Violence with Guns - Violence without Guns

Okay, since the gun debate is permeating every facet of the internet, news media and water cooler in North America... I thought I'd offer a couple cents on the debate.

I'm not a gun nut, nor do I own a gun, nor do I care much about guns, since I've matured they do not play a role in my life. However, as a young lad from a family of gun collectors, hunters and sport shooters, I spent many, many years on the range and in state competitions as well as cold wet mornings in the bush sporting game.

My family members are very responsible gun owners. And while I spent most of my childhood in rural towns, near the end of my school years I relocated to a larger city. Once I heard about kids in the school (gang affiliated) and how they spoke about guns (as a weapon) I was actually shocked. I was mystified at how they viewed guns in general, and how it fed their ego (should they have owned an illegal one, or had access to one.)

You see, because of the rigorous gun safety values that were instilled in me, it was very hard to even fathom a gun as a weapon. Of course people I knew growing up did speak about them as a last line of defense sometimes, this was far out-shadowed by a constant reminder of safe handling, storage and operation of firearms. The number one rule of gun handling "DONT AIM IT AT ANYONE, AT ANYTIME, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE."

This is something that is so engrained in you if you grew up learning safe handling, that it becomes second nature to make sure your barrel is either pointing at the ground, or high in the sky when handling firearms. My family also stored them under lock and key (trigger locks), in safes, and the only time they would be removed was during cleaning, or transport to the range, or on a hunting trip.

There is a YouTube fellow who often reminds me of some of the old guys we had at the range as a kid. Like to shoot things up in his backyard, (As most gun enthusiasts do) but also is quite safe in his operation of firearms, and also comes off as a gentle soul who just enjoys this as the hobby it is to him.



An urban dictionary listing for Hicock

www.urbandictionary.com...

A YouTube legend who can hit any steel plate, at any distance, with any firearm. His badassity level is generally purported to be somewhere between Liam Neeson and Chuck Norris. It is also a generally accepted fact that he is made of one part lead, one part copper, and one part total #ing bad ass (for example Liam Neeson is one part drunk irishman, one part jedi, one part awesome actor, and one part total #ing bad ass)

These guys are the ones who will always deserve their right to bear arms. Who respect weapons as they ought to be. Or guys like the following who you can tell right away, that guns are not only a part of their life, but a staple in their professional careers:



Safety is a big part of those careers too:

Fu8XPyokHyE

When you consider these guys whose actual jobs, hobby, or professional sport relies on firearms, it's a shame to consider that some would see the entire industry not even exist.

In some cases people call for "Assault weapons bans" and in some cases, people call for outright total firearms bans. But if you take a look at the professionals, you will see the way they operate firearms, the distinction is irrelevant. As many of them can operate firearms well beyond the standard assumed capacity by non-professional shooters.



Some might wonder where I am going with this at this point. The US regulates machines guns, short barrelled rifles, silencers, etc. with the National Firearms Act. There are legal ways to own these weapons but in doing so you are under closer scrutiny by the authorities and they are heavily regulated compared to other firearms.*

Assault weapons ban...

One thing that about gun control that has obviously received a lot of attention recently are "assault weapons". The first real regulation of assault weapons came about in 1994, and many will tell you that what defines "assault weapons" is somewhat arbitrary and in a sense, has no real impact on the capabilities of a trained shooter who are using other weapons which do not fit in the same category.

What we have that defines assault weapons is as follows:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine.
[edit]

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, rate of fire and loading capacity and reloading functionality are one of the main arguments with the assault weapons ban. But, if you look at the functionality of a professional shooter with firearms that are quite legal, and ones that would not fit in under the ban, you can see how arbitrary the rules are:




I think the point I am trying to make, is that with proper technique and training, people can actually surpass the limitations one would associate with sport and game weapons which bind the majority of the operators of these weapons.

As far as laws limiting or regulating certain types of weapons, I can see the logic and reasoning in them. Being from a rural area, I don't see much sense in regulating the rural areas the same as cities. In some places it's normal, and safe to operate firearms in your own backyard. The same cannot be said about the city.

If there are regulations that limit city dwellers from owning and storing weapons, I don't see a problem with that. If it is accepted for someone to keep a firearm for personal defence, than I see it reasonable for a city dweller to store one weapon at home for such purpose, while storing the rest at a secure firing range facility. If the weapons you are using, cannot be used in and around your home, what is the purpose of storing them there?

