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

[Titanium_Frost]

Anyone else interpreting it the same way as jeremy?

I do.

He isn't saying you are an Anti at all, just using several of the same argument points that they do.

Look at it this way, nearly every single person over the age of 16 has the ability to easily kill someone else, yet most do not do that on purpose. In fact, there are MORE accidental car deaths than there are murders, accidents, and justifiable homocides commited with a firearm combined. Every person in America being armed would not do anything but help combat crime.

 

[CopperWires]

So are you 2 saying that it wouldn't play out that way? And the fact that the antis use that argument is a reason for me to be worried about it in the first place. Of course the main concern is the safety of everyone and it would be a terrible tragedy for someone to take a hit that was not involved. In that case, I think I would rather be killed than accidentally kill someone that was relatively safe in the first place.

BTW, I do think that more people carrying would decrease certain crimes.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

So are you 2 saying that it wouldn't play out that way?

That is what I am saying. There would be no increase besides dead bad guys. Rush hour would not turn into WWIII and grannies and children would be just fine.

And the fact that the antis use that argument is a reason for me to be worried about it in the first place.

No, but it is the same rhetoric they use and it would be wise to catch up on it, then look at the facts.

Of course the main concern is the safety of everyone

Mine too, wouldn't it be better if everyone were responsible for their own?

and it would be a terrible tragedy for someone to take a hit that was not involved. In that case, I think I would rather be killed than accidentally kill someone that was relatively safe in the first place.

Of course it would, just as it is now. But look at the facts: People will always die from accidents. Face it, this life sucks sometimes. But think of it this way- a bullet is very small and there is more open space in the world than space taken up by people. just by sheer mathmatic proportions you are unlikely to hit a bystander by chance let alone if you take precaution to not shoot into a crowd. Add in hollowpoint and frangible bullets and you have a very safe condition IMO.

BTW, I do think that more people carrying would decrease certain crimes.

DING DING DING! You nailed it on that last one!

 

[CopperWires]

Originally Posted by CopperWires
So are you 2 saying that it wouldn't play out that way?

That is what I am saying. There would be no increase besides dead bad guys. Rush hour would not turn into WWIII and grannies and children would be just fine.

When I first mentioned crowded streets, I should have said that I was talking about lots of pedestrians as in some sort of public event. Something like a political rally or town festival. A place where there would be a crowd of people with multiple law abiding citizens that may take out an attacker from various directions. Back to my original statement, I would be worried about people taking the necessary precautions before firing. I would like to think they would but I can't depend on it. And it plays into the very argument that the antis are using against us if they did hit bystanders. But you're right about the bullet being small and lots of open space.

And the fact that the antis use that argument is a reason for me to be worried about it in the first place.

No, but it is the same rhetoric they use and it would be wise to catch up on it, then look at the facts.

Of course the main concern is the safety of everyone

Mine too, wouldn't it be better if everyone were responsible for their own?

Absolutely! I never disputed this. Only the thought process before firing in a crowd.

and it would be a terrible tragedy for someone to take a hit that was not involved. In that case, I think I would rather be killed than accidentally kill someone that was relatively safe in the first place.

Of course it would, just as it is now. But look at the facts: People will always die from accidents. Face it, this life sucks sometimes. But think of it this way- a bullet is very small and there is more open space in the world than space taken up by people. just by sheer mathmatic proportions you are unlikely to hit a bystander by chance let alone if you take precaution to not shoot into a crowd. Add in hollowpoint and frangible bullets and you have a very safe condition IMO.

I agree with this response. But again in a dense crowd and at the realization of attack, I'm not sure the crowd would have enough time to scatter. I would hope that the threat defender would not react instantaneously. Of course that is not what is taught but we're back to training again.

I really like this conversation now. Someone to provide some back and forth.

 

[J_Wales]

Read "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott.

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is accompanied by lower rates of violent crime.

Frankly, when it comes to law abiding citizens I could not possibly care less how many guns they have, what kind they are, or how and where they carry them.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

When I first mentioned crowded streets, I should have said that I was talking about lots of pedestrians as in some sort of public event. Something like a political rally or town festival. A place where there would be a crowd of people with multiple law abiding citizens that may take out an attacker from various directions. Back to my original statement, I would be worried about people taking the necessary precautions before firing. I would like to think they would but I can't depend on it. And it plays into the very argument that the antis are using against us if they did hit bystanders. But you're right about the bullet being small and lots of open space.

Absolutely! I never disputed this. Only the thought process before firing in a crowd.

I really like this conversation now. Someone to provide some back and forth.

Ok, When this is brought up I think of Tucson. As I understand it there was one shooter, 1 or 2 armed men in the crowd, and several (3 or 4) brave unarmed guys who takled him. The armed guys did not fire because they could not identify him right away and they could not get a clear shot. I believe that this would be indicative of a larger populace being armed in the same way. I just don't see anyone, even guys with no training being trigger happy in public. I know a person very well who would easily kill another man to protect himself and his wife that did not do so even when given the opportunity.

On the flip side you also have to take into account that not everyone IS armed in America. While nothing legally is standing in their way many people do not possess a gun. The notion of EVERYONE magically having a gun could be taken two ways:

1) Our influence as ambassadors of the 2nd amendment has been successful and Americans as a whole have embraced firearms as a practical and necessary part of a peaceful life. It could be said that they would then have our mindset of safety over firepower and by and large everyone would be relatively safety concious. This would promote unequalled peace and the lowest crime rate imaginable IMO.

2) Everyone is the exact same as they are today and they wake up with a loaded gun next to them. This is where it gets tricky. Many poeple may in fact not respect the ramifications of suddenly being armed. Those you would need to worry about would be people who don't know how to operate a gun, people who don't know gun safety, Rambo/cop wannabes who will act like vigilanties, and I would suppose also felons and criminals without easy access to firearms that are now armed. This is maybe what some are fearing and it is absolutely unpredictable, just as all "maybe" universes are.

