Mandatory Gun Ownership Reduces Crime

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by geo77

Mere interpretation.
This article actually offers DATA, which give a more honest picture. This is interesting:

How is that interesting? The number of armed robberies doubles and you think this is good? How it is less than obvious that removing the victim's ability to defend themselves has increased crime dramatically?

[3ncryptabl3_lick]

Makes sense to me.

I don't see why they don't make it national. With ownership comes responsibility and education. That isn't the case right now. Having a gun doesn't mean you both know how to use it properly and it doesn't mean it's properly registered.

It's a win win sitch. The average Joe feels safer. The criminals don't and the industry makes money. Think of all the jobs that it would create alone in terms of rounds fired per person per year. New ranges would pop up in every city/town.

[TopShelfToys]

Originally Posted by 3ncryptabl3_lick

Makes sense to me.

I don't see why they don't make it national. With ownership comes responsibility and education. That isn't the case right now. Having a gun doesn't mean you both know how to use it properly and it doesn't mean it's properly registered.

Just because you force people to get a gun doesn't mean they will be responsible and educated about it. There would have to be some major overhauls in the process you go thru to obtain a weapon. Personally, if I was told I need to get a gun by law, I'd probably just sleep thru the classes and never use the damn thing, lock it up somewhere, but that's just me. If it was a priority for me to get educated and responsible with a gun, then I'd already have one~

Originally Posted by 3ncryptabl3_lick

Makes sense to me.

It's a win win sitch. The average Joe feels safer. The criminals don't and the industry makes money. Think of all the jobs that it would create alone in terms of rounds fired per person per year. New ranges would pop up in every city/town

I wouldn't feel safer from common criminals, but would feel a bit safer from my government. A well armed populus is the best defense against tyranny and all that~ Regardless of the outcome in terms of violence and crime, it would still create a hell of alot more jobs though~

[3ncryptabl3_lick]

lol... You would feel safer from the government? Yah, they're the ones shooting up schools and robbing stores...

That whole 'well armed populous' adage is a little antiquated I think. While it may be a rationale to some to own a gun, thinking they're protected AND the government is in check, all that really does is fuel the concept of gun ownership being a preventative measure when it's not.

It's a combination of gun responsibility, education, saturation and the laws that keep the pupulous in check.

I watched this news piece about a campus that has allowed students to carry concealed handguns. (I don't know if it's in the same town or not) but the concept is just as sound. If someone pulls a gun to do harm, that person has to contend with the fact that someone in their class can stop them instantly. That's the point. Someone in their office, on the street, in the store...

Sure, having a gun doesn't (right now) necessarily mean the owner is responsibility and educated but with such an act in place, it would mean more people would be.

[Brian]

Can't we all just realize the solution is mandatory bubble living?

[TopShelfToys]

Originally Posted by 3ncryptabl3_lick

lol... You would feel safer from the government? Yah, they're the ones shooting up schools and robbing stores...

Whats that saying about Noah building the arc before the storm or something? I work in a store front, and relatively speaking, I'm more concerned with down the line potential atrocities on a massive scale as opposed to little old me getting injured during a robbery. However, 2 birds with 1 stone I guess. Not going off on a black helicopter tangent, just pointing out that when you have that much power in a few crafty peoples hands it's feasible (look at history) for it to be abused on a mass scale.

Originally Posted by 3ncryptabl3_lick

It's a combination of gun responsibility, education, saturation and the laws that keep the pupulous in check.

I hear you on this, well put and I completely agree.

Originally Posted by 3ncryptabl3_lick

.

Sure, having a gun doesn't (right now) necessarily mean the owner is responsibility and educated but with such an act in place, it would mean more people would be.

I'm all for conceal and carry etc, as long as people are educated in the process, exactly what you said. Sure more people would be educated, there would also be more than aren't however. Guess if you're looking at a percentage of people educated to the point they should be, it's all speculation. Maybe it would have a snowball effect of people being educated, but depending on backlash from being forced to own a guy...it may have the opposite effect.

[StrongInTheArm]

Lets put this argument on a global scale.

Why not let any country who wants nuclear weapons or indeed chemical or biological weapons have them.

Would you feel safer then with your little hand gun ?


Some how I feel like the guy who thinks of a really clever retort once he has got home and is sitting in front of the television.

[John Scott]

Why not let any country who wants nuclear weapons or indeed chemical or biological weapons have them.