I think the main reasoning here in limitations such as this, would reduce the amount of guns that are stolen from private owners so they can be diverted for criminal purposes. Although, some collectors may wish to have them at home for the simple fact that they are indeed collectors, and it is no different than storing a collection of fine art or memorabilia. An interesting argument for sure.

As far as limiting automatic weapons or weapons deemed "assault weapons", the caveat here being that a properly trained individual will be able to handle weapons far outside that classification better than a know nothing could operate weapons that are seen as more dangerous than the others.

It's obvious that some are in favour of an all out firearms ban. When considering something like this we only need to look at countries around the world that have similar:

Somewhere like the UK, where strict gun control reigns, violence is still prevalent but facilitated by other means...

During the year to June 2012 there were approximately 29,613 recorded offences involving knives or other sharp instruments, accounting for 7% of selected offences, a similar proportion to previous years. The number of knife offences recorded was 9% lower than in the preceding year.

www.parliament.uk...

In 2010 there were 358 deaths involving rifles. Deaths involving the use of pistols in the US that same year totaled 6,009 including suicides.

en.wikipedia.org...

When comparing those numbers, one thing is quite obvious, violence is and issue about violence, and guns are an issue about guns.

When considering the debate over gun control, I am far more cognizant of the people I described in the first portion of my OP, than I am of victims or perpetrators of violence. I feel that it will affect their lives much more than it will the people who are acting out in violence, or victims of such violent acts.

The reason being, is that without guns, violence is still very prevalent in human societies.

Banning guns altogether is a different story. A complete ban of firearms in the hands of private individuals would undoubtedly reduce gun violence, but only if strictly enforced, in conjunction with confiscation and destruction of the existing stock. It would have to be combined with draconian penalties for non-compliance. It would also have to be retroactive; for, if grandfathered, such a law would leave great quantities of weapons in private hands, changing only their legal status and value. This means mass-murdering maniacs would be obliged to massacre their victims with illegal weapons more often than they do now. It does not mean that they would commit fewer massacres.

Since it takes a tyranny to implement total prohibition, it is mostly tyrannies that make the attempt. Not surprisingly, elimination of privately-held firearms significantly reduces gun-related violence in tyrannies that try it. Gun violence doesn’t vanish in these types of societies, but it becomes the monopoly of the state, along with most other things, from commerce to art. Violence, crime, even insanity are nationalized, so to speak. Ideas or acts we consider human rights, the tyrannical state diagnoses as psychiatric conditions in secular nations, or blasphemy in religious nations.

fullcomment.nationalpost.com...

This article points out a couple very important things. And a question you must ask yourself, is are you okay living with a few deplorable tragedy's every year in the name of a free society, as opposed to tragedy's that happen in the name of "law, order" and most importantly, "the power of the state." By relinquishing all power to the state we are certainly giving up our own, and in doing so, not affecting the actual outcome of the issue we are trying to address, but passing on all responsibility to an entity which in turn absolves ourselves of any blame that can be had.

Sometimes, it's as though people would live better in their lives as long as they have someone to blame. In cases of these recent tragedy's, the public only has their selves to blame. Not because guns are legal. Not because they had a direct role in the tragedy, but because the world we live in bred someone so toxic to the rest of the citizens in the country. We essentially let an individual become so backwards thinking, so depraved, that he would carry out such a heinous act. But, at the same time the majority of people had no means of stopping him. Nor any means of altering the outcome of the event.

Essentially, $%#@ happens, and things like this will continue to happen. The main problem here are the root causes that led someone to do such a thing. Whether we as a society can address these underlying factors so people like this do not carry out such actions, it is up to us as a society to achieve this. Part of this includes addressing mental health concerns on the personal and professional level. It also includes making an active attempt to let all kinds of people live in our society without feeling persecuted, without feeling like desperate acts like this would be beneficial to them or the impact on society they might leave.

State power vs. Citizen power.

So the previous article addressed how relinquishing control to the state would absolve us from responsibility but also in fact leave tyrannic rule to give us our safety.

What exactly does that mean?

