Guns get out of the hands of the citizens and then they can't defend themselves when the criminal gets their hands on the weapon. However, let the citizens free roam with the weapons, and it'll deter the criminal from performing criminal action (unless they're actually batshit insane). Even then, the batshit insane criminal will still be cut short of causing major casualties.
Anyone else agree or wish to expand on this topic?
*I do believe that gun owners should be registered. I wouldn't want every single citizen to be carrying a weapon.
-
Hahaha well you're not very bright. We've already draw a line. Non military cannot own highly explosive or automatic weapons (lethal weapons) just as Timmy down the bloc can't own a nuclear warhead. There's some criminal out there (Walter White) with a network and ability to procure even these banned to civilian weapons. By your logic, we better equip every household with a p90 because a criminal could totally get their hands on an auto ak. Being in an industrial design field; believe you me, I can fabricate a fully automatic lower receiver for a weapon. The idea between gun control, is that with more regulation (this doesn't mean things are just being taken away) the list of criminals getting their hands more easily on weapons will go down. Think about school shootings, a gunman isn't going to target a system that's heavily armed, their going to go somewhere they can cause massive damage. So the solution shouldn't be reactive, give more guns out, it should be proactive: make sure crazy doesn't get the gun.