Does Increasing Terrorism Justify Loosening or Tightening Gun Control? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Does Increasing Terrorism Justify Loosening or Tightening Gun Control?

1. Increasing terrorism or violent crime justifies loosening gun control
6
38%
2. Increasing terrorism or violent crime justifies tightening gun control
6
38%
3. Other
4
25%
#14994728
I think one response to the shock of terrorist outrages when they happen is to call for fewer people to possess a means of self defence presumably under the assumption that fewer weapons will mean fewer violent outrages. However those intent on committing acts of violence do not generally have much inclination to obey legal requirements while those they target, as law abiding people, generally do, so weapon controls actually adversely affect the law abiding to the relative advantage of the law defying. Moreover if ever there was a legitimate use of a weapon it would be in self-defence and it is exactly under circumstances of violent crime and terrorism that a means of self-defence has utility.
#14994745
SolarCross wrote:I think one response to the shock of terrorist outrages when they happen is to call for fewer people to possess a means of self defence presumably under the assumption that fewer weapons will mean fewer violent outrages.


This is not an assumption. It is a fact. US shooting deaths 40000 per annum. Terrorist attacks involving shootings in the UK nil that I can think of. Halt the number of firearms in society and regulate the firearms you have and you restrict the options terrorists have to attack you resulting in less effective casualty figures. Not to mention you also stop normal conflicts becoming deadly too.
#14994746
B0ycey wrote:This is not an assumption. It is a fact. US shooting deaths 40000 per annum. Terrorist attacks involving shootings in the UK nil that I can think of. Halt the number of firearms in society and regulate the firearms you have and you restrict the options terrorists have to attack you resulting in less effective casualty figures. Not to mention you also stop normal conflicts becoming deadly too.

The fact is you don't restrict them that much because they can and do kill people by means of acid, diy bombs, axes, cars and so on. And it depends how bad things get, what if you had the equivalent of al shabab or boko haram running large chunks of major cities?
#14994751
B0ycey wrote:Firearms kill. US death figures when comparing terrorism and general shootings there pales in insignificance. Thats the point. What use is a pyrrhic victory in keeping liberal guns laws to stop terrorism when 'A' that doesn't work as it gives the terrorists weapons and 'B' creates more deaths per annum because society has access to guns.


There comes a point where the terrorism is on such a scale that law enforcement cannot or will not tackle it. If you had to live in Somalia or Compton LA would you really want to be denied the option of legally defending yourself while most people just didn't give a fuck? I am not against gun control per se but for it to work you need a broad consensus amongst the populace to defer to law enforcement and not go on crazy killing sprees, if that consensus breaks down for whatever reason be it demographic change or whatever then all bets are off. This is what I am getting at really. A gun is like an umbrella you don't need it when it is sunny you need it when it rains.
Last edited by SolarCross on 18 Mar 2019 22:01, edited 1 time in total.
#14994753
This says it all...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/many-people-killed-terrorist-attacks-uk/amp/

Fear of death from limited random attacks is irrational. Do you fear being in a car when driving as you have a greater chance of death by driving than being a victim in a terrorism attack? Nonetheless a society full of guns is definately a factor. Did I mention 40000 deaths in shootings per annum in America?
#14994756
B0ycey wrote:This says it all...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/many-people-killed-terrorist-attacks-uk/amp/

Fear of death from limited random attacks is irrational. Do you fear being in a car when driving as you have a greater chance of death by driving than being a victim in a terrorism attack? Nonetheless a society full of guns is definately a factor. Did I mention 40000 deaths in shootings per annum in America?


You are being too eurocentric my question is more general than that. You are assuming a situation where law enforcement is broadly in control of everything and virtually everyone is willing to defer to them as is the case in Europe for the past century, but I am specifically asking about a situation when they don't have control of everything and large sections of the populace live in open defiance of them. Somalia, Israel, Chechnya etc. Even the US is too tame an example.
#14994758
SolarCross wrote:You are being too eurocentric my question is more general than that. You are assuming a situation where law enforcement is broadly in control of everything as is the case in Europe for the past century, but I am specifically asking about a situation when they don't have control of everything. Somalia, Israel, Chechnya etc. Even the US is too tame an example.


My answer remains the same. Flood society with guns and your have more deaths. Restrict guns and you have less deaths. Although I will point out the thread is about terrorism and not tinpot dictatorships, Zion fuckwits or independent movements.
#14994760
B0ycey wrote:My answer remains the same. Flood society with guns and your have more deaths. Restrict guns and you have less deaths. Although I will point out the thread is about terrorism and not tinpot dictatorships, Zion fuckwits or independent movements.


You are still assuming a situation where the authorities can restrict access to guns equally across the whole populace.
#14994763
The thread title also assumes that government has the capability to restrict guns.

It would need such capability if it wanted to restrict gun ownership after a terrorist attack. This thread is about whether or not that is morally justifiable.

By specifically looking at situations where governments cannot restrict gun ownership, you are shifting the goalposts.
#14994764
SolarCross wrote:You are still assuming a situation where the authorities can restrict access to guns equally across the whole populace.


I am not assuming anything. I haven't addressed it as it isn't the topic. Although as I have already said, you restrict the guns within the populous (measures any government can take regardless of situation if there is a will) and you also reduce death rates.
#14994765
Pants-of-dog wrote:The thread title also assumes that government has the capability to restrict guns.

It would need such capability if it wanted to restrict gun ownership after a terrorist attack. This thread is about whether or not that is morally justifiable.

By specifically looking at situations where governments cannot restrict gun ownership, you are shifting the goalposts.


There is a difference between forming a legal requirement and obtaining compliance. Some people have a law abiding inclination and from them compliance comes easy but others will have a law defying inclination who will, if they have sufficient numbers, easily defy compliance. Under those circumstances then law abiding people are relatively disadvantaged compared with law defying people. This was made clear in the OP and subsequent posts of mine.
#14994770
SolarCross wrote:There is a difference between forming a legal requirement and obtaining compliance. Some people have a law abiding inclination and from them compliance comes easy but others will have a law defying inclination who will, if they have sufficient numbers, easily defy compliance. Under those circumstances then law abiding people are relatively disadvantaged compared with law defying people. This was made clear in the OP and subsequent posts of mine.


Does increasing terrorism justify gun control in one case and not the other?
#14994784
SolarCross wrote:Are you asking if gun control is justified under situations where law enforcement enjoys broad deference from the whole population? I am not 100% sure on the cases to which you are referring.


You originally asked if increasing terrorism justifies tightening gun controls in places where the is rule of law and government could restrict gun ownership, like New Zealand.

Then you asked if increasing terrorism justifies tightening gun controls in places where there is no rule of law and government could not restrict gun ownership, like some warlord run region of Somalia or Afghanistan.

Is it justified in one place and not the other?
#14994785
Pants-of-dog wrote:You originally asked if increasing terrorism justifies tightening gun controls in places where the is rule of law and government could restrict gun ownership, like New Zealand.

Then you asked if increasing terrorism justifies tightening gun controls in places where there is no rule of law and government could not restrict gun ownership, like some warlord run region of Somalia or Afghanistan.

Is it justified in one place and not the other?

Well in New Zealand currently it probably is justifiable although I wasn't addressing countries like NZ in the OP actually.
Trump, Oh my god !

Yes. The little boys can shine shoes and the lit[…]

Trump and Russiagate

Trump is guilty, however, of Obstruction of Justi[…]

EU-BREXIT

Corbyn repeats same statement on Brexit position[…]

ISideWith: https://www.isidewith.com/profile/36111[…]