Quote:
|
Originally Posted by knox
I can't make humans less violent - that's exactly the point.
|
If I'm violent and I've got a gun I'm far more dangerous to people than with just my fists. I punch like a girl, so I'd probably get taken down very, very quickly. With a gun I might just put a hole in someone, in spite of my inferior strength.
The average psychopath over here generally gets sectioned quite quickly. He might be lucky and get a bit stabby, but someone with a knife is a lot easier to take down than someone with a gun.
I should note that I've known plenty of people who have legally-acquired guns over here. They're not
easy to get hold of, but they are very heavily restricted. I think Dunblane was done by a legal gun-owner. I wonder if the problem isn't the mass proliferation and the ease of ownership.
Banning guns isn't something that would happen instantly; following an amnesty, there's bound to be a period of black-market guns and firearms sequestered away. Some rusting, some still in use. But it's a bit defeatist to say that after, say, 10-15 years the effect of widespread firearm ownership wouldn't be very heavily reduced.
And the thing with 'rights' is that the right to socialised medicine is something that's far, far more important to humanity in one of the richest economies in the world than the right to own something to put cunting great holes in things is.