LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
|
The problem with gun control laws is that only the law abiding obey them - those who are "mad or bad" rarely interest themselves in what the law says; the former will get hold of a gun somewhere, somehow - or indeed, do without and use an alternative means to equally deadly effect, the latter will do the same. A gun merely facilitates the fulfilment of the motive in each case. Banning guns will not stop the mad or bad from fulfilling their motives.
Given that the mad and bad will commit such crimes using guns or whatever else is available to them, the question really is only about how to limit such instances. We can identify the mad and the bad to our heart's content, but this will not limit their access to guns - only limit their access to legal guns. We could try to deal with the bad and the mad we have identified through pre-emptive measures - but this becomes a legal minefield in terms of habeas corpus and human rights.
So really, the only limiting measure ultimately is to provide a deterrent in the form of threat to life and liberty for potential offenders. Now there are already laws against murder, with large threats to liberty upon conviction and in some places threats to life - and this does not deter murder completely. We also have to consider that the mad are not necessarily likely to appreciate the possible consequences of their actions or perhaps more common are likely to realise that their actions will lead to their deaths. And in both cases, the threats here are after the event - not direct deterrents; they save no one.
To completely deter the offence is likely impossible. And so, if we are in the business of limiting the effects of the offence we must provide the means to do so, recognising that the offence will have been largely consumated long before police teams arrive. And this would suggest that providing a means for the common defence which has the capacity to limit the effects of the offence is a good way to go. But of course, this also heightens the dangers - more weapons available does not mean anything more than that there are greater means at the disposal of those who decide to be bad or become mad; there is no guarantee that those carrying the weapons will not at some point fall into either of these categories. And I would suggest that in this setting, with young people and all the developmental anguishes they might experience as they mature into adulthood, it would not be wise to provide students with means of limiting the offence which are also the means of commission of the offence.
So we come to the idea of using so called non-lethal weapons - a misnomer in that they are actually merely less-lethal. On the face of it, providing students with such means of limiting offences would be a good idea. However again we must take into account the above factors precluding the introduction of firearms, and we must consider that such weapons are very likely to be misused and indeed abused in the environment of younger people who may find their application to be amusing in some way - check out YouTube for instance.
There are no easy answers for this one.
E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|
Student group wants more guns on campus - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread