Quite a difficult topic because it is an ethic, a social and a political problem.
living in a country where gun ownership and -carry is restricted and the rate of gun-owners is quite low I see there are basically two concepts:
1. banning guns so that criminals have more difficulties to get one and shooting around if cought (only makes sense if it is not planned to use a gun while committing the crime - burglars, thieves etc. someone who would like to commit murder would get a gun on the black market that grew since the opening of the "iron curtain" in 1989).
2. Allowing guns to make crimes more risky for criminals, as someone might stop them because he is armed in the same or superior way.
There are several " in betweens" - in Switzerland nearly every male has his assoult-rifle in the shelf, because the army`s concept is based on gathering the soldiers - and every male Swiss is one in case of defence - decentralized. Very few crimes are committed with these guns.
Canada has nearly the same per-capita rate of guns as the US - but less people are murdered with guns (by far). Why? (I know he may be a persona non grata to be b´mentioned here but maybe Michael Moore`s thesis is not all wrong: People are scared, they have fear and reduce the fear by carrying guns. This fear could be propelled by the way news are made up (Moore found some significant differences between US and Canadian news). Do not know if there is something about it, but I think some things are obvious.
A weapon gives power (to protect oneself and others, to force someone else to follow ones wishes, to rule, to intimidate, to kill or wound).
It makes a weak fellow equal to a strong one if only he is able to pull the trigger.
In a rural environment guns are things of more or less daily business (even in Germany - for hunting and for self protection - you have to apply and visit courses), people are used to handle them in a responsible way because they are necessary.
In a city a gun would normally not be necessary. Enough people are there to help and there is nothing to hunt.
BUT: people in cities do seldom help each other any more, because the do not know each other very well and are more egoistic. And a growing crime rate gives them fear - they know criminals might use guns.
I guess the problem is modern society where a lot of people are no longer used to act responsible for others.
A critical situation might calm down if one of the contrahents shows he is armed and therefor superior. It might escalate if the contrahents are willing to use what they have to "win". No points to make here, depends on the persons.
I like knives like the khukuries, because they are handmade and beautiful and do what they were made for. I do not like very much Kraton handled machinded ones - so I guess it is not the "knife" I like, but its beauty. I do not like guns nor do I own one. There is no need for me to have one I think. I can use one and know how to operate several types. I like my bows and arrows (which are weapons too) because they give me pleasure and recreation (sport).
Man was meant to protect the family and to hunt. Maybe that is why weapons fascinate so many.
However. In Germany more murders are committed by using pantyhoses to strangulate the victim. They did not yet think to ban pantyhoses.
Concept No. 1 worked for a good time in Germany now, as the flow of weapons was controllable. If it no longer is controllable, concept No. 1 is nonsense. In the US it is no longer controllabe because guns are so widespread - so concept No. 2 is a one-way road but maybe one that has to be taken in a globalized, less controllable world.
huh - longish post, sorry.
Andreas
living in a country where gun ownership and -carry is restricted and the rate of gun-owners is quite low I see there are basically two concepts:
1. banning guns so that criminals have more difficulties to get one and shooting around if cought (only makes sense if it is not planned to use a gun while committing the crime - burglars, thieves etc. someone who would like to commit murder would get a gun on the black market that grew since the opening of the "iron curtain" in 1989).
2. Allowing guns to make crimes more risky for criminals, as someone might stop them because he is armed in the same or superior way.
There are several " in betweens" - in Switzerland nearly every male has his assoult-rifle in the shelf, because the army`s concept is based on gathering the soldiers - and every male Swiss is one in case of defence - decentralized. Very few crimes are committed with these guns.
Canada has nearly the same per-capita rate of guns as the US - but less people are murdered with guns (by far). Why? (I know he may be a persona non grata to be b´mentioned here but maybe Michael Moore`s thesis is not all wrong: People are scared, they have fear and reduce the fear by carrying guns. This fear could be propelled by the way news are made up (Moore found some significant differences between US and Canadian news). Do not know if there is something about it, but I think some things are obvious.
A weapon gives power (to protect oneself and others, to force someone else to follow ones wishes, to rule, to intimidate, to kill or wound).
It makes a weak fellow equal to a strong one if only he is able to pull the trigger.
In a rural environment guns are things of more or less daily business (even in Germany - for hunting and for self protection - you have to apply and visit courses), people are used to handle them in a responsible way because they are necessary.
In a city a gun would normally not be necessary. Enough people are there to help and there is nothing to hunt.
BUT: people in cities do seldom help each other any more, because the do not know each other very well and are more egoistic. And a growing crime rate gives them fear - they know criminals might use guns.
I guess the problem is modern society where a lot of people are no longer used to act responsible for others.
A critical situation might calm down if one of the contrahents shows he is armed and therefor superior. It might escalate if the contrahents are willing to use what they have to "win". No points to make here, depends on the persons.
I like knives like the khukuries, because they are handmade and beautiful and do what they were made for. I do not like very much Kraton handled machinded ones - so I guess it is not the "knife" I like, but its beauty. I do not like guns nor do I own one. There is no need for me to have one I think. I can use one and know how to operate several types. I like my bows and arrows (which are weapons too) because they give me pleasure and recreation (sport).
Man was meant to protect the family and to hunt. Maybe that is why weapons fascinate so many.
However. In Germany more murders are committed by using pantyhoses to strangulate the victim. They did not yet think to ban pantyhoses.
Concept No. 1 worked for a good time in Germany now, as the flow of weapons was controllable. If it no longer is controllable, concept No. 1 is nonsense. In the US it is no longer controllabe because guns are so widespread - so concept No. 2 is a one-way road but maybe one that has to be taken in a globalized, less controllable world.
huh - longish post, sorry.
Andreas