Quote:
Originally Posted by South
People are less likely to commit a crime against someone they know to be armed.
|
People are more likely to shoot at something that they think will kill them. Especially those who have no experience with handling a gun. If we all have guns, or are very likely to have guns, then we all become dangerous to one another, and, consequently, we all become targets. Someone who feels threatened and who has a gun is likely to fire at anything that moves. What they fire at may or may not be threatening. Why take a chance? Blow it away! Had all of the Virginia tech teachers and students been armed there would have been three times the deaths. In such a situation, with everyone armed, it's extremely hard to see who is doing the shooting and who is doing the defending. All you would see is person after person running with a gun. If you're threatened, you're going to kill anyone you see carrying a gun. Why would you think twice if you knew a maniac was running loose? Arguing that more guns equals less shooting deaths makes the huge assumption that people will be organized enough to know who to shoot at.
I don't think guns should be banned, but arming everyone makes disorganized and frenetic situations exponetially more dangerous without massive planning and organization on the part of the defenders. and in such situations planning and organization remain difficult. Think of all the stories about armies accidentally shooting their own soldiers. And that's with massive planning and organization. All it takes is for some confusion to arise for "friendly fire" to occur.