[Fooboy]

Did anyone see 20/20 tonight? They aired a segment called "Lies, Myths, and downright stupidity". GUN control came up. My wife and I were shocked to see a national broadcast that was anti-gun control. It was very revealing.

Apparently they have broadcast this segment several times. I found an older one on YouTube - 90% of the material was the same.

Only 5:00 minutes long. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR9RN_iSKtg

FYI ... I am totally for responsible citizens owning / carrying guns and against crazies having guns.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Fooboy FYI ... I am totally for responsible citizens owning / carrying guns and against crazies having guns.

And how do you plan to sort out the "responsible citizens" from the crazies?

[psmith2.0]

Well I'm a responsible citizen, and not a crazy. I work, pay taxes, don't commit crimes, I obey the law, don't look to get into trouble, don't have a police record, have never been to jail, don't hurt others, haven't raped anyone, don't deal drugs or run with the criminal element, haven't shot up a schoolhouse, etc.. I don't hear voices, I don't have homicidal or suicidal thoughts, I don't torture animals, I'm not a serial killer or pedophile, etc.

No reason on earth for any reasonable person to fear me owning a gun. I would never dream of using it except in self defense, inside my own home, if I truly believed my life was in danger. It's not like I carry the thing around in my waistband, looking for trouble, brandishing it to people in a threatening manner or pulling it out in bars like irresponsible lowlifes tend to do. Those are the idiots you hear about on the news every day...stupid shootings, guys shooting each other over a card game, random drive-bys, using it to "guard your meth lab", shooting someone because they stepped on your shoe, was eyeing your woman a bit too hard or came into your neighborhood wearing the wrong color.



There's a huge difference between stupid shit like that and someone like me (along with thousands of other law-abiding, responsible gun owners).

So I would imagine there are ways - records, backgrounds, police files, personal references, people vouching for you, military records, school records, interviews with friends, family, neighbors and employers, etc. - for people to determine such things.

"How do they sort out the responsible citizens from the crazies"? I'm not aware of every specific tactic or approach, but I'd say the above would have to be a good, logical start?

Bad, crazy and irresponsible people tend to leave a paper trail (in the form of criminal records and whatnot) and a lot of noticeable negative shit in their wake that would count as strikes against them in these things.

[billybobsky]

Steisel (sp?) is a strict libertarian. His politics come up far too often in his 'reports' for my taste...

[rasmits]

Originally Posted by billybobsky Steisel (sp?)

Stossel.

I know this thread isn't a discussion about gun control laws, so I won't get into my personal opinion on that matter. I don't really have a problem with the story itself, but it is rather surprising to see 20/20 air this story during a segment called, "Lies, Myths and Downright Stupidity".

[joveblue]

This doesn't surprise me in the least. Considering that gun control laws are difficult to pass in the states, and most commercial media has a right-wing slant, it stands to reason that at least someone in the media is anti-gun control...

They do make one good point though, gun control laws don't go far enough. The second amendment should be repealed. This isn't the 1700s any more.

Paul, just because you're a responsible citizen, doesn't mean it's in your interest to have your "right to bear arms" enforced. Wouldn't you rather the people attacking you or breaking into your house didn't have access to guns? Wouldn't you feel safer knowing that all the crazies and criminals out there couldn't get guns (which are readily available on the black market despite gun control measures)? If you're worried about defending yourself, just get some capsicum spray or something.

[psmith2.0]

The bad guys, and those doing evil, will always find a way. Making it a law, and putting it on the books probably doesn't mean much to someone who's already walking that path.

If - and only if - it could truly be guaranteed that bad people could not get their hands on guns, then, and only then, would I feel okay not having mine. But I'm not interested in meeting up with some fuckface in my living room at 3:00am with a can of hair spray or golf club if he's got a .38 (or worse).

Sorry if that makes me a caveman. Oooga, ooga boooga.

And I'm not some Second Amendment crusader or gun freak either...let's be very clear about that. Don't link me to that, or think that's my underlying drive (that I'm making a "statement", or that I get all chesty and teary-eyed about the Second Amendment and Charlton Heston). My reasons and beliefs are selfish and inward, and concern me and my property. I don't really care about all that other stuff. I don't belong to any firearm-related clubs or organizations, I don't go to gun shows and I don't have a subscription to 9mm Jackoff Monthly. I've gone over this before...

