Help
luke warm, on Mar 12 2009, 11:52 AM, said:
mikeh, on Mar 12 2009, 11:13 AM, said:
In British Columbia, we are currently witnessing a gang war, with scores of shootings and dozens of dead~~
imagine for a second that in BC there was a total ban on guns, except for police and military... do you think these gang members would still own guns? if someone is already a criminal, do you think a law banning guns will make them less likely to add another criminal act (owning an illegal weapon) to their sheet?
but the issue runs deeper than that, at least in america
It depends.
We know that the war on drugs has enabled criminals to prosper without (it appears) doing much to reduce illicit drug use. We know that prohibition in the US didn't end alcohol consumption.
Yet analogies between consumption of banned substances and use of banned firearms are, in my view, arguably flawed. Few amongst us yearn to have a gun in the same manner as we may want a drink or a high. Guns are not inherently addictive, nor does their use (consumption) generally give pleasure, to the non-psychopathic amongst us. Even the thugs who use them in criminal activities often have them primarily as threats or as safeguards against competitors who are themselves armed. We can deduce this in part from the fact that gangs rarely get into shootouts with police or civilians... most victims of gang violence are themselves gang members.
The decision to consume crack or heroin is often driven by physiological addiction, or for non addicts by impulse.
The decision to use a firearm is also, in many cases, driven by impulse.
But the decision to acquire a firearm or to have it in one's car is more of a deliberate choice. And that is where deterrence comes into play.
A gang member, armed with a gun, who feels he has been 'disrespected' may well pull his weapon and attack the person who he perceives has dissed him, on impluse. But his decision to go to the club with the weapon, or to get the weapon in the first place, was likely more deliberate.
If this is true, then it seems to me that a VERY draconian policy, strictly enforced, to the effect that the carrying of a handgun WILL result in very severe penalties, would greatly impact the chances of the gang member carrying a weapon as a matter of course would be greatly reduced. I am generally against severe penal sanctions for most crimes.. I think that the approach used in the US, in many cases, is barbaric and inhumane. But there are some crimes for which I think the usual punishments are woefully inadequate. There are crimes for which I believe deterrence will often work, and crimes where it doesn't.
Deterrence doesn't work to deter a crack addict buying crack, or stealing a car to pay for his habit. But crimes that require deliberative action are more susceptible to rational analysis... not that this is always the determinative factor, as advances in psychology tell us. To me, if one KNOWS that being found with a handgun or automatic weapon will ALWAYS bring home real punishment, there is an excellent chance that many of the potential users will think twice.
And the less common it becomes to carry a gun in public, the less need there will be to do so.
Will this eliminate all gun violence? Of course not.
But I grew up in a country and in a time in which the police were, generally, not equipped with firearms... only a select few were even allowed to use them, and I think that even they had to sign them out if they received a call required armed response.
When criminals don't have guns, police don't either... and when no-one has guns, no-one needs them.
