You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

3
-2

[–] IdSay 3 points -2 points (+1|-3) ago 

it's good thing only the trained police officer had a gun, if the terrorist had had access to guns easily, it could have seriously escalated.

0
1

[–] HeavyBrain 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Well he was an asylum seeker, how about that only cityzen (of no less than 5 years) can obtain a gun.

Problem solved (for this case)

0
0

[–] IdSay ago 

not really, immigrants stay in countries for like 50 years, and still don't get integrated, and just stay in their own communities, hating something they've never interacted with.

0
1

[–] Voat_a_Goat_Mamma 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Imagine if a citizen had a gun, fewer people would have been harmed. Police can't everywhere, but citizens are.

0
1

[–] Laserchalk 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

If you have relaxed gun laws then you also run the risk of the guns getting into the hands of people that want to do harm. There is a middle ground where you have strict gun laws that require training, registration and bans on certain types of weapons. That way you can help prevent guns getting into the wrong hands and also give good people access to self defence. I've noticed that a lot of Americans don't like that though since they think they need guns to wage war with their government.

3
-3

[–] IdSay 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

why would a civilian need a gun?

you can't shoot police to defend yourself, you'd either die or get thrown in prison for life.

you can't shoot a criminal breaking in, even if it's self defence, you'll get killed or thrown in jail. (taking another persons life is as wrong as death sentence, it's irreversible, fast, and very error prone)

the only people that would get the advantage of easier gun access would be the mafia.

gun laws are like traffic lights, it discourages sleazebags from breaking the law, because they fear the punishment.