IANSA director Rebecca Peters said: "The idea that only 'bad guys' do things like this is false.
"People who are not career criminals can turn violent. Having weapons designed to kill people is dangerous.
"The gun lobby says legal gun holders are not a problem at all and what we have to worry about is career criminals.
"But these are not career criminals, they're normal people, so that's an argument for recognising that just checking someone's criminal background is not enough to prevent homicides."
The killings showed the importance of strict controls on who should be allowed to own guns and what type, she added.
"In Britain the controls are strict compared with many other countries," she said.
"But this is yet another example of how a law-abiding gun owner can turn very suddenly into not law-abiding and the fact that they have been previously law-abiding does not mean they're responsible enough to own guns."
The answer is clear: fewer guns, and the ones that are allowed have to be licensed and registered in the strictest way possible. Truly law-abiding gun owners would applaud such initiatives.
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
Considering IANSA's goal is complete civilian disarmament, their words ring hollow.
ReplyDeleteWhen they say "who should be allowed to own guns", they mean no one. When they say "and what type", they mean none.
That's why "truly law-abiding gun owners" do not "applaud such initiatives". Because under such initiatives there would be no law abiding gun owners.
I could care less what that obnoxious twit has to say. She is just another America hater. And has far as IANSA goes, they are just a left wing organization hell bent on the destruction of national sovereignty.
ReplyDelete"The answer is clear: fewer guns, and the ones that are allowed have to be licensed and registered in the strictest way possible."
You mean like in England?
Convert? We just discovered that we have always agreed on this: No matter how much gun control is attempted in order to keep guns out of the "wrong hands," there will always be those who will pass any screening process but go on to misuse guns.
ReplyDeleteIt is what we do with that conclusion where we react in opposite ways. You would try to deny guns to many law-abiding potential gunowners, whereas I become leery of screening attempts that I might otherwise support, since I know that gun control won't stop at just trying to keep guns out of the "wrong hands."
Here are the comments I sent to mikeb with the article posted here:
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that "in Britain the controls are strict compared with many other countries," there are still 700,000 gunowners, and British antigunowner advocates are unhappy about that. What to do -- make gun ownership even harder? Even British gunowners seem determined to cling (thanks, Barack) to their guns. So ban more types -- or go for the whole enchilada this time?
BTW, mikeb: Do you notice the incongruity in the article that is typical of gun control stories? I doubt that you noticed, so...
"The killings showed the importance of strict controls on who should be allowed to own guns and what type, she added."
That sentence is at odds with the rest of the article, which is about how Britain HAS "strict controls on who should be allowed to own guns," and how those controls did not prevent tragedy. Britain also has strict controls on "what type" of guns may be owned, and the double barrelled shotgun that was used is the most common type permitted.
So how do the killings show "the importance of strict controls" that in this case didn't work? This is classic gun-controlspeak.
Me, a convert? Sure--I've been thinking that it's high time for me to run out of patience with the freedom-hating genocide enablers who favor the evil of forcible citizen disarmament.
ReplyDeleteFrom now on, no more Mr. Nice Guy. Those who oppose my freedom--and the freedom to protect my life--have placed themselves in opposition to my survival. They are thus my mortal enemies, and shall be treated as such.
Thanks for the good laugh, Kurt. You are a piece-a-work.
ReplyDeleteFishyJay, you may be right that there'd be no satisfying the gun control folks. But, I think there might be more moderate U.K. gun control folks who are not calling for stricter laws. That's where I'd be.