The solution to 1984 is 1973!
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
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.
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.
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.
B0ycey wrote:This says it all...
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?
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.
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.
SolarCross wrote:You are still assuming a situation where the authorities can restrict access to guns equally across the whole populace.
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.
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.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Does increasing terrorism justify gun control in one case and not the other?
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.
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?
@Reichstraten Did you know that, in most wester[…]
@Atlantis I compared you to Rees-Mogg in the se[…]
They believe in unfettered capitalism and in the […]
Who would've thought? Maybe everyone who underst[…]