Gwyon wrote:
Back when Virginia Tech happened, a lot of people noted that you never hear about any massacres (in the US, specifically) in places where other people are likely to be armed, they only happen in places where the shooter knows that there's a very low chance of encountering another armed person- schools, mostly. I'm not stating this to be a fact, I'm just asking- can anyone dig up any fairly recent examples of large numbers of people getting blown away in the midst of well-armed bystanders? I can't think of any.
An interesting point. In Australia, it's very rare for <i>anyone</i> not a criminal or police officer to be walking around with a gun, and yet, we have very few massacres. When we did have one, <b>one massacre</b> the entire country freaked out and the federal govornment made their ban on automatic rifles and i'm not sure on what else. People going on a killing spree in Australia is just rare. perhaps it's a cultural thing, or perhaps we don't feel uptight because we get all the stress relief we need raping our wimminz.
Gwyon wrote:
Regarding Actor's argument: I really don't think some guy who's going out to commit illegal activities, with the intent of inflicting seriously illegal bodily harm on people if he needs to to complete his illegal activities, is really going to care about the legal risks of carrying and using a gun. As to the availability of guns, global production would indeed drop, but how much is another matter. Clandestine production in the newly ban-stricken nation may not be as much of a problem as it seems- sure, it's difficult to produce reliable guns this way, but most of the guns used by the common hood today are hardly reliable or high-quality. In any case, if some guy has just broken into my home, standing down the hall from me pointing a piece at me, and all I have is a baseball bat- it doesn't really matter to me whether he has a well-made legally manufactured weapon, or some jury-rigged junk that costs a ton on the black market, I'm still gonna get shot.
i agree that prohibition would not work in america. Aussies may all be descended from criminals, but americans seem to take pride in breaking the rules if it's for "Freedom". such a flexible and convenient catchcall.
Gwyon wrote:
Also consider this: suppose you do get rid of guns entirely. There's still going to be violent crime, the police aren't going to be any more effective at crime prevention rather than catching criminals after the fact, but you will see a rise in attacks against the elderly and females. Without guns, people will just use knives and clubs, and these weapons are highly dependent on one's physical capabilities. They don't call guns the 'great equalizers' just 'cause it sounds cool.
that's fine, i am neither a woman nor elderly. If someone's getting beaten or raped, it's less likely to be me. Another thing to consider is that these crimes require that the attacker directly overpowers their vicim(s). It's very hard for a person to commit a school massacre with a knife or even a sword because they could easily be overwhelmed and non-lethally subdued by their intended victims. no guns = 1 victim at a time of crimes that are less likely to result in death as opposed to multiple victims sufferring a more likely result of death. Rape is a terrible crime, regardless of all the tastless jokes i'm taking pleasure in dropping, but very few people have been killed by a penis, as a result of direct trauma.
Gwyon wrote:
On the subject of trigger-happy civilians, there just isn't any evidence to support this view. People carrying guns are, if anything, overconfident in their new security and thus less afraid. This can actually be a problem in and of itself, with people finding out the hard way that just having a firearm does not make you proof against all threats.
a fair enough point.
This again is from an American perspective, though, where you veiw it as your "GOD GIVEN RIGHT" to carry firearms in case your govornment becomes a military dictatorship etc.I consider that a moot point really, since the govornments of this day and age don't really need the military to control the populace when they have more sophisticated and effective tools at their disposal. Subtle use (ot not so subtle) of The Media and an understanding of Game Theory and the populace will be <i>Begging</i> you to take whichever action it was you wanted to do.
a bit off topic by me...
Gwyon wrote:
Some of you have talked about gun proponents seeing the nefarious human instruments of malice lurking in every shadow, but is it not equally ridiculous to speak of guns as if they have properties similar to the One Ring, always beckoning the owner to use it at the slightest possible excuse, despite the fact that the user's nature is such that s/he would never take such actions if not exposed to the gun's corrupting influence?
Your position works off the assumption that everyone is a potential criminal threat you must guard against. My position works off the assumption that people are generally panicky and stupid. Hell, i think it's too easy for stupid people to get liscences to weild 2-tonne death machines, which are certainly bigger killers than guns here in australia at least, but everyone still has a car liscence.
In conclusion: American women are fat; this causes gun crime.
Australian women don't have guns; easier to raep! :D