Mandatory Gun Ownership Reduces Crime

[Yuripro84]

You guys made some good points, and obviously there are some pros and cons to such a law. Obviously, not everyone agrees with this, but I believe that if everyone is carrying a gun, the criminal would not want to shoot, since he would know about five others would shoot back. Of course, if everyone had a gun, and two people got mad enough at each other, they could easily start a fight and get guns involved (if it were heated enough). Then there's the dangers of having a gun in the house. Anyone else hear about the tragedy that happened on Mother's Day? Apparently, a kid accidentally shot his father in the head on Mother's Day. Of course, this was the dad's fault in a way for not keeping his gun in a safe place. But a lot of owners will keep a loaded gun on their drawers or something, close to their bed, easily reachable by anyone...even their kids? There's also the chance that kids see it and thing of it as a 'toy,' then one shoots the other and it happens to be live!

I dunno, there are so many pros and cons to having a live gun in the house.

But then there's the issue discussed in this article about Virginia Tech. There were 32dead, and 15 wounded before he turned the gun to his own head. Now, people say stuff like, if the students had guns, then maybe they would have shot the guy and stopped the violence early. Personally, I feel giving every student a gun is a dumb idea..... What I would suggest though is maybe giving the teachers, librarians, etc guns. Maybe this would solve such issues? They would of course have to have it in a hidden place and always watch it though lol, otherwise...well, you know, wouldn't be good.

That's just my say though :/

[geo77]

The term is used here as an attempt to discredit, impossible as you said but still tilted for that purpose. You knew what I was talking about. Stop that.

South, that is absolutely not true. Why would I feel the need to publicly discredit someone? I'm just not that insecure More importantly, if we all start trying to discredit each other, we can't have a forum, which is a place we should be able to share opinions, thoughts, and information freely. My purpose was merely to point out that while our personal experiences are real, we can't say a phenomenon is always true without evidence.
There is absolutely no malicious intent there.

I'm not aware of any towns other than the one at the front of this post that do require gun ownership, but that certainly doesn't hinder ownership. I wouldn't rob a bank in a room full of armed people whether they were required to carry the guns or not.

I don't think I'd rob a bank whether there were guns present or not. I was taught long ago, and I still believe, that such actions are unacceptable.

OK...I am not trying to sound patronizing. My point is that instead of pouring money into guns, how about thinking about education and creating a society in which people aren't compelled to rob and kill?

[chum112]

Here's my theory on mandatory gun ownership, and i think its good lol.

Mandatory gun ownership will lead to less mass crimes, such as school massacres, mall shootings etc etc. Why that may seem major to some it really is not.

As love crimes, crimes in the heat of passion, which is a majority will alarmingly increase. Drug addicts committing gun crimes will also increase.

Mandatory gun ownership may have stopped the west virginia, university massacre. But more crimes of passion, heat and lust will lead to more gun deaths as this is a majority of the gun deaths around the world.

[John Scott]

I don't think I'd rob a bank whether there were guns present or not. I was taught long ago, and I still believe, that such actions are unacceptable.

You're entirely missing the point, in a pedantic way.

A potential bank robber is less likely to rob a bank when the bank is full of armed citizens, whether those citizens are required to carry a gun or not.

Now proceed with your ignoring of the obvious point being made.

[geo77]

You're entirely missing the point, in a pedantic way.

Really? I'm missing the point? Pedantically???

A potential bank robber is less likely to rob a bank when the bank is full of armed citizens, whether those citizens are required to carry a gun or not.

Wait -- this is the obvious point being made? You mean, this is the correct perspective, and we should all agree with it?

[John Scott]

Really? I'm missing the point? Pedantically???

Yes.

You mean, this is the correct perspective, and we should all agree with it?

Exactomundo.

[hyperspace]

Yes, but how do we use our guns to defend ourselves against online crime?

[StupidScript]

Personally, I would feel better in a town that required every citizen to continually wear bullet-proof (or bullet-resistant) vests and helmets than one that required every citizen to pack a firearm. Personally, I have an aversion to killing (or even wounding) people ... and I believe the Pope would agree with me on that. Even if I carried a gun, I doubt I would ever feel justified in using it in any of the situations described here.

