On 2009-Feb-01, at 20:59, Charles Bennett wrote: > WTF? ZERO mass murders in Utah schools? NO parents or teachers > run amok? > > Quick! Someone tell Obama! He PROMISED that he would look at > programs that work and get rid of one's that do not work. > > Chicago's guns laws would not be a bad place to start. > > All those guns all over the place. Teachers, parents and anyone > else legally allowed to carry can carry on school property. > > Should be blood running in the streets and gun battles on every > school ground, no? After all we know it is the GUN not the person > that is responsible. > We know that an otherwise stable, law abiding person that can pass a > gun safety course and and FBI background check will start a gun > fight at the drop of a hat > ON A SCHOOL GROUND, for sure, at the slightest provocation. > > OTOH, Utah already has a working solution that doesn't require bad > guys to obey the law. Think about that for a sec. "bad guy does > not have to obey law for this to work.." > > I guess it's a mormon thing. That is the only possible > explanation. They are religious nut jobs that carry guns all the > time and the bad guys are afraid of them knocking on their door.
OK, generally speaking: A. good people don't shoot other innocent people. B. bad people use whatever they can get their hands on, be it a screwdriver, a knife, a gun, or whatever. C. good people with guns can defend themselves against bad people with guns. Situation A seems no problem. Situation B is a problem as the bad people don't tend to obey laws. Situation C will leave someone's guts on the pavement--maybe the good guys', maybe the bad, maybe both. Situation B and C are not a big problem so long as most people are good. As the proportion of bad people escalates, the whole neighborhood, town, city, state, or country, eventually goes down the pan (see South Africa). Your argument above kinda looks like you're saying that laws don't make people good. I don't think that's what you're saying, though, so maybe we need to focus on that. Maybe, it is that laws don't make bad people good. The laws against homicide don't prevent someone genuinely bad from committing a murder using whatever weapon is available (a kitchen knife). What might prevent a murder is that the bad person may fear for their own life. A car may be fitted with a flamethrower to protect against armed carjacking and rape of the occupant (see South Africa). A flamethrower is a powerful deterrent. Deterrents can come in many forms. In the absence of guns--say people are too poor to own any--a good old fashioned lynching by a flash mob can deter the casual thief. That bit of money can look tempting but is it worth it if in 5 minutes you might be tied up, doused in petrol, and set alight with a car tyre round your neck for extra combustion? (again, see South Africa). I keep seeming to come back to South Africa, so maybe there's something in that. It is a f*****d up country and the big problem is how to keep crime at bay. It is a problem of how to make "bad" people good (let's for the sake of argument agree that "bad" people may be "bad" at least partly because they have not had decent chances in life). So here's a question: to what extend does the physical number of guns available in a society affect or influence the rate at which bad people become good, or otherwise good people turn bad? So in South Africa, is gun availability a problem? It might also help to talk about South Africa as we are all on the outside looking in, rather than America where it may be harder to be objective. Stefano _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
