Trading weapons for gift cards

Peter Korsten

May 18th 2010, 12:25

What a load of nonsense. There is a clear link between gun ownership and gun crimes.

Two of the worst 'school shootings' world-wide took place in Finland, a country with rather liberal gun laws.

And Switzerland, where the government gives you an assault rifle, may have a low crime rate, but they also have many of what they euphemistically call 'family dramas', where a husband kills his entire family and himself.

Thing is, a weapon does not protect. Body armour does, or an armoured vehicle, but a firearm is by definition offensive.

Also, scientific research has shown that those wearing a gun are more likely to get injured or killed (perhaps they're more likely to take risks, who knows).

It may be people that kill people, but it's a lot more difficult if guns aren't easily available.

Wilfred Camilleri

May 18th 2010, 12:55

Dear Mr Korsten: People kill people, whether with guns, knives or a frying pan as is in the recent case in England (see today's news on the Times!) other means. You can remove all guns from all law abiding citizens and the result will be that only criminals will have them! Canada has pretty strict gun laws for example and has spent billions on gun registries, etc. However, criminals and gang members are still using guns and killing rival gang members and innocent people. What is needed are tougher laws which put those using guns for violence and crime behind bars for longer periods of time. And what scientific research are you referring to? Please quote because I personally have never come across such research.

Eric Camilleri

May 18th 2010, 13:26

Dear Mr Peter Korsten. Talking of bans and similar nonsense, there seems a direct link between males and rapes. So by your own definitions what shall we do in terms of Offensive and Protection ??? Not at all impressed by your scientific research "data" !

ASpiteri

May 18th 2010, 15:21

the whole point about the issue of gun rights is this...

When u outlaw gun rights, automatically you’re putting the government responsible for the safety of the people. it might sound ideal, but absolutely impossible to handle!

That’s why the individual must be free and entitled to a basic right such as gun ownership in order to defend his family and property on his own!

Tony Gatt

May 18th 2010, 15:21

Unarmed does NOT mean unprotected if you believe in the strength of rule of law and state monopoly of violence!! This is one of the cornerstone principles of most democracies!!

Increasing the number of guns in people's hands does NOT bring peace and security neither for honest NOR for dishonest citizens.

Finally, if I may point out, it's not how many guns you have, but how good you are at using them. Few honest citizens have the same training that career criminals do in violenct assault or effective usage of weapons... Your argument is completely fallacious!

Michael Spiteri

May 18th 2010, 17:43

@Mr.Peter Korsten
Mr. Korsten, I own guns. Are you implying that I am linked with violence? Please clarify your comment because you managed to upset quite a few honest citizens!

L Debono

May 18th 2010, 20:08

Peter Korsten, I tend to disagree with you about defense & offence stance. Have you ever used a firearm to defend your self? How can you say that when a stranger pulls up a knife, gun or any other weapon, demands money, threatens the victim or attempts to rape the victim and get shot by the same victim or a friend of the victim, that isn't in legit defense? What is the difference between shooting a criminal by a police officer and a citizen? After all, the cop is a paid civil servant.

If you choose to leave a window open when it comes to your safety, suit your self but don't try to convert others that fire arms are bad in the hands of law abiding citizens. And to counter your quote of shootings in Finland and Switzerland – do you know how many people stay alive after encounters with criminals or wild animals, because they were packing?

Tony Gatt

May 18th 2010, 15:32

From your comments you demonstrate that either:

1) You didn't watch the whole video (or not very attentively) OR
2) You don't understand that much about weapons after all (because among the weapons there is even a rocket launcher!!)

Regarding your comment about encouraging crime through the initiative of collecting the weapons: Would you suggest therefore (along your line of reasoning) that the police should NOT confiscate narcotics from drug lords on the basis that (according to you) this action would also encourage stealing back the drugs and selling them back to users?!?!

Joseph Azzopardi

May 18th 2010, 19:18

@Tony Gatt
You are totally off in your comments which incidentally won't change Mr E.Camilleri's very valid point of view. As for the launcher, does it make a difference to the argument ? Especially if you are not sure if its a deactivated gagdet, which ironically LAPD did their best to display. BTW Los Angeles has one of the strictest Gun Laws in the US and there you are "Out pops a Launcher" !