Now I’m not interested in politics, but I must point out how Donald Trump’s argument on having guns readily available so that good guys can fight with bad guys is totally illogical. If guns are more attainable for regular citizens, then they’ll also be more attainable for potential criminals.
Firearms aren’t currently banned from residents, at least concerning long guns and handguns. While Glock 17s and SIG P229s aren’t much use against the fully automatic Uzis and MP5s, does Donald actually naively assume that if regular citizens have Glock 18s, that criminals won’t progress to using RPG-7s? There’s no end to this vicious cycle. Under Donald’s guidance, there will be more frequent shootings with higher caliber bullets. Obviously, the goal is to eliminate the trade of guns from the untrained public, but the bad guys will always find a way to attain this physical advantage.
However, make no mistake that there’s a certain presence of uniformed personnel to counteract this perceivable threat. As with air marshals on planes, there are also undercover cops who are usually present on-site of the shootings, but who’ll usually wait until there’s a 4-member battle-ready fireteam.
One of the highest causes of fatalities is due to friendly fire, so I don’t believe that having more untrained good guys on the street is beneficial. That is unless future citizens have to undergo a mandatory firearm program. But how would that reflect on our society when 16 year-olds need to get both driver’s and gun carry licenses? If Donald wants a more convincing argument for firearms, he should present to us the figures before and presumably after looser gun control, whether the ratio of good gun owners to bad gun owners will increase after rather than before.