Your post answers/defeats itself: yeah, I'd love to know that bad people and "crazies" couldn't get guns. But then you turn right around and mention the black market and all, acknowledging that "it's gonna happen anyway".

So yeah, what I'd like (and would dream about in a "perfect world") is a few steps from reality, which I prefer dealing/living in. We can wish all we want that "bad guys couldn't get their hands on firearms and do horrible things with them", but that's a time-wasting load of fairy tale bullcrap, and not connected to reality. We may as well discuss unicorns.



But I'm going to try not to get sucked into another one of these threads...I've done it before and have said everything I have to say on the matter.

[Banana]

Gun control, psshh!

What I really want to know is where can I exercise my Second Amendment and buy me a nuclear missile?

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Your post answers/defeats itself: yeah, I'd love to know that bad people and "crazies" couldn't get guns. But then you turn right around and mention the black market and all, acknowledging that "it's gonna happen anyway".

The thing about the black market for guns is that:
a) It would be hard to get guns on the black market if guns weren't in wide circulation
b) It would be easier to seize from people who aren't supposed to have them if the police knew that no-one (with a few exceptions) is supposed to have guns.

My 2 cents.

While I understand your position I think the second amendment is ridiculously outdated, and detrimental to society.

[ast3r3x]

Originally Posted by joveblue The thing about the black market for guns is that: a) It would be hard to get guns on the black market if guns weren't in wide circulation b) It would be easier to seize from people who aren't supposed to have them if the police knew that no-one (with a few exceptions) is supposed to have guns. My 2 cents. While I understand your position I think the second amendment is ridiculously outdated, and detrimental to society.

Really, you think it would be hard to get a gun? As of right now, our country is flooded with guns. If you turned off the metaphorical gun switch right now, how long do you think we'd still have relatively easy access to guns? Perhaps it will be as difficult as it is to get drugs

From my understanding England is starting to have a problem with some criminals having a gun and them being under armed to combat it. Maybe it's true or not, but I support peoples right to own and be properly trained in firearm use. I think this is on a limited scale, but perhaps someone could clarify a little bit more.

On a side note, I turn 21 today, and I am not going to rush out and get a pistol, but I'd imagine within 3-4 years I'll be buying a hand gun. I'm also no right-winger, there is blue running through my veins.

[Bryson]

I think Ast3r3x has hit on the right answer, if a little sideways.

Gun control from the beginning is a good thing. But it's just too damn late for the USA to try. Too many guns in circulation now. I have no idea what the answer to your current problem is. Perhaps you should blame the politicians in the 18th century for failing to repeal the 2nd Amendment then....

Did I mention I like Unicorns?

[alcimedes]

The problem isn't our guns, it's our society. There are countries with more guns and a lot less gun deaths.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by alcimedes The problem isn't our guns, it's our society. There are countries with more guns and a lot less gun deaths.

Indeed. And since laws cannot and should not attempt to alter society, this is in fact hardly a political discussion at all.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by alcimedes The problem isn't our guns, it's our society. There are countries with more guns and a lot less gun deaths.

QFT

[Dorian Gray]

chucker's being sarcastic!

Isn't the seeming incompatibility of American society and guns a good reason to stop selling them to civilians in the US? I say this because it's fashionable in these debates to pretend that guns are easily accessible on the black market, as if they were recreational drugs or the like. That's only true for criminals, who of course will still smuggle weapons as they do in the UK and other countries where guns are banned. But I wouldn't have the first clue where to get a gun if I needed one tonight, and I've worked with some shady characters in the past including the brother of a jailed member of the Provos. Banning the sale of guns effectively precludes my using them.

Gun deaths are probably caused by the three legs of (1) social inequality, (2) a cultural lack of respect for the value of life (perpetuated by the top-down state sanction of murder as evidenced by the use of capital punishment for example), and (3) easy access to guns. Taking any of those away is like removing one side of a fire triangle.

Originally Posted by ast3r3x From my understanding England is starting to have a problem with some criminals having a gun and them being under armed to combat it.

This is flawed logic but it may explain the enduring American love affair with handguns. Guns rarely solve problems, even in the hands of trained police officers. Have you noticed how most American hostage-taking events end with FBI officers storming the place with enough firepower to overcome Fort Knox? People shot everywhere, and not only the kidnapper (though that's tragic too). I would expect that kind of thing in a corrupt developing nation but not in the US. This rarely happens in the UK: instead expert negotiators are brought in and invariably the situation is resolved peacefully.