That is an entirely different scenario. If somebody pulls a gun and starts shooting in an armed populace, he gets shot. With nukes, they can end the game altogether.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by John Scott

If somebody pulls a gun and starts shooting in an armed populace, he gets shot. With nukes, they can end the game altogether.

I don't think you meant to call it a 'game', being shot is not a game.

If it works locally, why is it so fearful on a global scale? Is it OK to be killed by your neighbour but somehow beyond acceptable to be killed by a foreigner?

If it scares you on a global scale, then now you know how we feel about the crazy next door being armed to the teeth. If everybody has their itchy finger on the button its a little more worrying is it not? Now substitute button with trigger in the previous sentence.

Whether it is locally or internationally it makes no difference if it is your 'game' that is cut short.

[John Scott]

I don't think you meant to call it a 'game', being shot is not a game.

Who said being shot was a game? Did I say that? Hmm. Let me see.

Originally Posted by John Scott

With nukes, they can end the game altogether.

Nope, I said that with nukes, they can end the game (end life) altogether.

If it works locally, why is it so fearful on a global scale?

Did you not read my post? Here:

Originally Posted by John Scott

That is an entirely different scenario. If somebody pulls a gun and starts shooting in an armed populace, he gets shot. With nukes, they can end the game altogether.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Nope, I said that with nukes, they can end the game (end life) altogether.

Did you not read my post? Here:

I understood your reference to the 'game of life'. What I was trying to say was life is not a game. You generally only get one shot at it. Loose use of words on my part, I never meant to give the impression that you thought being shot was a game.

Did you read my post?

"Whether it is locally or internationally it makes no difference if it is your 'game' that is cut short."

By that I meant that it is irrelevant how you get killed once you are dead, bomb or gun, you are dead.

[South]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

I understood your reference to the 'game of life'. What I was trying to say was life is not a game. You generally only get one shot at it. Loose use of words on my part, I never meant to give the impression that you thought being shot was a game.

Did you read my post?

"Whether it is locally or internationally it makes no difference if it is your 'game' that is cut short."

By that I meant that it is irrelevant how you get killed once you are dead, bomb or gun, you are dead.

Do you really not see the difference between:

* Allowing rogue nations with a longstanding history of mass terroristic violence to posses weaponry that can wipe out millions of people instantaneously with hundreds of years of devastating aftermath.

* A constitutional republic allowing personal gun ownership.

You do see the difference....right? You're just playing devils advocate?

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by South

You do see the difference....right? You're just playing devils advocate?

I think we are at crossed purposes, I'm on your side, at least when it comes to guns.

I was trying to illustrate the danger of putting weapons in everybody's hands by pointing out most of the world's objections, including mine, to anyone else getting nuclear or indeed any other kind of weapon of mass destruction. There is a parallel those wishing to give everyone a hand gun need to see. If they cannot accept arming every nation, how can they accept arming every citizen. Bullet or bomb, neighbour or foreigner, it makes no difference how you are murdered, you are still dead.

[StupidScript]

Citing statistics that seem to indicate a causal relationship between disarming citizens and the national crime rate is irrelevant.

The question on the table is what happens when citizens are required to arm themselves.

Believe me, if it was Los Angeles that required every citizen to pack heat, instead of dinky little Kennesaw, there would be a whole lot more data available ... and probably not the good kind.

"Shoot first and ask questions later" comes to mind ...

[detoam]

I can't believe that some of You actually think that it's a good idea. You truly are brainwashed.

[John Scott]

So far statistics prove that mandatory gun ownership has reduced crime, and have also proven the loss of wide-spread gun ownership has increased (doubled) violent crime.

[detoam]

Well then it might be easier for us all to simply move to Iraq or Afghanistan or Russia.
They took that survey out of tiny little town where everyone knows each other. If are going to compare those kind of statistics then it would also prove otherwise. The village where my dad lives now there isn't any crime at all. Noone has guns there. Of course the village is run by the mob. That's an idea why don't we invite the Godfather to watch over us.

My point is if they are going to put mandatory weapons into large cities the crime will go down, but only after most of the population will get killed. There are too many factors in large cities that will not allow for that to happen. For example: Constant racial tension, an already very violent and unafraid of dying gangs, drug addicts who, when high or "johnsing", really don't give a damn if You got a bazooka in Your hand. So those statistics are just about as close to reality as Bush to Einstein.