whew, i was afraid i'd killed a good thread by getting all serious and stuff. Ahem <mind trick="jedi">*waves hand* you WILL give me a powerbook</mind trick> hehe sorry couldnt resist...
Originally posted by alex_ant
Hasn't the U.S. seen many, many more very brutal serial killers than either of those countries, though? Not just in absolute terms, because obviously the U.S. is a lot bigger, but even per capita.
Hmm, would like to look into this further... I'll bet the per-capita is very close if Australia isn't higher... i have no idea the population of Australia... this sounds like a job for
http://www.crimelibrary.com... the US's serial killers seem more plentiful, because we as Americans hear about them in great detail when they happen... Not talking spree or mass-killings, i'll get to that in a moment...
I agree that I wouldn't want to break into a gun-owning house if I were a burglar, but is that to say it would be a good idea if all families owned a gun in order to deter against crime? This seems to me to be a bit similar to a nuclear arms race, where country A (the criminal) acquires the bomb (the gun), and country B (the innocent bystander) feels a need to protect itself against this bomb because it doesn't want to get blown up, so it acquires the bomb also. So country A acquires more bombs, and country B sees this and acquires even more bombs than country A, to the point where both countries have more bombs than they could ever possibly need to blow each other up. In other words, instead of everyone owning a gun, wouldn't it be better if nobody did?
This is a hard one to answer... In pure ideology, yes a gun-free society would be better... It's interesting to look at the gun-free countries, from an American point of view, since guns are so much a part of our society... The hunting aspect is always there, and rifles are just as good for blowing a hole in someone as a semi-automatic handgun... It's all in the attitude of the society. As you say below, for better or for worse, guns are here to stay...
I agree that if someone really wants to kill another person they'll find a way, but certainly guns make it easier. You can't kill vast quantities of people very rapidly with knives, for instance, unless you're a ninja or something.
I think a look at Japan would be appropriate... They have always been a rather peaceful society, and they saw their first serial killer not too long ago. But remember the gas attacks on the subway... There's always a way. True guns put the ability to kill more, faster, and are more readily accessible... that's certainly a flaw in the gun-friendly society. I think the fact that we have people wanting to do this type of thing is the real problem... Mental illness aside, we kind of breed a violent rhetoric into people. That's another discussion tho!
I guess gun control sounds to me like taking prescription medication for depression. You can take Prozac and it may alleviate your symptoms, but the underlying cause(s) of those symptoms will still be there. So I guess it's just a question of whether or not we ought to tackle the cause of gun violence or just tackle the gun violence itself (by removing people's access to guns, for example). I would say that #1 would be ideal, but #2 would be easier. (Although that doesn't mean I would choose #2.)
Gotta say, just on a technicality, the type of depression that Prozac works on is indeed cured by the prozac - but not indefinitely. Chemical depression is when the seratonin levels of the brain fluctuate in ways they weren't supposed to. As long as one stays on an SSRI antidepressant, the cause itself is actually removed. Now i'm just nitpicking, but I understand what you're saying... I agree that the easiest course of action is not the best in this case. Unfortunately to get to the root of what makes people violent, we have to look at the fundamental way our society is shaped, and no one wants to do that. I'm not sure if it's even possible to change, anymore. Violence breeds violence, and it's a cycle that's broken less often than a new one is started--
I agree. But along the same lines, the saying "hydrogen bombs don't kill people, people kill people" is also true. Yet, what else are you gonna use a hydrogen bomb for? 
The reason I asked what you thought about Australia and the UK was because it seemed to me that the US would be so much better off if guns were simply not a part of its culture, as is the case in the UK. In that case, nobody, especially criminals, would feel any need to have anything to do with guns, and therefore nobody would feel the need to own guns in order to protect themselves from criminals. I've heard that in the UK, not even police officers carry guns! Because they don't have to. That's just awesome, in my opinion. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like it's possible to consciously move in that direction. (But this is all just my opinion, of course.)
Ever read The Utopia?
I would certainly like to see more countries with less of a violence problem. Kind of makes you wonder why some countries are non-gun and some are pro-gun... Perhaps it's a question of where each country was, in their respective evolutions, when the gun was invented. It would make sense for most countries except Australia, but they don't let people take guns to prison, do they?
gotta rile up the Aussies.
Now that England is decriminalizing pot, I think we could learn a lot from them... hehe...
must say, Alex, you make some good points
pnw
