I don't believe this would be supported by psychological analysis but would admit that the object can make a difference upon whether a person would act based upon their desire to impose coercion upon others. The desire itself originates with the individual whether they act upon it or not.
Originally Posted by Reiver
Law abiding citizens that have no intent of forcing others to do something (i.e. using coercive force) are not going to be influenced by whether they have a firearm or not.
It was funny to watch the squirming when the fact was presented that we have more firearms in the US today than ten years ago while violent crime has gone down. The "logic" given what that a many factors contribute to violent crime (coercion) and, of course, primary amoung those factors is the intent of the individual. The object (firearms) has little to do with whether a person is going to exert coercion on another person (commit a violent crime against them) or not and this is reflected by the fact that while firearm ownership has increased violent crimes have gone down. Obviously the "intent of the individual" outweighs the possession of firearms when it comes to violent crimes.
If that were not the case then the arguments that "firearms increase crime" would have prevailed and we'd have more violent crime today than in the past when there were far fewer guns. It's the individual that commits the crime and not the firearm.
PoliticalForum.com functions as a public forum website open to all individuals of all political persuasions that is centered on the discussion of politics in general. All walks of life are welcome to join the discussions in the tradition of vigorous respectful debate.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Evelyn Beatrice Hall