Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm
So under your logic the law abiding should be disarmed because the criminal might now how to use it? Oh wait..... criminals break the law and it's against the law to own many types of firearms within the UK. But that doesn't stop the criminals from getting them anyways.
I realise in that strange world you believe is reality firearms are only used by law abiding citizens and criminals run at the sight of them but in reality for a law abiding citizen to use a weapon in most countries it has to be in a reactionary manner ie in response to a clear and present threat they just can't go out and attack someone who may become a threat therefore the initiative is always with the criminal.
Have fun waiting for the police to stop a rioting mob from breaking down your door or stopping them from killing you or raping your loved ones. But then again you own firearms; you're just against other folks from owning them because they're not in your social class. Permits cost money.... poor folks can't afford permits. It's a form of social restrictions because they can't spend the cash to get a piece of paper that says they are "allowed" to own a piece of steel
I don't have to wait for the police to stop a rioting mob because we still have some level of social order and don't generally have rioting mobs, however if we were to have rioting mobs I would much sooner have a few shop windows broken and see my car rolled/burnt out than have everyone shooting at each other for shits and giggles.
As for the rest I realise you are trying to create a strawman argument to hide behind and some sort of "class generalisation" gives you a sense of moral self righteousness but to be blunt you have no idea what you are talking about so I suggest you go back to stroking your gun and peering out through the barbed wire for all those nasty liberals coming to get your guns.
See I can generalise as well.