myk
Super Charge
Posts: 13019
Registered: 04-02 |
Dr. Zin said:
Yeah, they could do that, but it would be nigh suicide for them then. A perfect example of this is what is going on in Iraq now. If some authoritarian sect tried to take control they would have a big insurgency on their hands.
I doubt it would be a good idea to turn any country or the world into something like Iraq is now (i.e., violent anarchy, or anomie). My point is that it's not a question of arming the populance but more so of a balance of (fire)power, and if you do that in an environment with a heavy weapon count (including many weapons as well as powerful ones), you'll get more gun deaths due to the availability, but also a disparity based on wealth, because the poor can't maintain a good arsenal. The authorities will have the best and heaviest armament, and will augument their power to counterbalance the larger or growing social supply of weaponry, and the wealthy (or otherwise powerful) will have better arms than the poor. You would also likely have a volatile situation where civil war is more likely, unless by some means the armed pupulations and groups can check each other off. And that is easier if they all have weaker weapons, in general (both authorities and civilians), than if most people are "loaded".
If weapon power and availablity just keeps escalating, you'll need a shotgun instead of a pistol to "feel safe" against the assault weapons the authorities or whoever would be using instead of more conventional rifles, for example. I'd rather feel safe just needing Tae Kwon Do or something like that agains the cops' billy sticks, if it comes to any violence for whatever reason. If they come after me and I feel like ressisting at least we'll wreck less of my house and have less chances of ending up dead on both sides.
Anyway, the example of the old woman kind of illustrates what happens when there's distrust, social tension, and an apparent need for privately owned guns to feel safe.
I'm not even arguing against civilian gun possession; my point is that arms availablity in general produces gun inflicted death, and that becomes critical when populations are heavily armed, and when gun possession is unequal (most likely if there are wide disparities of wealth). I'd say you are right in thinking that too much firepower for the authorities is dangerous for civilians, but simply arming civilians more heavily won't solve anything, most likely on the contrary. It'll be kind of like and "inflation" of armament, where groups will tend to arm themselves more because others did so first. Plus the authorities will simply get paranoid over groups of civilians advocating armament against authority.
|
11-23-06 01:11 
