The idea
For anyone here who may wish to expand their knowledge on this particular subject, please read this paper on a concise collection of independant analytical findings regarding firearm ownership and their relation to crime prevention, courtesy of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The link is: http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st176.pdf
Ultimately, I understand this boils down to a very sensitive issue, particularly for urban citizens of the UK, who not only have a confliction with their personal morals, but the added fear portrayed by the media of the ravenous environments of firearm weilding countries.
The truth is, high gun ownership countries are nothing like we percieve them. There is no wild west in America with bullets being slung left, right and centre, nor is it the case with Norway, Finland and Australia to name a few.
Although not popular amoungst many of the older generations, or those psychological inclinations towards emotional trains of thought, I would encourage anyone here who disagrees with high gun ownership of any kind, whether self-defense, recreational or sporting, to research the topic throughly and if possible, immerse yourself in gun culture for a day by visiting the local firearms range and experiencing for yourself that exposure to firearms does not result in heighting your natural tendency to kill human beings.
However, I would like to point out any "statistics" you may find in support for gun control should be thought about critically… they may suggest for example "the number of shootings in America" and adjust it to show you how many more shootings may occur in your country if high gun ownership occured. Coupling this with an argument that targets the emotional sensitivity of human beings, it can be highly persuasive and is indeed effective as observed by the UK's recent firearm legislations. However, critical thinking free of emotional interference can reveal unexplained details that shows in favour of gun ownership, such as how many people were shot by police, suicides, criminals shot by civilians in the act of a crime, accidental misfires, etc. I hope this example aids in developing your scientific minds by constantly reminding you that even flawed arguments can be strong if they force you to think irrationally.
Hopefully with some smart reading, your fears regarding firearms may be alliviated by weighing the many more pros against the very few cons. However, for most people a little reading will not change their moral values. In this case… Is it acceptable to take the life of an attacker by any means neccessary or not? Do you feel you should suffer and have the police track down the assailant (which in the majority of cases, most notably murder without motive, savage random beatings or carefully planned rapes, the investigations are inconclusive)? Or do you feel the attackers take full responsibility for their actions, even in the case of provoking an armed innocent civilian? If you wish, you could perhaps consult individuals who have been in situations involving violent crime and ask whether or not they wish they had a firearm at the time to protect themselves, or if they prefered to suffer and felt happy with the police doing all they could. Of course, this is also entirely your moral beliefs, and hopefully, you will agree with my beliefs in freedom, in that men and women should walk anywhere at night free of fear and high risks of criminal engagement.
The reasoning of this particular post and its approach is to facilitate the best possible response for the urban community of the UK. Gun owners are not your enemies, nor are we murderers, rapists or theieves inherently for owning a firearm, or intend to be. We are average people with loved ones we wish to protect, just as you do. The difference being that we morally believe that good people should be entitiled to the best possible self-defense available to prevent unjustifiable crimes befalling them where police can never intervene, and that best self-defense is irrefutably the firearm.
Why is it important?
The importance of concealed firearms ownership in public is only evident when many analytical facts are taken into concideration, easily available through the internet or recent librarian sources, without boring you with too many numbers unvolintarily, the data collected draws conclusions like SOME of the following, once interpreted.
Criminals will always have access to illegal guns sold via the black market, who easily source their firearms and always will be able to easily source said firearms. My personal experiences of discussions with gang members from established, organised gangs confirm this fact, as the majority of them claimed that they had access to military grade weapons if they required access to them.
Less than 1% of legitimately owned and purchased firearms are used in crimes.
Unstable people will always exist, and will always find ways to hurt people, be it a vehicle, a flame, a knife, a gun or explosives. Tragedies will always occur, regardless of the measures put in place, and people must realise this fact. Incendinary, deflagerating and detonating materials are easily manufactured from commonly available materials we use everyday out of neccessity, with knowledge of basic chemistry. Taking away legitimate access to firearms from the public out of fear unstable person may aquire them, only encourages them to develop alternative mass murdering devices that cannot be fought against by an armed public. Additionally, the same prohibition of legalised firearms for self-defense benefits rapists, street gangs and murderers by depriving good people of self-defense from these said attackers.
The majority of violent crimes are commited with silent weapons. Knives, bats, fists, ropes, etc.
States and countries with concealed carry licences experience less violent crimes.
Gun control laws have not prevented violent crimes with or without guns from increasing in countries which have put into effect gun control laws.
These are just a few notable facts that are common to every individual academic study produced the world over in regards to guns and their participation/prevention of crime. It shows that gun control does little to reduce violent crimes and in many cases simply increases it. A violent crime is a violent crime, regardless if a gun is used or not. Of course, the argument of a pro gun and gun control is much like science and pseudoscience. No matter how logical one may appear, you cannot convince someone who does not want to be convinced.
Regardless of what you think of firearms, the known fact remains that all independant academic studies indicate that concealed carry states and countries enjoy less incidences of violent crimes and a sounder psycholgical frame of mind knowing that the are able to defend themselves in any violent situation, as well as the peace of mind knowing that good armed people outnumber violent armed people exponentially. This is especially true in regards to violent crimes against women.
If the UK is to become a more libertarian nation, seeking to defend the individual and ecnomic rights of the people, then it only make logical sense to ensure that good people have the best possible access to personal defense devices and courses, including firearms and even tasers. There is no one way around the topic of self-defense. You either agree to the freedom to defend by any means neccessary, or you don't.The right to self-defense is unversially a right of all people, and to put a restriction on the means by which one can defend themselves is simply giving the illusion of the right to do so.