Take an example of a South Korean officer who went on a killing spree. He used his influence and position to enter people's homes unassuming, and proceeded to murder them in cold blood. Eventually killing himself with a grenade, first committing one of the worst acts of senseless violence in recorded history.

Woo Bum-kon (or Wou Bom-kon) (February 24, 1955 – April 27, 1982) was a South Korean police officer who carried out the second largest known incident of spree killing in modern history. After the rampage concluded, 57 people (including himself) were dead and 35 were wounded in Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea.[1]

Although police were alerted one hour after the beginning of the killing spree,[5] he avoided capture and continued his rampage for a full eight hours.

----

The Interior Minister of South Korea, Suh Chung-hwa and the national police chief, An Eung-mo, offered to resign as a form of atonement for Woo's rampage.[2] Suh Chung-hwa, being held responsible for the incident by president Chun Doo-hwan, lay down his office on April 29, and Roh Tae-woo was appointed Interior Minister.[1][5]
A special parliamentary team was formed, consisting of 19 parliamentarians and led by Home Affairs Committee chairman Kim Chong-hoh, to investigate the shooting and its disastrous handling by the police.[5] Furthermore the South Korean Cabinet decided to pay compensations to the victims and their families.[8]

en.wikipedia.org...

wiki.answers.com...

In this case an officer of the state committed mass murder (I think an issue with his girlfriend is what set him off to carry out this rampage.)

In any case, the state holds responsibility. No matter if there were gun control or not, a state officer did this. The root cause here obviously being mental health issues among other things. This goes to show that violence can and will happen, no matter what type of person is involved. Just because gun control might limit citizens from owning and operating firearms, it does not mean that state officials could not suffer the same mental defects/crises that individual citizens have.

In the case of gun control, had there been citizens with a means to defend themselves, it is very likely that this killing spree might of been stopped prematurely.

Detailed article on Death by Government.

The above link has an article on events throughout history that depict Governments killing their own peoples. Or in some cases the enemies of the state which they first bested, and then mercilessly killed or disfigured them.

This highlights the destructive nature a state authority can have once out of control. By all intents and purposes, a state without anyone to answer to, is far more deadlier than a gun...

Which is ironic, because giving control to limit guns, is essentially aiding something that has shown to be deadly in the past.

Mass Murderers Without Guns.

A Colombian man's admission to the murder and torture of 140 children has again put the spotlight on the gruesome history of mass killers.

Lopez is thought to have butchered more than 300 young girls in Colombia, Peru and Ecuador throughout the late 1970s and early 80s.

Other serial killers to get close to Lopez's horrific tally of victims were the Americans Henry Lee Lucas and Ottis Toole, and HH Holmes, who killed more than 200.

Holmes built a massive mansion, complete with trap doors, acid vats, lime pits and gas chambers, with money he made from a drugstore empire he built in Chicago.

'Torture castle'

During the 1893 World's Fair in the city, he rented rooms to visitors, then killed them to try to collect on their insurance policies.

Some of the most disturbing acts of violence in history were committed without guns, and the need to facilitate the crimes with firearms was non-existent. However, it's not to say the victims could not have benefited by having the personal protection of a firearm....

Another notorious female mass murderer was Hungarian Erzebet Bathory who carried out a reign of terror in the 16th century. Known as the blood countess, she tortured and murdered more than 600 victims from her family estate in Transylvania.

One method of killing victims was to strip them and lie them down in the snow in winter and then pour water over them until they froze.

She is considered to be a true vampire because she bathed in the blood of some of her victims, believing it would keep her skin looking youthful.

Do you need silver bullets for vampires?

news.bbc.co.uk...

Do guns make us violent?

I would have to say that violence is one of the oldest elements of human behaviour their is. Since people discovered they "ouch" themselves when they stub their toes, and they don't move after falling off a cliff, violence has the tendency to elicit fear from people.

Fear = Control.

It's quite natural for humans to be violent to one another. After all, we are always trying to one up each other. Someone is always vying for the dominant, alpha role position. However, how some people view the race is entirely different. Some just want a small advantage so they have to work less in their life, or see a few more benefits than the next person.

On the other hand, there are deranged people who get sick pleasure by doing some very heinous things. This of course is in no way tied to guns, gun control or modern society (In some cases, it is tied to the influence some try to gain over the masses though):

Alexander "Sawney" Bean(e) was the legendary head of a 48-member clan in 15th- or 16th-century Scotland, reportedly executed for the mass murder and cannibalisation of over 1,000 people.

en.wikipedia.org...