Not to downplay the huge social problems and widespread violence in the UK. If you gave Brits guns they'd wipe themselves out at the next weekend in pub fights. But because guns are banned we muddle along in the good old British way, filling our doctors' hands with outpatients who need their pate patched up.

[rollercoaster375]

Originally Posted by chucker Indeed. And since laws cannot and should not attempt to alter society, this is in fact hardly a political discussion at all.

Entirely incorrect. What else do laws do? Governments institute laws as an attempt to manage society and changes therein.

Edit: and if you were being sarcastic... Nevermind me.

[chucker]

I wasn't being sarcastic, but hyperbolic. Of course laws serve to give society a framework to work within. The US people's tendency towards gun violence, however, cannot be resolved (neither easily nor at all) using a law or set of laws. Such a set of laws could be used in conjunction with other things, but not on their own. Further, a transition towards a more peaceful society takes years, perhaps decades, and therefore can't exactly be done during a single legislature period.

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Isn't the seeming incompatibility of American society and guns a good reason to stop selling them to civilians in the US?

No, because too many feel that the second amendment ought to provide them with the ability to easily acquire guns. If that were taken away, the outrage would only lead to more violence.

Plus, as the Netherlands' drug-related laws have arguably shown, it is easier to allow something but keep it under control than to ban it and then try and keep black markets from occurring.

Gun deaths are probably caused by the three legs of (1) social inequality, (2) a cultural lack of respect for the value of life (perpetuated by the top-down state sanction of murder as evidenced by the use of capital punishment for example), and (3) easy access to guns. Taking any of those away is like removing one side of a fire triangle.

I would argue you forget about (4) a widespread inability to even remotely accurately assess a gun's power. They are seen (by some) too much as an everyday tool, rather than something highly dangerous. And even if the original gun purchaser (say, a family's father) does know how to handle a gun and how risky using it is, their spouse, children and whomever else might reside in the house at the moment probably won't. I.e., when the 16-year old son is scared shitless by some stranger walking around the premises, he might underestimate just how 'easy' it is to kill said stranger using the gun, and, moreover, how easy it is to kill the wrong person as well.

[Moogs]

What they ^ said... and also

The problem IS more societal than it is mechanical. I don't know if it's a direct result of the "children of late 60s and 70s" having kids and not knowing how to raise them (smoked too many bongs maybe), or what... but since the 1980s there seems to be a steady rise in bat-shit gun killings, violent hazing episodes and mob violence by angry teenagers and college-age people who have no concept of reality or personal responsibility for their own lot in life.

That said, if a whole generation has a propensity to produce bat-shit behavior, more so than previous generations, then all the more reason to keep guns out of their hands, as one part of a solution to the larger problem of violent deaths being inflicted on innocent people.

Effective gun control laws would have the following properties:


A) Federally mandated, with no wiggle room for state-by-state loopholes. This means you, Texas.


B) Thorough screening of criminal records by LAW ENFORCEMENT, not some dip-shit at Target Corporate using "Resumes R Us Background Checks". IOW, the application process wouldn't happen at the gun store. It would be facilitated by the agency in question, and the screener will be using one of the interstate criminal databases the cops / FBI / ATF use. If you pass the screening (including the one noted below), you go to your local police department where -because they now have you on the "approved" list in their database- you mug for your new license (which btw would have to be much harder to fake / tamper with compared to a driver's license).

OTOH, if you are found to have any type of criminal record (aside from petty misdemeanors) - you don't get a gun. That means if you were arrested as a troubled youth for assault or battery, when you're 30 years old you still don't get a gun. There can be no gray area here or else enforcement would be impossible. It would have to be cut and dry, and people's toes would have to be stepped on, in order to make sure none of the truly irresponsible people slip through the cracks.


C) Thorough screening of mental health records. THIS is wear things get ugly. Because you'll note none of the scumbags at Columbine or VT (or the Univ. of Iowa when that place was shot up in 1991), had criminal records. They all had a history of mental instability or anti-social behavior however. Even then, many times these things are never officially documented, but rather noted by other locals and family members. If someone needs help, then part of the system has to be family members getting the person help, or else this part breaks down before it starts.

