Talk:Victim disarmament

Untitled

Hey, I believe this. If you shoot someone, is it the gun's fault? No! It's yours!

A more useful phrase than gun control

'Gun control' being a term designed to gloss over the drawbacks to gun prohibition, those drawbacks being exactly what 'victim disarmament' serves to draw one's attention to. Put simply, 'victim disarmament' is the more honest description.

I disagree. Gun control is a term designed to express what the prohibition is intended to do. The brake on a car is called a brake because that is its purpose. If for some reason it didn't work, one would not automatically assume that the name was intended to mislead. Victim disarmament is an expression designed to express one consequence of gun prohibition. It undoubtedly has its place wherever one is discussing someone who might have been able to defend themselves were there not a prohibition of guns, but, it is not a suitable replacement for 'gun control', since not everyone who is deprived of a gun becomes a victim. Surely there must be at least some categories of gun prohibition that are effective? Doesn't banning children from carrying guns generally succeed in ensuring that guns are not usually to hand and a danger to everyone including the user? Even if one concludes that not all gun control works and it may deprive some victims of a means of defending themselves, that doesn't mean that no useful control is obtained using gun prohibitions.

IceDragon64 (talk) 23:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Adjustment of language

I edited the text a little- You don't have to believe that all gun control is useless to advocate arming civilians, nor do gun advocates have to believe that all violent criminals use guns and ignore gun controls to fear victim disarmament.