Okay, but some might say that Sawney Bean is a little on the mythic side, that accounts might not be accurate at all.

Since we are talking myths, what about the violence committed in the name of Christianity and Islam?

Killings for Christianity

Killings for Islam

Boncho, y u compare apples to oranges?

Some people might really wonder where I am going with this. Boncho, why are you comparing all this together? Guns are not the same as religion or a cult and what do they have to do with state government?

Elementary my dear Watson.



It's obvious people don't kill people simply because they own or have access to a gun. I posted in the beginning a few people who are professional employed, working in the gun industry. People who are responsible owners, and professionals. They use guns as tools. They use them in their professional life, for their hobbies. They are very respectable people and the deserve the right to have them.

On the other hand, I started delving into some of the actual causes of violence. As violence happens with or without guns. In some cases, you might be able to find more violence happens with the absence of guns.

This is the matter that has to be addressed. The root causes of gun crimes. Talking about the legality of guns, because of violence, is like talking about the components in the glass of a liquor bottle when you have a hangover.

It's a well known fact that dictators throughout history have disarmed the public to reach the level of rule that led to some of the worst crimes in human history by a state. No one rational is going to blindly encourage armed revolution, but it's a matter of fact that citizens should have a right to defend themselves against tyrannical rule. People cry "Police state" "NWO", etc, etc today on the web. But many are completely oblivious to what those kinds of things really look like. For one, you probably wouldn't be crying about it online without being censored.

The bottom line is that complete unjust rule over a population, is much harder to do when the possibility of resistance is there. This is not a call for armed militias to run amok and destabilize government, it is simply acknowledging a Mexican stand off so-to-speak.

There are checks and balances protecting government officers from its citizens. And in a sense, an armed public, is a measure to ensure that the Gestapo will not show up at your door, demanding your possessions, your sons or your daughters.

The takeover of any country has to be preceded by disarming the general public. In order to do that, the location of all legally acquired and legally owned guns have to be known. That requires total registration of all firearms.
After the location and number of legally acquired and legally owned guns is known, they can be confiscated. With a disarmed citizenry, the only ones with guns will be the police, the government, the military and the criminals who can do what they wish with the population. Ask the citizens of the former Soviet Union, the citizens of China, the citizens of the Cambodians under Pol-Pot, the Kosovars under the Serbs if being disarmed saved them from tyranny.

People say, "It can't happen in this day and age." "We don't need guns." "Our government would never resort to tyranny against the people." I submit it can happen in this day and age. How do you think Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Mao and other dictators took control of their countries? They were leaders without character and without morals who disarmed the citizenry guaranteeing practically no opposition. The rest is history.

www.ecclesia.org...

Conclusion

The gun control debate is really not about gun control.

A gun is a nice simple and efficient weapon which can work from 0 to well over a couple of miles in rifle form so it can provide ample projection of power and the ability to be able to project that power has always been a part of human kind since we learned to throw rocks at each other and also the gun has bypassed the traditional defense v's offense model since what can the average person do against a fast traveling projectile unless one is encased in so much protection that you can barely move

We humans are a barbaric species and we'll kill each other for the slightest thing given the chance so the gun itself is not to blame but the person who pulls the trigger, but for me in the British environment i'd rather not mix rat arsed 18 year olds and firearms so i'm happy we don't have them available on tap and wit the British level of violence theres more chance of survival as a well trained owner of a gun will more than likely kill when firing but knife crime may leave scars it atleast leaves people alive

Wow boncho this is nice, congratulations on bringing a solution to the table rather than adding to an ongoing endless debate of no action, from neither side.

I'v been saying this tor years..It isn't the gun that is the problem, it's the attitude towards the gun. I'm going to go back and read the last 2 posts, I just couldn't hold the need to reply any longer.

Merry Christmas, buddy.

reply to post by boncho


Thanks for this thread Boncho. I am British and I respect the 2nd Amendment. I like your right to bear arms. Criminals will always get them no matter what the law says. There a re a lot of shootings that don't get reported in the UK, this is why the general public are ignorant to the true figures on UK guncrime.

