by Carrie-Ann Campbell

Created on: July 09, 2008

Some may say that because I live in the UK, where to keep any form of fire-arm is illegal, that I have no valid opinion when it comes to this debate.
I however feel that living in a country where citizens are not allowed to keep, much less use guns, and comparing it to a country where guns are encouraged gives me a clear view upon which side of the debate I fall.

And it has to be - I disagree.
For me, to say that "violators of gun laws should be prosecuted to the fullest" instead of "restricting the rights of lawful citizens" implies something to me incredibly important;
the "violators" have, presumably, already "violated" the law. Their crime has already been committed, and when discussing fire-arms, the aforementioned crime tends to be injury or death.
It has always seemed to me (albeit as an outsider looking in) that America simply believes in punishing those who have committed a crime. Nothing wrong with that, I say: by all means, if someone shoots an old lady to snatch her handbag, punish him.
But in my view, I feel it would be so much better if gun crime were to be prevented, rather than punished. And I think the ways to do this - indeed the only ways - are through either:
1. Banning citizen ownership or use of fire-arms
2. Extreme restrictions over who should own a gun, and careful monitoring of their intentions
I understand that the concept in the U.S.A is that everyone has a right to carry some form of arms for means of protection. I will be honest- that puzzles me exceedingly.
Isn't that what the police are for? Isn't their slogan "To protect and serve"?
In Britain the police don't carry guns either.
Don't statistics show that more people are injured by their own guns than someone else's? You can give someone as much training as they can possibly undergo- however that doesn't stop people clowning around, and they or others may be injured in the process.
People think that guns are their best means of protection, the only way of keeping themselves and their family safe. However if that were the case, the United States would be the safest place in the world; and let's face it, it doesn't seem to be.
Maybe if guns were restricted then you wouldn't have a gun in your house. You wouldn't be able to use a gun to defend yourself against a break in.
But the intruder wouldn't have one either.
The intruder might have a knife, but you might have a baseball bat under the bed. Strange as this may sound, a baseball bat is a very good weapon to be used in self defence! (Anyone who has been accidently hit with extreme force on the head by one can vouch for this- believe me.)
In Britain, gun control was brought sharply to the attention of the public when 44 year old Thomas Hamilton walked into a primary school in Dunblane and shot dead sixteen little 5 year old children and one teacher.
If gun restriction has prevented the re-occurring of this in Britain- surely it can't do any harm for the U.S.A to consider it.

Learn more about this author, Carrie-Ann Campbell.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.