ONE EXAMPLE......THE UK.....

Quote:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/02/france-120-knife-attacks-reported-per-day-lin...



Take ALL firearms off ALL law abiding citizens = = no more firearm crimes.

And places like the UK and Jamaica, are shining examples of how outlawing legitimate firearm ownership, can prevent [almost] ALL crimes of violence involving firearms.






All pertinent evidence shows, that  - EVEN IN THOSE LOCATIONS WHERE [lawful] OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS IS TOTALLY PROHIBITED, BY LAW,
violent criminals, will continue to seek to acquire, and will acquire firearms.

We need another way !!!     [.....to seek to reduce criminal, societal violence.]

Whats next ?

In an effort to reduce the use of small knives in violent crimes, is the government going to prohibit, the ownership, of small, 'concealable' kitchen paring knives ???

Because, of course, such a government policy, would be bound to have the effect of preventing large numbers of crimes involving small knives!    ...NOT.



.



I am not arguing, that firearms are not dangerous [tools].

They are.

But that fact, is not a good reason, for any government [of men] to enact laws, preventing peaceful, careful, law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms.


ARGUMENT;
It follows, logically, that if any government [anywhere in the world] chooses to increasingly remove     the ability     of its own, peaceful, law-abiding citizens, to protect himself/herself/themselves from criminal assaults,
then that government policy will [increasingly] cause all peaceful law-abiding citizens to be more likely to become victims of violent criminal assaults,
committed by    VIOLENT CRIMINALS    [who have almost no fear of those 'victims'].

Why so ?

Because THE PUBLIC PEACE and the law [the law of the land], can only    ever, ever, ever    be protected and defended, by persons who have the means and willingness, to protect those laws, and that PEACE.

And, atm, within many Western nations, that 'arc of protection' [which is, perhaps, a 5 meter radius],
only 'follows' and surrounds,      THE IMMEDIATE LOCATION      of individual police officers [being persons, who are armed, to protect themselves and other citizens].

All other locations within a society/nation [within many Western nations], are increasingly, becoming unsafe areas [i.e. potential violent-crime-scenes], within our societies.

Q.
Why so ?

A.
Because it follows, that [in the absence of the immediate area, of an armed police officer] violent criminals, have little, or no fear, of the defenseless 'sheep' who surround them.


.



The citizen of [unreasonably, being constrained by] 'the nanny state', is going to get mugged and raped !

And it is apparent to many, that their government, increasingly, has little care to that circumstance.

But, they [the government] SHOULD HAVE A CARE, about such a circumstance.

Because in locations where there is NO PUBLIC PEACE [safety] [because, there is no effective law], the people will [often] rise up [to remove that government], in order to change their circumstances.

Silly, reckless,      ...of any government, to 'fertilize' such ground, through their own utter incompetence and inaction.

This is just a dumb argument, Yadda.

Look at Japan, which has some of the strictest firearm laws in the world, and also the lowest murder rate in the world.