Why I’m glad the UK doesn’t allow domestic firearm ownership-

Here’s a story from the local newspaper of where I last lived in the US. This kind of story isn’t as uncommon as it should be as firearm ownership is rampant in Wisconsin and other “hunter-friendly” regions of the United States.
Father who paralyzed son in shooting pleads no contest
I don’t necessarily have a problem with guns. I’ve shot guns, been around guns and have owned a gun. I love video games that involve shooting. I used to play paintball in the states with a group of guys I worked with. I’m not a bad shot and am a safe individual. This article is a shining example why allowing the general public access to firearms is a bad idea. The father clearly has a large family. He’s likely not well off. He lives in a certain amount of chaos due to his choice to pro-create 8 times. Giving a person a gun in a stressful situation is about the worst thing you can do. It’s kind of like giving a depressed person a bottle of wine or a suicidal person a razor blade or a bottle of pills. The issue is, you can’t take the guns away once you’ve given the public their “right to bear arms.” The UK doesn’t allow it in the first place and that seems to work really well here. Even the police don’t carry guns. They wear “stab-proof” vests.

Of course there are guns in this country. There are gun crimes happening here and there. You’ll have that anywhere. The criminal element is going to have guns. The difference is, (and I’m not saying shooting people is right- so don’t get all soapboxy on me), professional criminals with guns don’t shoot their children for having a messy house. They shoot other criminals and the unfortunate occasional innocent person. The professional criminals don’t come home and shoot their loved ones over trivial stress points in domestic life. They shoot people they mean to shoot for reasons we can’t understand because they are criminals- we’re not.

Giving John Q. Public the “right to bear arms” in most cases only protects him from other John Q. Publics. If he didn’t have a gun, the odds of him needing to protect himself with deadly force is dramatically reduced. As is stands now in the US, anyone who passes a basic screening can get a gun. It used to be easier. My gun was not registered. And that’s just me… My gun was passed on through the family. How many others are out there like that? Enough to arm a revolution- I guarantee it. But that’s because the “right to bear arms” was instituted so early in America. It became part of being an American. The outlaw- the cowboy- the renegade… Americans are territorial and self-righteous over guns. But no matter how many domestic abuses and killings occur with this blessed piece of US legislation, it stands as something to be proud of when you pledge your allegiance to the stars n’ stripes. Tell that to the boy in the story above… he’ll never walk again because his dad chose a gun to make his point instead of proper parenting.

Fucked up, isn’t it?


One thought on “Why I’m glad the UK doesn’t allow domestic firearm ownership-”

  1. Wow spooky timing on this post jEN, half an hour ago I was reading a piece written by Bill Hicks on the subject.

    His argument was that the constitution says ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’ Which means at least by the grammatical construction of the sentence it is militia (National Guard) that have the right to arms and not every individual.

    I always loved Robin Williams bit “The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms or the right to arm bears, whatever the f**k u want”

    I guess at times there are advantages of having a Constitution that is made up as you go along.


Comments are closed.