Kudos on the well thought out thread.
I'm curious as to what your response would be to someone stating that it's simply too easy to kill many people, quickly, with a gun, while a knife, or similar instrument, is not nearly as effective or fast at spreading death.
I hear this argument quite often, but have never seen it addressed directly, or in a well thought out manner.
Thanks

Originally posted by Coratoan
Kudos on the well thought out thread.
I'm curious as to what your response would be to someone stating that it's simply too easy to kill many people, quickly, with a gun, while a knife, or similar instrument, is not nearly as effective or fast at spreading death.
I hear this argument quite often, but have never seen it addressed directly, or in a well thought out manner.
Thanks

actually guns and all other hand weaponry are useless against a Semi tractor trailer or the detonation of oxi acetylene or other toxic agents that are far simpler to manufacture and deploy and with greater casualty results.

I would rather prefer to have to deal with armed bandits as apposed to the aforementioned, where at least i might have a chance at survival

reply to post by boncho


Thank you for this thread Boncho. It is very responsible of you.
Not that I thought you were irresponsible, but most of the time I encounter you here, you are irreverent and generally just entertaining.

I never had any experience with firearms until I joined the Marine Corps. And I was always brought up to view them as tools. Tools for killing, but still tools. No different than a hammer or a screwdriver. I have had to use hammers and screwdrivers as weapons, and guns as hammers. I guess it just goes with the territory.

I own a few guns, but each serves a purpose in a given situation. I wouldn't call myself a gun nut. But I have no intention of ever turning my guns in to anyone for any reason. I have taught a few people gun safety and how to shoot. I always abide by the rule I was taught. They are just too practical not to share, so here they are.

The four weapons safety rules.

1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.

2. Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
(I take this rule deadly seriously, I don't care if the gun is loaded or not. If someone points a gun at me, they better kill me first. Because I am certainly going to kill them.)

3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire.

4. Keep the weapon on safe until you intend to fire.

reply to post by boncho


Great thread...!

I'm also a gun owner and member of the NRA but what concerns me about a lot of gun owners is their
obsession, way beyond fascination, with them in what I find to be a most psychosexual way. The gun represents masculinity, power
and control over others. A metal phallic symbol plainly observable at the shooting range. The firearm as a symbol is powerful and meant to satisfy some deep seated feelings of inadequacy and or fear. imo.

I try and satisfy my inadequate feelings with other symbols, truth be known; Stratocasters and sportscars...I keep my pistols and long guns well hidden. Different strokes....

reply to post by SPECULUM


Agreed! Generally that's how I would argue the point. However, you cant drive a tractor into a school... and explosives take time and a lot of premeditation to set up.

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by boncho

 

...I am British and I respect the 2nd Amendment....There a re a lot of shootings that don't get reported in the UK, this is why the general public are ignorant to the true figures on UK guncrime.

Thanks for revealing that.

I had an incredibly high suspicion of that being true over there, but it is always great to receive confirmation of it from a British individual. You may be the FIRST British individual on ATS that ever expressed respect for any other country's Rights!! Very refreshing indeed.

I have instructed my daughter in gun safety since she was old enough to be reasoned with. We keep loaded firearms at various places in the home at all times - I feel 100% comfortable with her ability and confidence in safe handling and judgment.

I have many other firearms in gun safes of course but as I over-heard my daughter tell one of her friends who asked "Is it loaded?" upon seeing the shotgun behind the kitchen door. Of course wouldn't be much use if it wasn't.

She also asked me once why I had to leave my firearm in the car when going into the school. I explained the prohibition to her. Her response – “I bet that is why all these crazy people shoot up schools; they know no one there can fight back...”

A 14 year old girl gets it why can't the "smartest man in the room" (BHO).

Originally posted by boncho
People say, "It can't happen in this day and age." "We don't need guns." "Our government would never resort to tyranny against the people." I submit it can happen in this day and age. How do you think Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Mao and other dictators took control of their countries? They were leaders without character and without morals who disarmed the citizenry guaranteeing practically no opposition. The rest is history.

Please provide a source backed by facts which states that Hitler disarmed Germans before taking over Germany.

you make it look like Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin disarmed their citizens by themselves, as if they didnt need an army to do that. Every army is made up of people of the particular country, PEOPLE, not government clones. The whole argument "gun control equals dictatorship" is a big joke.

