Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Alston, Cumbria
A lot of counter arguments seem to be "It wouldn't solve the problem".
That's immaterial. It would HELP the problem. That's all the justification you need.
Maniac 1 lives in the US. He visits 4 different gun shops with neon lights saying "Special offer on rifles today only!" and buys 4 guns with cash. He then loads up and starts blazing away. Kills a dozen people.
Maniac 2 lives in the UK. He doesn't know any serious criminals, so cannot buy a gun inside an hour. He still wants to kill lots of people though, so he goes and learns how to make an effective bomb including timer (which takes days and requires internet searches that can be flagged), buys the ingredients to make a bomb and waits for them to arrive (takes days, purchasing pattern can be flagged), and then builds the bomb (takes a while). All the time he runs the risk of someone noticing what he's doing, asking awkward questions and stumbling onto his workshop. He may also change his mind, seek help, or give up because he can't get the bomb to work. He manages it though, and puts it on a bus, which kills a dozen people.
Maniac 3 lives in Australia, and wants to kill people. So he goes and buys a Sword. He walks up to someone in the street and stabs them. He kills a couple of others before being tackled to the ground and disarmed. He kills 3 people.
All 3 maniacs kill people. All 3 find a weapon to use, and use it successfully. The difference is that in one of the above countries, no-one has a chance to stop him before the death toll becomes catastrophic. Sure, they all use deadly weapons, but only one person is able to buy weapons that work at range, can kill dozens of people in seconds, and are easy to purchase. Why does that not seem like a good idea to me?
90% of people think they are above average.
Statistically Improbable. Psychologically Inevitable.