The Daily Mirror takes the post-Lake District spree killing gun control “debate” to its logical conclusion, pausing only to ridicule America:
Gun crime is thankfully rare in Britain. That’s because we have very tight laws on firearms, not because we are less barmy than Americans.
If we had Yankee-style “right to bear arms,” there would be many more homicides and mass shootings.
The horrific massacre in Cumbria is a powerful reminder of why we need such legislation, born out of bitter experience that you can’t trust men (it’s always men) with lethal weapons.
The shooting lobby invariably reacts against the possibility of further restrictions on gun ownership, arguing that people kill people, not guns. Well, it’s a lot harder without guns.
Apart from farmers and some specialist pest control operatives, why does anybody need to own a shotgun or a high-powered sniper’s rifle? The only purpose of these weapons is to kill and maim. They are not necessary for decent living.
Wednesday’s murders demand a fresh look at gun control and ownership. Present laws are inadequate if a crazed individual can shoot 12 innocent people in a single killing spree.
No excuses, no special pleading. We need laws that are tough on murder – and tough on the means of murder.
Apparently, Bird had a raft of grudges and money issues:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/ar…
First, not all Brits feels this way.
Second:
“you can’t trust men (it’s always men) with lethal weapons.”
“They are not necessary for decent living.”
Men do not become more moral by donning a uniform. I am still waiting for the anti-weapons crowd to be philosophically consistent.
Last, I have never been to the U.K. yet I still somehow know about “Gunchester”. It is not working and sadly most men will never ascend to the idea that better hearts make for a better society and not prohibition.
Comments are closed.