Are we willing to have everyone's mental health records placed in the database, if those records meet certain criteria? If a guy loses his job and pension, and has no way of providing for his family... and goes to someone for help because he's contemplating suicide... should that go in the database, so two years later when he has another job but is looking to buy a gun for protection, he doesn't get one? Again, toes would have to be stepped on for this type of screening to work. Privacy would have to suffer to some degree. Nothing is free in the gun control game. If you're going to catalog idiots like the VT killer for being "suicidal", you have to catalog everyone who is suicidal because you don't know ahead of time which ones will be OK in 6 weeks, and which ones will continue to spiral out of control.

Should there be mechanisms in place for people to report abnormal / anti-social / violent tendencies to healthcare professionals or law enforcement, so that if a person never seeks help, they're still in the database? Perhaps if 3 or more people come forward to corroborate each other's stories about a specific individual(s), who they think is capable of serious violence... should that go in the database? If it does, should that count towards a denial of license as much as say a mental healthcare professional's opinion?


NOTE: I'm not advocating any of this necessarily, I'm simply pointing out what would be required for a law to have any chance in hell of averting this sort of massacre, or at least making it much less likely than it is now.


D) Gun Shows Gestapo... the people who peddle, display and trade wares at Gun Shows should be scrutinized wherever possible. These are the assholes who make the laws irrelevant, because they will sell any kind of weapon, to any asshole willing to pay a premium, out behind the display tent, without a single piece of paperwork or background check. Basically, this means anyone employed at a gun manufacturing plant, anyone on the sales force, any wholesaler, any retailer... ANYONE who can legally get guns in numbers to sell to others, should be monitored. That means undercover agents posing as hill billy gun buyers at hunting trade shows and gun shows, it means local police having a record of who in their neighborhood has access to gun manufacturer stock and keeping an eye on them from time to time, it means all of that.

Because without D, A, B and C won't mean shit. Currently we have weaker versions of A, B, an C, without D and so what we have is even less than shit, I'm afraid. In a lot of ways, this will be a constant uphill struggle like "the war on drugs" but even that [effort] is more effective at intercepting and confiscating the bad stuff before it hits the street, than our current pathetic excuse for gun control.

In short, this is [an effort that will never yield 100% success or even 80% success, but where even 50% success would result in many lives being saved]. You're never going to fully put an end to these things, but if they happen once every 12 years instead of every 3 or 4 years, then it's worth it IMO. If there are 7000 driveby shootings every year instead of 12000, then it's worth it. Because you saved 5000 lives potentially.

As much as I don't trust administrations like this one, the whole 2nd Amendment argument is pure bullshit in the 21st century. If the government really wanted to suppress us and enforce some kind of military rule, they could do it very easily, assuming the troops would go along with it and suppress their own families and neighbors. If they wouldn't go along with it, then you have no threat and no need for "we the people" to arm ourselves. That people even argue about it like there's something to debate is almost comical to me. [Even if every man, woman and child in American had a 9mm pistol, we'd still get our asses kicked in any type of military onslaught. There is just zero rational reason to think having hand-guns will protect us from a government gone haywire. Even a state government, with state military forces.]

So the only question is, do we really have the will to take most of the assault weapons (including semi-automatic pistols) off the street, at the cost of some privacy and added bureaucracy to some people's lives, in order to reduce the number of deaths each year caused by people having guns who shouldn't? Are we willing to foot the tax bill to beef up the man-power of law enforcement and all their equipment including computer stuff?

My gut says no. Americans today aren't willing to pay an extra penny in taxes on anything, no matter how beneficial it might be. Meantime they'll complain, complain that the politicians didn't do enough, with the money they didn't have. Of course, if you're not spending billions a DAY on bogus wars in the middle-east, then maybe you don't need to raise taxes. But that of course requires the will of the people also, and more than on voting day.


PS - John Stossel is a fucking loon, and 20/20 is NOT news or anything approximating news. It's prime-time drama at its best. Probably one of the worst excuses for "journalism" outside the world of Fox News.

