Just one question!

Bend · Jan 27, 2009

"Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?"

<broken link removed>

So far, only one valid "yes" <broken link removed> (go to the top of the thread)

pioneer461 · Jan 27, 2009

In modern times............
Nazi Germany? Nope, that didn't work.
Great Britain? Not there either.
Darfur? Rwanda? Soviet Union? Australia? Nope.
Washington DC? Chicago? New York City? Detroit?
I know! New Orleans during hurricane Katrina? No?

AGCR · Jan 28, 2009

The question is somewhat misleading. Someone from Germany, Canada or Japan would potentially argue their societies are less violent because of restricted access to weapons, when in fact the real difference is that more equitable societies are less violent period. The similarity in social violence between Japan (restricted) and Switzerland (heavily armed) is mostly economic.

ZeroRing · Feb 1, 2009

Good reasoning in the points brought up by the "winner". It's the same sort of reasoning that caused me to get my first EBR's back in '92 and my "newer" ones this go 'round.

Doc In UPlace · Feb 2, 2009

AGCR said:
The question is somewhat misleading. Someone from Germany, Canada or Japan would potentially argue their societies are less violent because of restricted access to weapons, when in fact the real difference is that more equitable societies are less violent period. The similarity in social violence between Japan (restricted) and Switzerland (heavily armed) is mostly economic.

Let's add cultural environment to the equation, too.

In my view actual safety lies in the crime never having been attempted. The guy that was going to rob a store-doesn't. The person heading out to do a carjack -doesn't. The husband, fed up with his life, does not commit a murder-suicide. That's where the root of real safety lies, more than an armed response to something already begun. Does this make sense? Wouldn't we all prefer this?

It's not the weapons used, whether rope, baseball bat, knife or gun, it's the desire to do the act that is at the root of the issue.

Somebody deciding to rob me, break into my house or shoot me in a mall will not know, when it starts, whether I'm armed or not.
Therefore my being armed would have provided no deterrent whatsoever, at the beginning of the crime. I don't wear a shirt that says, "Try it and I'll send you to the promised land."

We probably have more guns per person here in the US than any other country, and who is going to claim we are a beacon of domestic safety and peace because of it? Maybe the number of arms is entirely irrelevant.

This whole issue reminds me of the time when Detriot TV was beamed into Toronto. All of a sudden the Toronto people felt that violent crime was dramatically increasing. The fact was that their crime rate was steady. It was the perception that created the reality.

I wish I had the answers, and you know I choose to be armed vs. not, but my choice is a reaction to a situation, to a probability, not a solution to the problem. I'm glad I have that choice, but do not think I've found the answer to stopping crimes from starting.

Joe Link · Feb 3, 2009

I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree when you say guns are not a deterrent. This is according to studies where criminals were asked, as well as empirical data of higher crime in places with more gun control and a decrease in violent crime where CHL's are issued.

tionico · Feb 3, 2009

Consider Australia's recent twelvemonth aniversary of their population being "disarmed". Well, at the least, the law-keeping portion is disarmed. Didn't put up a fuss. Now the incidence of violent crimes against persons has gone through the roof, and of breakins to occupied dwellings have increased three hundred percent in Queensland..... of course, the wonk pols are scratching their polls on it all. "Well, I can't quite work it out, we've disarmed the public". How now, kind sir, you've NOT diarmed the lot of them, only those sufficiently meek to have surrendered their weapons when politely asked to do. Those who scorned the law did not, and they are the ones perpetrating the crimes now, against a presumably unarmed populace. And, in regards housebreakings, in the present situation the typical homekeeper will have been polite and legal and all, and surrendered his bedside barker.. thus, the risk to life and limb to the breaker is reduced to near nought. Thus the rapid increase in such crimes. The Aussies got it wrong, they've taken to being overly like the several millions of sheep they keep. Leaders say "left", and left it is. Leaders say "halt", and halt it is. Even the stockmen in the outback turned in their sideguns and rifles, now the dingoes are feasting on their stock and nought to do against it. Lamenting, they are, but too late. A massive uprising might be in the making, to return the right to keep and bear arms to Australians. The law abiding sorts, at any rate. The government spent a half billion of AUS$ to carry out the disarmament. Now, barely one year on, they're putting the possibility they've missed the mark. I do hope we take our cues from this sorry lot.

NWMoss · Feb 3, 2009

pioneer461 said:
In modern times............
Nazi Germany? Nope, that didn't work.
Great Britain? Not there either.
Darfur? Rwanda? Soviet Union? Australia? Nope.
Washington DC? Chicago? New York City? Detroit?
I know! New Orleans during hurricane Katrina? No?

Kao! You took all my examples!!!

Bend · Feb 4, 2009

tionico said:
Consider Australia's recent twelvemonth aniversary of their population being "disarmed". Well, at the least, the law-keeping portion is disarmed. Didn't put up a fuss. Now the incidence of violent crimes against persons has gone through the roof, and of breakins to occupied dwellings have increased three hundred percent in Queensland..... of course, the wonk pols are scratching their polls on it all. "Well, I can't quite work it out, we've disarmed the public". How now, kind sir, you've NOT diarmed the lot of them, only those sufficiently meek to have surrendered their weapons when politely asked to do. Those who scorned the law did not, and they are the ones perpetrating the crimes now, against a presumably unarmed populace. And, in regards housebreakings, in the present situation the typical homekeeper will have been polite and legal and all, and surrendered his bedside barker.. thus, the risk to life and limb to the breaker is reduced to near nought. Thus the rapid increase in such crimes. The Aussies got it wrong, they've taken to being overly like the several millions of sheep they keep. Leaders say "left", and left it is. Leaders say "halt", and halt it is. Even the stockmen in the outback turned in their sideguns and rifles, now the dingoes are feasting on their stock and nought to do against it. Lamenting, they are, but too late. A massive uprising might be in the making, to return the right to keep and bear arms to Australians. The law abiding sorts, at any rate. The government spent a half billion of AUS$ to carry out the disarmament. Now, barely one year on, they're putting the possibility they've missed the mark. I do hope we take our cues from this sorry lot.

I had to snicker - that 12 month update is about 4-5 years old. Not much has changed in AUS, yet.