If everyone carried a gun, would there be less crime?

[joemich1911]

I always see these shootings on t.v. and wonder if more people carried guns could we stop a lot of crime. Who would just open fire on a hundred people carrying a gun, it would be over before it started. Input?

 

[rambone]

Turn off the tv.

 

[Boost Lee]

I honestly don't know...

I have two perspectives (that I feel like rip right down the middle).

Theory One:
A majority of desperate people that consider robbery/attempts, etc would
second guess their chances of surviving when someone else could easily kill them.
(On that theory, I think MANY people would cut back on that kind of violence).

Theory Two:
To those socially awkward people we come across day in and day out that make us say,
"Thank God they don't have a gun on them right now..." - ...Case in point.
Put a life-ending piece of metal around the finger tip of a borderline-psychotic individual that
got pissed off over something stupid... would result in a lot of people playing 'tough ass' and
would be chaos everywhere.

See what I mean?

I'm sure everyone has their theories... but the fact remains (in my noggin) that if this
were to ever happen, it would decrease the number of robberies/B&E's, etc...
But increase the number of 'Off-the-street' gun-shooting incidents.

 

[joemich1911]

I honestly don't know...

I have two perspectives (that I feel like rip right down the middle).

Theory One:
A majority of desperate people that consider robbery/attempts, etc would
second guess their chances of surviving when someone else could easily kill them.
(On that theory, I think MANY people would cut back on that kind of violence).

Theory Two:
To those socially awkward people we come across day in and day out that make us say,
"Thank God they don't have a gun on them right now..." - ...Case in point.
Put a life-ending piece of metal around the finger tip of a borderline-psychotic individual that
got pissed off over something stupid... would result in a lot of people playing 'tough ass' and
would be chaos everywhere.

See what I mean?

I'm sure everyone has their theories... but the fact remains (in my noggin) that if this
were to ever happen, it would decrease the number of robberies/B&E's, etc...
But increase the number of 'Off-the-street' gun-shooting incidents.

I understand your point, but what keeps the socially awkward people from obtaining a gun? If someone wants to go on a "rampage" nothing stops them, they make the choice and do it plain and simple. The only problem I see is that there are not enough people to stop that person. All they can do is run and scream. We hear all about the people committing the crime but not enough about the people that help stop crimes. Police respond people react.

 

[Bond 281]

I understand your point, but what keeps the socially awkward people from obtaining a gun? If someone wants to go on a "rampage" nothing stops them, they make the choice and do it plain and simple. The only problem I see is that there are not enough people to stop that person. All they can do is run and scream. We hear all about the people committing the crime but not enough about the people that help stop crimes. Police respond people react.

Yeah that's kind of the thing. Some guys may turn into major *******s over minor stuff, but everyone knows the penalty if you straight up murder someone. Even those guys playing "tough ass" know that a life in prison or death is the result of them killing somebody. Plus, people have an instinctual aversion to killing other people. Sure, you'd have a few cases where people shot each other, but on the whole it would probably decrease violent crime and homicide. A decrease in overall murders is worth the cost of the few people that die from idiots being idiots.

Additionally, the same "blood in the streets" argument is pretty much always used against any loosening of gun control we try to promote. Guess what....it's never materialized as a real issue.

 

[Fletch]

Turn off the tv.

/thread

 

[Stschil]

I always see these shootings on t.v. and wonder if more people carried guns could we stop a lot of crime. Who would just open fire on a hundred people carrying a gun, it would be over before it started. Input?

Turn off the tv.

Good advice. Realize that the Lame Stream Media thrives on blood and guts and will go out of their way to report it. "If it bleeds, it leads"
They will never fully and truthfully report that crime rates have been proven to drop in States that have reviewed and relaxed gun laws and that where restrictions continue to exist, crime rates continue to rise.

 

[JetGirl]

wonder if more people carried guns could we stop a lot of crime.

There wouldn't be a need to "stop" stuff, because I think there'd be less crap started in the first place.

 

[jgreiner]

I always see these shootings on t.v. and wonder if more people carried guns could we stop a lot of crime. Who would just open fire on a hundred people carrying a gun, it would be over before it started. Input?

As the old saying goes: "An armed society is a polite society".

 

[JetGirl]

As the old saying goes: "An armed society is a polite society".

Can't be repeated often enough...

 

[popeye]

If more people carried guns

The highways would be littered with bullet riddled cars.

 

[jeremy]

From my Great-Aunts perspective, She is almost 90.
More People used to carry in Indiana when she was younger, she is not sure if there was more or less crime back then. She does know that People were a lot more polite though...

 

[orange]

Personal experience says Heinlein is right.

This isn't exactly a large sample size, but everyone I've asked this reported that carrying made them calmer. There's the peace of mind that comes from being a bit more protected, and then there's the added calm. For instance, I wouldn't get angry at idiot drivers on the interstate anymore. When a confrontation has the potential to escalate to deadly force, there's more incentive to avoid a confrontation, right?
Now I'm considering applying for the little permission slip again...

 

[kludge]

Would there be less crime? My gut says no.

However, logic says that since most convicted criminals are repeat offenders, there would be fewer repeats, since every time a crime is commited (s)he is rolling the dice. The more times you roll the dice, the greater the chance of coming up snake eyes.

 

[RockofStrength]

It is not merely a matter of giving a bunch of sheep guns and telling them to fight the wolves. There would have to be a fundamental change in how people view self-defense and firearms. In former times, when guns were regarded as tools rather than embodiments of evil, you had a gun culture surrounding you to learn from. Fathers and mothers taught sons and daughters how to shoot from a young age, law enforcement expected you to be carrying and weren't given increased reason for concern because of a bulge on your hip, etc.

If the culture could be changed so that we had more competent people using their right to keep and bear arms effectively, then yes we would see a reduction in successful violent crimes. Note that at first the change would involve a lot of criminals being shot, so violence would actually escalate until the criminals figure out that 1 out of every 3 people are likely to have the fortitude and means to blow their heads off when they rob a gas station/bank/home.

 

[CopperWires]

On an empty street where a person (with all the proper training) could get mugged and still have a chance to defend, it would decrease crime.

On a crowded street, if many had enough time to react, there would be confusion and crossfire. Innocent people would get hit. I'm not sure that would be any better.

But RockofStrength is right. It has to be a change in culture and knowledge. And I agree with Heinlein.

 

[jeremy]

On an empty street where a person (with all the proper training) could get mugged and still have a chance to defend, it would decrease crime.

On a crowded street, if many had enough time to react, there would be confusion and crossfire. Innocent people would get hit. I'm not sure that would be any better.

Really the Streets will run with blood argument...

 

[dross]

The crime rate has been dropping for forty years.

 

[CopperWires]

Really the Streets will run with blood argument...

No. I wasn't referring to that argument at all. What I was questioning was the general population's ability to account for the people in the firing line and being behind the threat. And if multiple people engaged it could potentially be harmful to others nearby. Adding more solutions could mean more confusion during a conflict.

Its basically the same concept as fighting off an intruder in your own house. You don't want to shoot towards the kids' bedrooms.

 

[NYFelon]

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty... and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.​

​

The idea that gun control is false and pretentious is not new.​