[Bryson]

To that Moogs, I'd add:

E: Take guns off the majority of law enforcement, too. As a Brit, I cannot fathom the issuing of lethal weapons to every single policeman (and woman). It seems (although TV is obviously my primary source, so if I'm wrong, do say) that the weapons tend to get drawn for almost any arrest situation. Is it really appropriate to threaten petty criminals with death for non-compliance? It just seems to me that not every member of law enforcement personnel should be permitted to wield that kind of power.

Here in the UK, carrying a gun in the police force requires an awful lot of additional training, profiling and selection. If you draw the weapon, you better have a damn good reason. And if you fire it, you're probably never going to fire another one, ever again. All that means is that the "criminals" feel less pressure to respond in kind.

I know that last one is controversial, but it is the way I percieve things.

[Moogs]

I can sort of understand where you're coming from, however, the police here definitely need hand-guns IMO. I wouldn't even think of being a cop without one. Especially if we're trying to enforce point D, and not only prevent criminal or mentally unstable people from getting licensed. As soon as it's my job to get guns out of the hands of people who already have them (and shouldn't), I'd better have one too or I'm going to have a very hard time of it.

I suppose, if in 10 years, there had been a dramatic and steady decline in the number of gun-related deaths in this country... and there were far fewer of them on the city streets, you could think about disarming the cops in Mayberry and Beverly Hills. But in general, in any urban areas, most cops would still need them.

Frankly though, if someone breaks into my house and I don't have a gun... I actually want the cop to have one. If you want to argue for more rigorous screening of police officer candidates, I'm with you. There are a lot of bad cops in this country IMO, who have chips on their shoulder and are just itching to show someone how powerful they are. This is particularly true in places like LA, Chicago and New York where the police department is a "culture" all its own in the city, and where things often take on an us-vs-them mentality depending on the situation.

[Perfecting_Zero]

Originally Posted by Moogs Frankly though, if someone breaks into my house and I don't have a gun... I actually want the cop to have one.

In that scenario, typically, by the time the cop has arrived he or she won't need a gun, only a clipboard and pen to write up the report. You, frankly, needed the gun more than the cop.

Police officers aren't tasked to be body guards, pro-actively defending us and following us around in case someone threatens us with death or grave bodily harm. The Second Amendment allows for the lawful possession of arms, relieving police officers of responsibility for each citizen's personal and individual safety. That responsibility... for the anticipatory safety, shall we say, of each private citizen is understood to be the citizen's.

Of course -- and in contrast to Moogs' example -- should a criminal (or would-be criminal) give advance notice of his or her felonious intent to gravely harm or kill, then, absolutely, the private citizen should immediately summon police and allow them to perform their duties as civil servants.

[billybobsky]

The emotional I need a gun to defend myself from armed assailants is completely irrational:

1) Gun battles rarely end with one party having a decisive victory.
2) Any armed criminal is likely to have enough experience to kill you before you even flinch towards your weapon.
3) Home invasions where the residents are present are incredibly rare.
4) In considering defending yourself on the street, you have to take into account the bystander effect; and the fact that any gun toting felon already has the drop on you.

But whatever, if some people want to believe that their pea-shooter is going to protect them from a determined criminal, let them live in that irrational belief.

[Moogs]

Zero,

I meant I would want the officer to have a gun to deal with the criminal, whether I was alive or not. Anyway, honestly I think I would have better luck with knowledge of my home and where everything is (and a baseball bat) than I would a gun. I'm not willing to commit several hours a month to target practice to reassure myself, because even then if someone wakes you up at 2:00am you're going to be nervous / very jumpy. Not a good recipe for a steady shot. Better to just anticipate what the person is after, get yourself a dark hiding spot, wait for him to pass and bludgeon the shit out of him.

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think most people would have a better chance of survival with a gun, vs. using their wits and some sort of blunt instrument. Ergo, making it easy to get guns so that someone can lull themselves into a false sense of home security, is stupid.

[Perfecting_Zero]

Billybobsky and Moogs, I acknowledge the meritorious points of your arguments/explanations. Thank you.


For my part, I believe deeply in the peculiar and ineluctable exigencies of Karma; more prosaically, I enjoy an affair of love and luck with the world.



Cheers!

[Moogs]

Allrighty then. Glad we cleared that up.

[Partial]

Originally Posted by Brad And how do you plan to sort out the "responsible citizens" from the crazies?

You don't. You let everybody carry a gun. Chris Rock had the whole scenario set-up 100% accurately in his song about not having sex in the champagne room.

