Well then why didn't they just simply ban ALL firearms ten years earlier after the Hungerford massacre?
Because it took something as completely sick as the slaughter of 16 innocent children and their teacher before the Government would act. Dunblane was considered more appalling by the establishment than Hungerford. That is why. Also something like Dunblane was required to give the government the reason it needed to get such a law past gun nuts and rabid right.
If you want to play the numbers game, I can tell you that more individuals have been shot dead in the last two years by unlicensed handgun owners than in both the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres combined.
I'm not playing the numbers game. I don't want anyone killed by guns. Dunblane was a turning point not because of the numbers but because of what happened. The changes to the gun laws helped reduce the risk of it ever happening again.
However if they weren't armed, and he had been armed, the situation would have turned out a lot better for him, don't you think?
Rather flawed logic there. If they were unarmed then he wouldn't of been shot regardless of whether he was carrying a gun or not. If it was legal to own carry guns, then it would just make it far more likely that they would have been armed, perhaps even armed with more powerful weapons. It's all speculation. But the chances of him actually carrying a weapon are still very very very very small.
Whether he would have carried a gun or not, would indeed have been his choice, not the choice of the government (as it stands now).
What difference would it make? Aside from theoretical discussion, about gun laws - none.
I can tell you now, I know that area, I know the kinds of people who live there. The guy would not have been carrying a gun, laws or no laws. What you don't seem to realise is that the change in law meant dick for the majority of the population, most did not own a gun or intend to own a gun. This is the UK not the SA war-zone.
As it stands, he couldn't carry and therefore didn't carry,
Your whole argument is based on the idea that if the law allowed, he would have been not only armed but proficient in handling that firearm and most incredibly because of those two point the situation would only have possibly had a positive outcome.
and the situation did indeed escalate because the criminal had the only gun in that fight.
Do you understand what escalate means? If the guys had no problem firing at an unarmed man, what do you think they would have done when confronted with someone threatening them with a weapon. What was only 2 shots could have turned into a gun battle.
As I said in another thread, the current laws disarm the law-abiding citizen so that only the criminal has a gun. This means that the criminal has automatic superiority of force over you and me. This is a fundamental problem that has to be addressed before you ask whether a person would want to carry and want to draw, in the first place.
Such a black and white view of the world never gets you anywhere. Criminals will always have an upper hand if only because of their disregard of the law. A guy with a gun who has no regard for human life or the consequences vs. a guy with a gun worrying about the ramifications of his/her actions. Who has the upper hand? A criminal with a knife or a cricket bat has an automatic superiority of force over me.
What about a guy for all outward appearances is a good law-abiding citizen, then one days snaps on the train and kills people on the train home from work with the gun he has been responsibly carrying for years?
Perhaps we should push for the confiscation of vehicles and only ride bicycles?
That old chestnut? Anything can be used as a weapon, knives, screwdrivers, cars. But here's the thing - they're not designed for that, they have other purposes. Guns are weapons, designed to cause as much harm/damage as possible. You can't use a gun to prepare vegetables for dinner, to put up shelves or go to the supermarket. There is no need for people to have guns.
No offence, but a lot of this sounds like Johnny Big-Balls type talk.
