| RavenBlog |
|
| Comments on Thursday 4 September 2003: |
| On a further Bowling-For-Columbine-related note, I have a great way to settle the perpetual argument about gun control. Unfortunately, it involves an experiment that nobody will ever run. I would like to combine that experiment with some other, related experiments, to avoid unnecessary duplication of the controls. Control: a school in which no weapons are allowed. Case 1: a school in which everyone must carry a gun at all times. Case 2: a school in which anyone who chooses to carry a gun, may. They must provide their own guns. Case 3 (additional experiment): a school in which everyone must carry a blade at all times. Set them in motion, and watch the carnage or lack thereof over the course of a few years. Children are a fantastic exaggerated model of human behaviour. The schools, of course, should be selected based on similarity. Some additional data could be gleaned by also performing the same experiments on different qualities of school. My hypothesis, if I were to run such an experiment, is that adding compulsory weapons would increase violence in schools already violent, and decrease violence (or decrease teasing) in relatively peaceful schools. Which is to say, in the words of Verlaine, "Guns don't kill people, racist, paranoiac nutters with guns kill people". Infer your own snide comment about America. The guns-optional case, I would hypothesise, would result in far more horrible massacres than in any other case. Once again, infer your own snide comment about America. Or infer mine, if you'd rather. [08:57] |
| Alianna |
| i think that violence would decrease with the increased number of weapons, becasue a) No matter who you attack they have a weapon to defend so it's a little less inviting b) It doesn't make you an individual to carry a weapon when everyoen else is c) The Students and Staff would be more allert so when and if violence does break out, then people are prepared and not caught off guard. |
| Solistus |
| Alianna, you assume a certain degree of reasoning in the mind of the would-be shooter. However, something clearly must have "snapped" for them to want to kill people in the first place, so I doubt this would prevent much. All of the school shooters get caught / kill themselves anyway. Consider this- in households with guns, more unintentional victims are shot than dangerous criminals. The same could happen here... also, how are you supposed to focus on schoolwork if you're worried about protecting yourself with a firearm? It's certainly distracting to know that everyone around you could kill you in an instant. |
| Bunk |
| Mandatory blades would no doubt entail walk-by slicings. That's all. |