For an "everyone's packing" concept to work, the packing people must be willing to kill someone, and the bad guys must believe that they can and will and then must fear that. Do you really think that the guy that did the VaTech shooting, or the guys that did the North Hollywood bank robbery, or any of the high-profile mass shooters we've had over the years are living in fear of citizens with pistols? Insanity is pretty unpredictable, and if someone decides to go with "suicide by cop", or "suicide by citizens-with-guns", the fact that there are armed citizens around would be remarkably irrelevant and would undoubtedly result in even more injuries and death as the shots rang out indescriminately.

[ewomack]

If everyone were armed and criminals knew it, they'd simply find ways to subvert the system. Hostage taking works very well, or sniping or working in gangs. If you're surrounded by 10 guys all of whom have guns, you may take one or two out before they blow your head off, but that's about all. Or, better yet, biological weapons. Who's going to shoot a guy loaded with weaponized anthrax? Or, more likely, someone who's carrying a child? The stakes would simply become higher. Crime would very likely take on a new face and start using new methods if everyone were armed.

Plus, your response to my previous post, South, did not address my argument at all. And the analogy of your town also has nothing to do with the situation I cited. Your town is in a good position because you probably know each other, in essence, you know who not to shoot if a maniac sets loose on your town. But, as I originally said, in a situation where people don't know one another and they hear about a maniac running loose with a gun, people get crazy and some, not all, will likely fire at any threat. This is a special situation, very much unlike the town you described.

[John Scott]

If everyone were armed and criminals knew it, they'd simply find ways to subvert the system.

I think you watch too much tv.

[StrongInTheArm]

A hypothetical thought ...

Imagine a large room. Fill the room with 100 people. Ensure a percentage are psychopaths in accordance with social norms. Enter the room and lock the door. Turn the lights off.

Now answer ...

Would you like everybody to have a weapon of their choice or not?

Ultimately this is what it boils down to.

[John Scott]

Ultimately this is what it boils down to.

LOL. So we are all in the dark in a controlled space? I think that's kind of a stretch.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I think that's kind of a stretch.

Merely a simplification, the problem in essence.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

Merely a simplification, the problem in essence.

A simplification with a fatal error.

A more accurate simplification would be:

Imagine a large room. Fill the room with 100 people. Ensure a percentage are psychopaths in accordance with social norms. Enter the room and lock the door. Turn the lights off.

Now answer ...

Would you like just the psychopaths to have a weapon of their choice or not?

[StrongInTheArm]

Until they have committed a crime how do you know who is the psychopath?

Since you don't know who the crazy is, in theory you are safer if no one has a gun.


By the way in your version, ewomack is right, one shot and the probable outcome is everybody starts shooting and who knows who gets killed.

With no guns what happens ...

I hope you make friends quickly in that room

[John Scott]

Until they have committed a crime how do you know who is the psychopath?

It doesn't matter who is a psychopath, the fact remains that each and every one of them is a potential psychopath, and statistics indicate that a certain number of them are indeed psychopaths.

Since you don't know who the crazy is, in theory you are safer if no one has a gun.

In theory, yes, but in real life anybody has access to guns and if they are made illegal, only criminals will have them. So you are suggesting that we take guns away from law abiding citizens and give them to criminals. Dumb, ya?

[John Scott]

I have to say here, I don't know why Liberals cannot understand the simple facts that are supported by statistics. I mean, this isn't brain surgery.

Statistics Indicate Gun Control Only Increases Crime

One year ago, Australian gun owners were forced to surrender for destruction 640,381 personal firearms (including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns)....

...based on a full 12 months of data: Australia-wide, homicides up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults up 8.6 percent....

Australia-wide, armed-robberies up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent.) In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300 percent....

there has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, now left with no means to protect themselves.

Gun Control Causes Crime Increase In Australia

Is it really that hard to understand that removing guns from the law abiding citizens empowers the criminals? I mean, this is basic human nature. As a criminal, I would much rather kill, rape and pillage without the risk of getting shot at. If that risk is there, I might just think about some other form of employment.

[geo77]

Wow...those are pretty startling stats! Stay out of Australia, mates....

Wait, wait, wait!!!! Who produced those stats?! From what credible source were those numbers obtained?

Now, Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association reports the results are in.

The heart and power of statistics is in their interpretation and analysis. Here is another, more accurate analysis:
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusi...raliaguns.html