> > Actually there's a huge physchological gap between shooting > somebody > > and thrusting a sword (or a knife for that matter) into somebody's > > flesh. Same thing with nearly any strength-based weapon - > you either > > have it in you to take that kind of direct action or you don't. > > > > Many of the people that end up using a gun to kill would > never be able > > to smash a skull with a baseball bat or drive a knife into > someone's > > liver. A gun abstracts the action and distances the user from the > > effect. > > Possibly, possibly not. I mentioned before that I'd noticed > the gory coverage of killings in UK papers. We all know that > guns aren't as easy to come by in England, but people still > seem to die. From those articles I've been reading, they > often seem to involve bladed weapons or, more commonly, > bludgeoning weapons like hammers and bats. And from the quite > sanguine details in the papers, I can tell quite plainly that > the acts were quite gruesome and intentional. No "hammer > cleaning" accidents. (And yes, using the word "sanguine" was a pun.) > > I've talked about this with a friend of mine who speaks > Japanese and reads the Japanese papers. Again, no guns but > plenty of killing. Talking to him, where we would have a > headline about someone being shot, they just replace the word > and action "shot" with "strangled". And I don't think I've > ever heard about accidental strangulation while hand washing. > > It appears that when people decide to kill, they are going to > kill with or without a gun. That and IIRC, the majority of > homicides are among closely related people and after that > serious grudge is over, the likelyhood of another killing goes down.
I agree totally. But the threshold needed is definitely higher. With a gin you hold it, finger on trigger, and point it at your enemy (who ever that may be at the time). The only action required is squeezing the trigger (unless you have an old-fashioned gun with a hammer, then you have to pull that bak as well). In effect, consider people's lack of aim, your only option is deadly force. With a bat/sword/knife/hammer/etc you must take direct, violent action. There are definately people that can do that, but not as many that could take deadly action with a gun. Also violent crime in general in gun-controlled countries is way below the US average. Guns deaths are, of course, vastly lower (on the order of, for example, 11,000 a year in the US and 65 in Japan - and that's just homocides, not accidental shootings). I agree that other forms of violent crimes are liable to rise in gun controlled countries - but they still don't approach the levels in the US. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
