Does owning weapons make one more likely to be a killer?

Yes. while there are may be reasonable political arguments for armed populace. I think we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss gun control as a option for stoping firearm related crimes on practical grounds.

Thread Hop

Does owning weapons make one more likely to be a killer? Does having a McDonald's next door make one more likely to be obese?

The answer, of course, is yes. Not that everyone who owns guns will have violent urges, but those who do will give in to those urges far more quickly when the means to do so are within arm's reach.

edited 6th Apr '12 5:30:46 AM by MidnightRambler

You may have a weapon, but do you know math?

edited 6th Apr '12 5:37:58 AM by inane242

You don't need a gun to kill someone, though. To a crazy person a gun is just a tool, like a knife or a car or any variety of Noodle Implements.

I will say though that in a place where gun ownership is not a common cultural thing, a person with a gun is fairly likely to be a dangerous person.

I agree with this. A sudden liberalisation of gun laws in the United Kingdom would be catastrophic.

I don't think banning guns would really stop a lot of premeditated murder.

However, it might stop some crimes of passion, and a lot of I Just Shot Marvin in the Face incidents.

Yes, it does. It doesn't automatically mean you're gonna blow somebody away, but it does suggest you know have the option whereas someone who didn't might not even go there in the first place.

When the OP says 'weapons', what does that include?

A killer can kill with anything, including bare hands. My method of choice, for example, would be an axe or a hammer. Are you going to ban axes and hammers?

EDIT: Bat Pencil apparently doesn't go into the Highlands very often. Owning a gun out in the sticks isn't the norm, but it isn't all that rare, either. Generally speaking teuchters are not dangerous.

edited 6th Apr '12 10:21:16 AM by InverurieJones

You just reminded me, even a pencil can be considered a weapon if it's sharp enough or if it's used the right wrong way.

There's a reason for more deaths resulting from shooting than pencil stabbing.

Who needs pencils? The human body provides enough lethal weapons as standard fitting. I used to do Shotokan Karate back when I was a lot younger, slimmer and fitter (though still as fugly to be honest) and I was trained in many ways to kill someone. Some of which I still remember. The biggest lesson I learned though is that the primary thing you need to kill is the intent to do it.

If you don't have the intent to kill, you could be carrying a fricking Gatling Gun and use it and you would still fail.

To answer the question, no, it does not make you more likely to be a killer if you have weapons. If anything, owning them and knowing more about them would make you respect the capability that you already have.

x4 No, but when your community consists of a pub, three houses and a sheep called Morag the chances of someone being a mass murderer are much lower!

I dunno, man, that sheep seems mighty suspicious.

I don't think it's possible to be a mass murderer if theres not enough people for it to be "mass"...

Regarding the OP; I say no.

If somebody decides that they're going to kill some people, they're going to go out and attempt to follow through with it; gun, knife, bomb...they're all means to an end.

When you have an individual who is dead set on taking lives, the manner of tool he uses is almost irrelevant.

The thing is, very few people are dead set on taking lives. Most murders are acts of passion, heat-of-the-moment things. It's then that it matters whether or not you have a gun over your fireplace.

If you're talking about a crime of passion, then that individual could just as easily grab a steak knife from the kitchen. At that point, they've already made the decision to commit harm, not it just boils down to the how.

Your argument makes intuitive sense, but it doesn't match up with statistics. Nations with gun control tend to have dramatically fewer murders-as-crimes-of-passion.

They don't even need a weapon. Their bare hands might be good enough if they're that enraged.

An individual can always make the attempt, but without a weapon, an unpremeditated murder is much less likely to succeed.

Ever tried to strangle an uncooperative person?

edited 6th Apr '12 2:09:12 PM by Muramasan13

Btw, Derrick Bird had a legal firearm so I think that owning weapons makes you more likely to murder someone. I don't think that he would have murdered as many people if he had a knife tbh.

Bah. Derrick Bird would still have been a killer without access to firearms. Even with knives or his bare hands he would have killed at least his twin brother. When he snapped, went loopy, went postal, whatever you want to call his bloody stupidity, he had not just intent to kill but in his mind at least, reason to do it.

I know he would have killed his brother but would he have killed the solicitor? I don't think so nor would have the emergency services have been as cautious if he was unarmed.

Why would he strangle a cooperative one?