And if you want to use extremes, than just look at Somalia. Somalia doesent have gun control, never did.

reply to post by ArtooDetoo


How about a first hand account?
blog.beliefnet.com...

Originally posted by ArtooDetoo

Originally posted by boncho
People say, "It can't happen in this day and age." "We don't need guns." "Our government would never resort to tyranny against the people." I submit it can happen in this day and age. How do you think Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Mao and other dictators took control of their countries? They were leaders without character and without morals who disarmed the citizenry guaranteeing practically no opposition. The rest is history.

Please provide a source backed by facts which states that Hitler disarmed Germans before taking over Germany.

you make it look like Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin disarmed their citizens by themselves, as if they didnt need an army to do that. Every army is made up of people of the particular country, PEOPLE, not government clones. The whole argument "gun control equals dictatorship" is a big joke.

And if you want to use extremes, than just look at Somalia. Somalia doesent have gun control, never did.

*

Hitler won over Germany with the popular vote. People wanted Hitler in at the time. It's not about him "taking over Germany by force" as that isn't really what happened.

I think you are kind of blurring the lines. Hitler made it easier for any friend of the government to have guns. That is not where the issue arises. In fact, it is the inequality in the gun laws that must be observed:

Adolph Hitler
proved the Founders right: “Disarming political opponents was a categorical
imperative of the Nazi regime.

Even in an article based on dispelling the myths attributed to Hitler by NRA or pro gun lobbies, they still have to mention the fact that Hitler's gun control was limited to Jews. Anyone pro government was given easier access to guns. Of course, that is kinda the point of this all isn't it? Hitler didn't commence a genocide of his followers, he aimed it at the Jews, who were not allowed to own guns.

With regard to the manufacture of firearms and ammunition, the 1938
law was similar to the 1928 law with the major exception that the 1938 law
banned Jewish persons from the manufacture business.

Among the long list of prohibitions for the Jews during the reign of the Third Reich, of course included a weapons ban:

Jews are prohibited from owning or bearing firearms and ammunition, as well as daggers or swords.

Third Reich propaganda resource.

reply to post by ArtooDetoo

you make it look like Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin disarmed their citizens by themselves, as if they didnt need an army to do that. Every army is made up of people of the particular country, PEOPLE, not government clones. The whole argument "gun control equals dictatorship" is a big joke.

I probably should have clarified that it was opponents of the regimes that were disarmed. To say they disarmed the entirely public is obviously a mistake.

And if you want to use extremes, than just look at Somalia. Somalia doesent have gun control, never did.

Guiding gun control legislation in Somalia is the 1963 Public Order Law17 11

www.gunpolicy.org...

Prior to independence, all issues of ownership, sale and trading of arms in Somaliland were regulated by the Public Order Law, passed by the Mogadishu based government in 1963. In this law, the definition of arms included any type of small arms and ammunition, as well as any item containing explosive substances. This law required all traders of small arms to be registered and all private owners of arms to be authorised by the relevant regional governor.

www.gunpolicy.org...

reply to post by Coratoan

I'm curious as to what your response would be to someone stating that it's simply too easy to kill many people, quickly, with a gun, while a knife, or similar instrument, is not nearly as effective or fast at spreading death.
I hear this argument quite often, but have never seen it addressed directly, or in a well thought out manner.

It depends on the level of violence in the country in question. I am sure you will be able to find a higher level of violence in countries with gun control or less guns in the population than one with less.

To argue that because guns are more effective at distributing violence, so they should not be in public hands, is kind of side stepping the problem of violence in general.

Hypothetically if you had a country with a rate of violence of 1 incident per 10 people, and no guns, as opposed to a country with 1 per 100 people... the negative impact and death rate would be higher for the country with no guns.

Even if you added more fatalities to the country with guns because of the effectiveness of the weapons, you would have to increase the level of violence substantially before seeing the same impact.

And of course, we are completely ignoring the fact that murder rates as have declined over the past few centuries. Violence was indeed a larger problem in society long before guns existed at all. Perhaps it was when they came about that people realized violence was a much larger issue than believed to be.

Steven Pinker charts the decline of violence from Biblical times to the present, and argues that, though it may seem illogical and even obscene, given Iraq and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence.

www.ted.com...