Nostr Web Client

You’re absolutely right. All the mass shootings happen in ‘gun free zones’. Obama’s own justice department, which clearly was for gun control, found that between 500,000 and 1million shooting incidents per year were prevented from escalating into mass shooting events because of armed civilians. Imagine even a quarter of those weren’t prevented! Also, the OP mentions britain and I believe they have a lot of knife crime instead. Take away people’s guns and they’ll find other weapons to use instead

Pablo Xannybar 2y ago

On "gun free zones" I think this is so obviously an absurd idea I have no idea how anyone could support it. If you have an armed nation you can't just say "if you walk down this street no guns are allowed." Wtf is that???

And yes high levels of knife crime particularly among gangs. Not only that but in London especially, but other cities too, there is still gun crime among those gangs too.

Recently there was a story that hit the news because some gang member accidentally shot a child and this was in a fairly small town in the UK.

To state the ridiculously obvious: criminals don't follow the law.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

therealnewyorker 2y ago

Yeah that’s right. Back in the day, Giuliani put the broken windows policing in play with the NYPD. It was very effective because they found when they arrested people for jumping the subway turnstiles, often they had illegal guns on them, on their way to commit other crimes.

Tobo⚡ 2y ago

It is vital to note that the absence of guns is not the absence of violence.

And to take the argument in another way:

You are a peaceful voluntarist, I imagine, me too. That means I won't hurt you, and you won't hurt me out of the blue.

Not everybody is like this. And if someone were to attack me unprovoked, why would I want a fair fight? I would want all the leverage I could have.

If you were in a fight with someone who's physically stronger than you and could beat you in a fist fight.....A fight you never wanted nor provoked in the first place.

Wouldn't you want a tool to level the playing field or overpower the opponent in such a way to end the fight before more happens?

A gun is that tool.

In most cases, guns are used only to intimidate and for that reason alone, taking this crucial protection away from someone who is physically weak or impaired is more than cruel.

Pablo Xannybar 2y ago

Absolutely agree.

In the UK, the same act that bans guns also bans fucking pepper spray... a defensive tool. The penalty for carrying it is the same as carrying a gun.

You might think I'm joking but I'm honestly not. I promise you, it's true. Look it up.

There's even discussions online where people recommend the best alternatives that can be used for self-defence. Now technically speaking if you carry deodorant around with you as a replacement, that's also illegal if the intent is to cause harm, even if for self-defence... but in the real world, ofc, any cop trying to do you for carrying deodorant would be laughed out of court, and you are allowed to defend yourself with whatever means you happen to have, so it's a little loophole, but it's one that shouldn't have to exist.

Naturally, this law has an important exception. The police are allowed to carry and use pepper spray against you. But you can't use it to defend against them.

Obviously the same is true of guns, although it should be noted most UK police are unarmed, only special armed units are allowed to carry guns. But equally important to note is that if you walk out of London Bridge Station (a major commuting hub) you will most likely see armed police carrying massive fuck off rifles right in front of you.

And thus the state maintains its monopoly on violence once again.

Tobo⚡ 2y ago

Criminals don't follow the law, correct.

Ergo, they will never give up their guns, illegal or not.

Neither will the government.

Why be a sheep if you could become a honey badger:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHGNsZVE5Ik