relatively common around here. Most of which unarmed or with switchblades or the like. A man with a knife just carjacked & punched an 85-year-old WWII veteran. The man couldn' t outfight a 20 year old man. Had he had a small concealed weapon he wouldn' t be terminally wounded lying in a hospital right now.
(As a small side-note, the situation was made slightly better due to the fact that the asshole who did this is trying to look victimised by asking him for protection in prison. I' ve got half a mind to send him a Magnum packet with the name " Bubba" signed across it.
)
I think that having a gun at home increases the risk of getting murdered because then burglars and other criminals will know that people are armed.
That' s why you don' t hang your grandpa' s Winchester on your front porch.
If you do it right, nobody but Uncle Sam should know you' ve got firearms in the house. To a point though, (however a point I wouldn' t apply in my home) firearms can be a deterrant. Defending a building with a cool head is much more tactically sound than being terrified, and entering one with A) No knowlege of the layout B) No knowlege of how many people are inside C) No knowlege of if the inhabitants are armed and D) IT' S FREAKING DARK IN HOUSES AT NIGHT!!!
That will force criminals to be even more ruthless. And then the good people get more weapons and less laws. And then the criminals will arm themselves even more.
It will be an endless spiral of violence.
That' s why I think that guns should be limited to the police and the military.
Of course, some people could need weapons in some situations, but in the long run I think more lifes will be saved by removing all the weapons.
I can certainly see your point of view, but I' m not sure the situation would become that black and white. Yes, normal law abiding citizens would not have access to guns, but consider this. A man is willing to break into your home, take your belongings, and harm whoever gets in his way. Is he really going to bother getting a firearm through an established channel? Belive me, if I wanted a handgun (despite the fact that I' m not 21 and have no handgun license) it' d be only too easy where I live.
Making firearms illegal only works if everybody in your community follows firearm laws in the first place.
Also, another thing to consider is that we' ve had firearms in our country for over 200 years, what happens when they' re all made illegal? Think of the financial investment loss (guns ' aint cheap). How is the government going to reposess billions of dollars in firearms, and where are they going to put them to prevent civilian access?
One more point I' ll make (and then I' ll shut up, I swear
) Switzerland has an enormous gun culture, (Two Swiss guys walked away with some amazingly ridiculous sniper-competition a couple of years back) and yet their homocide rates are comparable with you country.
In a perfect world, I would totally agree with you Ging, but there' s just too many things going against US anti-gun legeslation in America.
Slightly off topic, I was brushing up on your firearms law, & caught a picture of your parliament building. Your Riksdag is way sweeter than our Capitol.
Just thought I' d throw that out there.