Today in Great Britain, there is almost a total ban on civilian ownership of handguns, all except for . 22 handguns, which are required to be kept at a gun club and antiques; while in Australia there is a complete ban of all semi-automatic weapons including . 22s and weapons like pump action shotguns. The reason for gun conversation in Great Britain follows the attack on a Scottish schoolhouse by a single maniac with an autoloading pistol. While in Australia, the rampage of a lone madman with a rifle is held up as justification for the ban on semi-automatic firearms.
In both these cases their where civilian deaths, and in both cases the fanatic was caught. For some reason when such things happen in America it is dealt with in a different way. There have been several occurrences in America concerning the massacre of civilians with the use of firearms. In July 1984, a deranged lone gunman killed 21 customers and employees at a San Sedro, California MacDonald’s. In August 1986, a similar massacre occurred in an Oklahoma Post Office by a recently discharged postal worker, resulting in 15 dead.
Other incidents may come to mind, or can easily be found in the press. When a dreadful disaster like this happens. The first thing that should be done is to see that this type of crime can never happen again. In response to this cry of outrage government officials declare a need for more restrictive firearms laws, or pass outright bans on private ownership of firearms, right now the American government is pushing for the elimination of gun ownership in the United States, an act that would inherently violate the Bill of Rights and this is one of the worst things and government could do.
Quite simply, criminals do not normally obtain firearms used in crime from legal sources. According to official government statistics in Great Britain, only 7% of all homicides committed with a handgun in England and Wales are committed with a legally possessed handgun. In the United States less than 1% of the legally possessed handguns are used to commit crimes. In other words, in Great Britain and the United States, 93% to 99% of criminal use of handguns respectively will be unaffected by bans on firearms. Facts tend to show that where the average citizen can be armed, violent crime is markedly reduced.
Four months prior to massacre at the San Sedro MacDonald’s, three terrorists armed with machine-guns attempted to murder the crowd at a Jerusalem cafe. They were able to kill only one person before being stopped by Israeli citizens lawfully armed with handguns. A surviving terrorist later complained to the press that his group had planned a series of machine-gun attacks on crowds in Jerusalem, planning to escape before the police or military could respond, they just hadn’t realized that Israeli citizens could be armed.
This is a perfect example of how allowing the public firearms, can save several lives. In Great Britain today, if a mugger is attacking a woman, to spray the attacker in the eyes with perfume that she carries in her handbag and to later tell the authorities when they arrive that she carries the perfume around in her bag, just in case incidents like this occur, is illegal.
While if the woman was to say, I carry the perfume around with me, because I like the smell, and when this man attacked me, I had no choice but to spray him with it to get him off of me. That is legal. Which more less means that is it against the law to protect yourself in this country using a weapon of any kind, which seems stupid. A criminal will always get a weapon if they think that it is needed, so it is unfair that a citizen can get in almost as much trouble with the authorities as the harasser if they are carrying a weapon for protection.