"Don't go to parties with metal detectors
Sure it feels safe inside; but what about
all those niggaz waitin outside with guns?
They know you ain't got one.."

If everyone can carry a gun, studies have shown crime drops drastically.

Originally Posted by joveblue Paul, just because you're a responsible citizen, doesn't mean it's in your interest to have your "right to bear arms" enforced. Wouldn't you rather the people attacking you or breaking into your house didn't have access to guns? Wouldn't you feel safer knowing that all the crazies and criminals out there couldn't get guns (which are readily available on the black market despite gun control measures)? If you're worried about defending yourself, just get some capsicum spray or something.

People only break in because odds are they will have a gun and the person they are intruding upon will not. If everybody has a gun, crime would go down exponentially. A 500 LCD TV or a 10,000 dollar diamond ring is not worth taking one in the chest, you know? Think of all the lives that would be saved if just one or two people had a gun at Virginia Tech.. That's why I always carry a knife. It's a small blade, but if stuff starts hitting the fan I want protection and a dagger to the thigh can put somebody out of comission for at least a minute or so.

Originally Posted by joveblue The thing about the black market for guns is that: a) It would be hard to get guns on the black market if guns weren't in wide circulation b) It would be easier to seize from people who aren't supposed to have them if the police knew that no-one (with a few exceptions) is supposed to have guns. My 2 cents. While I understand your position I think the second amendment is ridiculously outdated, and detrimental to society.

a) a motivated criminal will find a way to get a gun, and average joe won't have any defense to stop him. Crime increases.
b)

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 People only break in because odds are they will have a gun and the person they are intruding upon will not. If everybody has a gun, crime would go down exponentially. A 500 LCD TV or a 10,000 dollar diamond ring is not worth taking one in the chest, you know? Think of all the lives that would be saved if just one or two people had a gun at Virginia Tech.. That's why I always carry a knife. It's a small blade, but if stuff starts hitting the fan I want protection and a dagger to the thigh can put somebody out of comission for at least a minute or so.

I feel very safe knowing that if someone here is caught walking around with a sharp knife they'll get charged for it. I don't need to carry a knife around. I guess the problem starts when everyone already has weapons and you gotta try and take them off the people who don't want to give them up. I hadn't really considered that before but I do think that it could be done if you managed it correctly. It might make you a little less safe in the short-term but you'd be safer overall in the long term.

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 a) a motivated criminal will find a way to get a gun, and average joe won't have any defense to stop him. Crime increases. b)

a) Yes, but depending on just how difficult you can make it to get a gun, only the most determined criminals will get a gun. The majority will go without. But as I said, it depends...
b) If you're a cop and you see someone walking down the street with a gun, you can't just take it off them, because you have no idea if they're supposed to have one or not. What if they're a crazy or a criminal? You've just failed to prevent a murder. OTOH, if guns are illegal, you can arrest them on the spot.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by tensdanny38 If everyone can carry a gun, studies have shown crime drops drastically.

Yes indeed. When there's no population left, people can't break into each others' houses any more. Brilliant!

[ast3r3x]

Originally Posted by joveblue a) Yes, but depending on just how difficult you can make it to get a gun, only the most determined criminals will get a gun. The majority will go without. But as I said, it depends... b) If you're a cop and you see someone walking down the street with a gun, you can't just take it off them, because you have no idea if they're supposed to have one or not. What if they're a crazy or a criminal? You've just failed to prevent a murder. OTOH, if guns are illegal, you can arrest them on the spot.

I disagree with most people here on how hard it would be to get a gun if they became illegal. I think it might be different in another country, but at least in the US, I see it as the exact same as drugs. Yes it would be a little harder maybe, but there'd be a market for them so they'd be there for anyone to purchase in reality.

Also, I find your point b to be kinda moot. You act like people walk around carrying their pistol in their hand, and wave it around, aim at people and fake shoot. It's not a shotgun, it's concealable.

[turbulentfurball]

Originally Posted by chucker Yes indeed. When there's no population left, people can't break into each others' houses any more. Brilliant!

Exactly. I can't figure out why anyone would think that more people having guns would lead to less crime. Similarly with knives; tensdanny said that he carries a knife, so by his reckoning more knives would also lead to less crime. Carrying either of those here would most likely lead to jail time, and rightly so.