Gun Control

[Arbiter]

There's been a lot in the news about gun control lately so I thought I'd have a go at it.

First of all, note that I am pretty much the last person who would say "make guns illegal" so that the public can't defend themselves but criminals still have guns. That's a Zuma strategy, not mine.

However...

Consider a first world country with the death penalty and an effective criminal justice and policing system.

You are constitutionally allowed to defend your life at any cost. Whatsoever.

And if a robber has a gun, you should also have a gun to meet his force.

So the obvious thing is to ban guns. The problem with that is obvious; people who use guns for bad purposes don't care much about the law. But the death penalty is a strong deterrent, in some countries.

Would banning guns completely, with the death penalty as punishment for possession of a gun, be effective in lowering the rate of murder in a country like that?

Remember, we are not talking about South Africa here.

And an initiative would be launched by the police force to round up all firearms in the country and destroy them.

Ignoring all other details like gun manufacturers and their business, would such a system be effective in curbing murder rates?

[dj_jyno]

No. In quite a few cases it was an unlicensed firearm that was used to cause the carnage. If you take away the right of normal law-abiding citizens to own guns, you actually put more power into the hands of the criminals (as you have mentioned, they don't really care about laws). The police would also never be able to round up all the illegal firearms - a few will slip past under the radar.

Second point: some of the worst attacks imaginable have occurred in gun-free zones.

I don't like firearms, but I do accept that other people have a right to own whatever they feel they need to have to protect themselves and their families. The house robbers that were shot is a case in point. http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=3318331

[Arbiter]

Of course, most cases involve unlicensed fire arms, just like most dog attacks involved unregistered dogs.

But consider the death penalty. It's primary purpose is not the eviction of "bad" memebers of society, but to be a deterrent for those who would think to commit a crime.

If you attach the death penalty to firearm possession, it would certainly deter more people.

In the long run, it would lower murder rates. Cut the supply of firearms completely by stopping imports and production.

Further, you start a massive scale destruction policy on all firearms in the country.

This would only work if you start with the unlicensed ones, which would make it a lot more difficult, but I still think its a valid policy that could work and would certainly provide a major benefit to the country.

[Glock26]

The 3rd thread on this in a week. *Sigh*
Cue Grayston stage left. Far left.

LOL.

G26

[Arbiter]

With a nick like yours, glock, I can only imagine where you stand.

But honestly, I am not in favour of what is traditionally accepted as "gun control" because its a limpdick policy that serves only to disarm the public without changing the incentives to crooks.

On the other hand, I was thinking a more aggressive approach to disarmament, coupled with policies that would focus on locating unlicensed firearms first, might work better. The ideal would of course be to drastically increase the effort in the search for unlicensed guns and to stop gun production instantly.

Especially since the very existence of a gun hangs between defense and being grossly unconstitutional in every country in the world.

[marine1]

Originally Posted by Glock26

The 3rd thread on this in a week. *Sigh*
Cue Grayston stage left. Far left.

LOL.

G26