Originally posted by MPJ
It\'s true that you can\'t draw the conclusion that Switzerlands relative peace is because of the guns, but many here are drawing the conclusion that the US violence is because of guns. I think the Switzerland argument goes a long way towards proving that guns are not the source of the problem.
No I don\'t think it does. Because then you are implying that the problem has one source. Guns might in fact be one serious factor in combination with other ones. Guns might work as a catalyst in violence concering social inequality. Guns might as Ritual was saying further deterioate a situation as people go into an arms-race. There are many options
I\'ve said it before and I\'m sure I\'ll say it again many times in my life... Disarmament of the people is the first step towards totalatarian control. If the people arn\'t armed then there is nothing to stop the government running roughshod. This has been enacted many, many, many times throught history and is still true today. It\'s somewhat interesting to note that the more socialistic/communistic a county the tighter the weapon laws. Also the less democratic a country the tighter the weapon laws.
So. When will you make revolution over social inequality, global injustice, people being held with no trial? What will you be called then? Terrorists? How did all these totalitarian dictators rise to power? Because many people believed in them. I don\'t think there will be any rising of the \"people\" when your rights are restricted. Who are the voice of the people? Who will decide when enough is enough? And who will stand against them? It won\'t be people against politicians or military, it will be brothers against brothers. And your last remarks.. I think you are speculating and might not have a clear view of the criterias of totalitarian/democracy societies. But if you care to expand on that subject you might enlighten me.
In many cases the populations of more restrictive countries are happy with their situation, of course for hundreds/thousands of years the peasants/peons/undesireables were content with their lot in life too, all because of conditioning and putting their content spin on government control.
Restrictive in what meaning? Freedom?
Guns are neither good nor evil, they are simply a tool. I for one will never give up my guns, no matter what the government says. Should handguns become outlawed in Canada (a day that is fast approaching) I will simply acuqire them illegially.
And then you have decided that your opinion of what\'s right is above the law. Whose other opinions should we rever in the same fashion? If I can give you numbers that so and so many kids will be saved every year if guns weren\'t permited, hypthetically. Would you give it up then?
Now the real issue here isn\'t that this Cho nut-burger had gotten guns but that he was able to slip through the cracks as had been mentioned by others. Unfortunatlly that is a price we pay in a free society. You can\'t detain someone for a crime you think they might commit some day. Who would get to be the one who decides \"I think this guy might hurt people some day so we will not allow him to have a life, to participate in society\"? That\'s a hell of a lot of power over someone who hasn\'t done anything.
I agree. The answer is not more control. But I think these kind of things can be prevented or at least be less common if certain institutions worked better. Like education, social services and others.