Unless your country regulates the sale of gasoline, fertilizer, and other high energy density fuel sources more extensively then any proposal related to firearms, then the public order basis has little to no merit. Events have shown that even in highly populated undefended environments lone gunmen have not succeeded in causing _that_ high of body counts, destruction of property, or disorder versus improvised explosives like the Oklahoma City bombing.
A Ryder truck full of fertilizer setup to operate as a bomb claimed more lives then all the high profile school shootings in the US to date that I'm aware of, and injured vastly more. A guy in Japan with a knife actually has a kill count similar to that associated with school shootings, which combined with 9/11 being conducted with box cutters also speaks to basic edged weapons not necessarily being on the weaker end of causing such events.
On the other side of the equation a high availability of firearms has been shown to have a strong potential for preventing violence in the associated communities. There is a ongoing debate on how pronounced this effect is, but no one looking at the data can fail to acknowledge that at worst there is no negative effect associated with high availability of firearms.
And really this isn't hard to understand. Criminals often enough are not entirely lacking in the physical strength department, unlike their victims. So they have little to no need for precision machined pieces of metal to overpower or kill their victims. A 100lb woman, the elderly, or otherwise however are usually not in a position to break out the Kung Fu that will let them overpower a 200-lb twenty something man. Firearms allow that physical difference to be neutralized with relatively minimal training.
Also supposing a person has been indentified as having mental issues that make themselves a danger to themselves or those around them, how is it at all sane to attempt to protect society from them in a way that doesn't involve an Asylum? Is policy to simply operate on the presumption that there is no one smaller, weaker, or able to be caught unawares by even something as simple as a rock or stick to the back of the head?
As for the Police while they are an important institution, in the US they have been ruled to have no obligation to protect anyone from anything. I expect most modern countries are similar as it's almost impossible to get response times low enough that a criminal would not literally be able to let a victim complete a 911 phone call, kill them, walk over to a nearby sit down restraunt and have their food ordered and delivered to their table before the police arrive.
Thinking about it gang members under the age of 18 would tend to fall under similar issues. If you're county is like most countries there is a large black market based economy focussed on drug trafficing then the infrastructure for smuggling in various goods not only exists but is probably well established given demand for illegal drugs tends to be rather significant.
As such even if the country itself is able to account for every gun produced locally or legally imported and render safe in a sense that's only possible in boolean logic, and has no bearing on real life you have an issue. You are assuming organizations that tend to have ties with Black Market distributors cannot use their Black Market distributors to smuggle in goods they wish to purchase. In reality they do tend to have other alternatives, but there is something to be said for not having your local gangs favoring Russian and Chinese military surplus, which would be the larger dynamic if the gangs decided they needed guns other alternatives were successfully locked down.
I'm at a loss why people would prefer they have proper military hardware instead of something like a Hi-Power.
Last edited by FOG3; 26 Feb 12, at 23:16.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)