The problem really is that law abiding people will follow the law and not carry guns when told not too. This has been shown to increase the likely hood of non lawabiding to assault people due to the low risk on their part. No matter the laws criminals will have guns in the US. This is unfortunate but true due to our culture. So the best thing would be to arm the lawabiding people to allow them to protect themselves. Really it is a classic arms race issue, and restricting people from self protection will ultimatly end up hurting more.
Revoking the rights of the public does not stop criminals. It will only embolden them and allow them to assult general people with impunity. Self defense is generaly a right any sane person should support, other wise you are just classifying some people as not deserving to live. I am not arguing freedom as such, just that the time to restrict guns was over hundreds of years ago and there is really not much we can do about the availablity of them. So the only other option is to arm the people at risk, i would support full training and support for those that would carry. Imagine how different these situations would be if each teach was a licensed and trained armed respondent.
Gun Control did not, nor would it have stopped it if there was full restriction like in DC. On the other hand if the school was not a no carry zone and instead allowed licensed adults to carry, things may have been different. The situation may still have happened but not have had such a terrible cost.
Truly the use of guns wrongly is horrible and should be prevented. But the access to guns should be allowed, legal, and maybe even encouraged for those at risk to being attacked. Any no carry zones automaticaly puts a high risk target on those in that area. Restricting guns will only affect those who follow the law, and removing the ability to respond in a dangerous situation is like telling someone they are not allowed to protect themselves or those under thier care. Any attempt to remove the use of guns in the US is truly doomed due to the availabilty long standing culture of the US. Even a door to door raid country wide would fail. Only the law abiding would be disarmed and the criminals would be able to continue harming the public. The situation is unfortunate but that is what is so dangerous about an arms race. Both sides must be armed or conflict WILL occur due to one side pressing an advantage.
the problem is that we really have no capacity to prevent access to firearms, nor edged weapons really. The majority of the protection from having a gun is the likely hood you will respond with it. So just having it prevents crimes. On the otherhand it would seem any type of edged weapon is more likely to get you attacked as people are just not as threatened by them, just as you said nearly any adult could reasonably be able to defend against them. How would you propose protection a disarmed populus from an armed criminal?
Really it seems a lot of the issue with states and countries with a large amount of guns is really a cultural issue. The US is still very much about freedom to carry, even proponents of gun control have been found carrying so it seems a lot of the arguments against right to carry is just people trying to prevent others from carrying (ie protecting themselves as they will be). Since that is true it ends up being self prophecising and endless arm race. Countries like japan have true disarmement of the populus and their culture supports it. Many other countries do not, it is not like we could go to afganastan and just sweep and get rid of the guns (we tried). It doesn't work there nor here it seems. So the reality is we need to arm the public just to prevent a larger loss in life due to the criminal side using weapons. As to the capabiluty to respond, The protection of the gun is not absolute, but peoples accuracy even at five feet is very poor. Most would be able to respond if trained before they are hit (unless obviously the first one hit, which would be unlike
Slashdot Mirror
The problem really is that law abiding people will follow the law and not carry guns when told not too. This has been shown to increase the likely hood of non lawabiding to assault people due to the low risk on their part. No matter the laws criminals will have guns in the US. This is unfortunate but true due to our culture. So the best thing would be to arm the lawabiding people to allow them to protect themselves. Really it is a classic arms race issue, and restricting people from self protection will ultimatly end up hurting more.
Revoking the rights of the public does not stop criminals. It will only embolden them and allow them to assult general people with impunity. Self defense is generaly a right any sane person should support, other wise you are just classifying some people as not deserving to live. I am not arguing freedom as such, just that the time to restrict guns was over hundreds of years ago and there is really not much we can do about the availablity of them. So the only other option is to arm the people at risk, i would support full training and support for those that would carry. Imagine how different these situations would be if each teach was a licensed and trained armed respondent.
Gun Control did not, nor would it have stopped it if there was full restriction like in DC. On the other hand if the school was not a no carry zone and instead allowed licensed adults to carry, things may have been different. The situation may still have happened but not have had such a terrible cost.
Truly the use of guns wrongly is horrible and should be prevented. But the access to guns should be allowed, legal, and maybe even encouraged for those at risk to being attacked. Any no carry zones automaticaly puts a high risk target on those in that area. Restricting guns will only affect those who follow the law, and removing the ability to respond in a dangerous situation is like telling someone they are not allowed to protect themselves or those under thier care. Any attempt to remove the use of guns in the US is truly doomed due to the availabilty long standing culture of the US. Even a door to door raid country wide would fail. Only the law abiding would be disarmed and the criminals would be able to continue harming the public. The situation is unfortunate but that is what is so dangerous about an arms race. Both sides must be armed or conflict WILL occur due to one side pressing an advantage.
the problem is that we really have no capacity to prevent access to firearms, nor edged weapons really. The majority of the protection from having a gun is the likely hood you will respond with it. So just having it prevents crimes. On the otherhand it would seem any type of edged weapon is more likely to get you attacked as people are just not as threatened by them, just as you said nearly any adult could reasonably be able to defend against them. How would you propose protection a disarmed populus from an armed criminal?
Really it seems a lot of the issue with states and countries with a large amount of guns is really a cultural issue. The US is still very much about freedom to carry, even proponents of gun control have been found carrying so it seems a lot of the arguments against right to carry is just people trying to prevent others from carrying (ie protecting themselves as they will be). Since that is true it ends up being self prophecising and endless arm race. Countries like japan have true disarmement of the populus and their culture supports it. Many other countries do not, it is not like we could go to afganastan and just sweep and get rid of the guns (we tried). It doesn't work there nor here it seems. So the reality is we need to arm the public just to prevent a larger loss in life due to the criminal side using weapons. As to the capabiluty to respond, The protection of the gun is not absolute, but peoples accuracy even at five feet is very poor. Most would be able to respond if trained before they are hit (unless obviously the first one hit, which would be unlike