In conclusion I believe that we are very much on the same side of the coin as each other and just voicing our concerns differently. +1 to you CopperWires! Very good conversation indeed.

 

[CopperWires]

That is a response that is worthy! Nicely put! I like your 2 scenarios. Number 1 would be great! Number 2 = what we have now = not good enough. But I doubt it would be one or the other. It will be mixed company. It makes me cringe to hear people walk into the gun shop and ask about firearms for protection and they are just completely uneducated. And after the salesman mentions training and starts talking about things like the 4 rules, the customer just glazes over. I have encountered it in every day conversation too. I think its great that they made the purchase, but they have to start thinking about the "what if" scenarios. In all honesty though, I think most of those people wouldn't even take their firearm out of their house.

 

[ghunter]

As far as the original question goes, how often do people get robbed at gun shows? That speaks volumes in favor of the benefits to having an armed populace.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

That is a response that is worthy! Nicely put! I like your 2 scenarios. Number 1 would be great! Number 2 = what we have now = not good enough. But I doubt it would be one or the other. It will be mixed company. It makes me cringe to hear people walk into the gun shop and ask about firearms for protection and they are just completely uneducated. And after the salesman mentions training and starts talking about things like the 4 rules, the customer just glazes over. I have encountered it in every day conversation too. I think its great that they made the purchase, but they have to start thinking about the "what if" scenarios. In all honesty though, I think most of those people wouldn't even take their firearm out of their house.

It would make me cringe too but the "quality" of some of our gunshops in Evansville mean that I don't spend too much time in them. Instead I am very proactive in my interactions with people. In my conversations with "regular" people I have come to realize there are a few main types out there:

1) Gun lovers. Yep they are out there in greater numbers than you realize.

2) People who own guns. These are the interesting ones to me, they have them, some shoot them, but it is not a passion and barely a hobby. Some keep them for defense but most just have a gun or two for target practice.

3) Hunters. I am only talking about non 2nd Amendment hunters. The kind that say they don't think you should have an AR or AK and definately not walk around with a loaded gun! These annoy me the worst.

4) People who are interested but never owned or maybe even never shot one before. I was here 3 years ago. These are our bread and butter. My experience says that most new active politically motivated gun owners come from this catagory, they just need someone to show them the way.

5) People who are ignorant/apathetic. not really a negative attitude of guns but not a positive either. These people generally aren't antis and don't really care one way or another. Difficult to turn around but not impossible. My wife was one of these, now she carries everyday.

6) Antis. Our enemy. The people who for whatever reason want to take away our rights. They don't like them and never will. I have never completely convinced an anti to switch yet. I really haven't met that many either, even people you would expect to be anti really aren't against gun ownership but they aren't for it either.

7) Felons/Criminals. This one is obvious. They want to use guns to further their selfish ambitions. I have talked guns with felons before. mostly to say I have them and know how to use them...

Anyway I said all that to say that my mission is to expose as many people as possible to guns and give them the best light that I know how. I guess I'm sort of a Firearm Missionary, converting the unbelievers LOL. Along the way I teach them the knowledge that I have and tryt to learn as much as I can along the way. I am always struggling for that #1 scenario.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

As far as the original question goes, how often do people get robbed at gun shows? That speaks volumes in favor of the benefits to having an armed populace.

And yet ironically there is not supposed to be any loaded firearms on the property! Too bad that isn't always the case...

 

[ATOMonkey]

And in that time the number of states allowing (man, I hate using that word) carry in any form has increased.

Coincidence?

On a side note: what the fark does watching the television have to do with the topic at hand? And why would a cessation of viewing have any effect on it whatsoever?

There's not nearly as much crime as the television would like you to believe.

Also, most crime is perpetrated upon and by people who already know each other, and most if not all of these are already armed.

Random violent crime and robbery is few and far between.

 

[clarky51]

Perhaps if everyone carried guns we'd have more cool Tombstone OK corral gunfights. Then we'd have something worth watching on TV. Of course they'd have to bring back double barrel shot guns that shoot three rounds and revolvers that have 52 rounds.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Perhaps if everyone carried guns we'd have more cool Tombstone OK corral gunfights. Then we'd have something worth watching on TV. Of course they'd have to bring back double barrel shot guns that shoot three rounds and revolvers that have 52 rounds.

Nope, the only thing we need for more Tombstone OK corral fights is for the government to try to take our guns like they did then.

Oh and to

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

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?

Suicide by .... civilian?

 

[lrahm]

A lot of people need to back up and think about what they just said. I won't be too popular by the time this is completed and will receive some bad reps. You do not want the majority of people to have a weapon. There are some seriously crazy people out there with some real problems. I figure there are about 10% of the population who actually have a grip on what's going on. You put guns in the hand of most citizens, you will have shootings over parking places, shootings because the neighbor won't keep their sidewalk clean, drug impaired people killing people for knocking on their door. These are actuall cases that we are called on each day. I wouldn't trust them with a toothpick yet alone a gun. When you have robberies over playstations or a murder over a pack of cigarettes, throw a gun into the mix.

We have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves, we don't have the right to use these weapons to settle differences. I cannot tell you how many people have protective orders against them, throw a gun in. There are some seriously carzy, impaired, intoxicated, sadistic (did I use enough adjatives to describe them).

I know that there are a lot of people who don't trust the police. Put that aside for a night. Go for a ride along and see what or who we run into. You will change you thought process. Titanium, (not saying you are one) ride with me for an evening.

Change of subject "lie to the police". We had one tonight. Different senario, he had several felony warrants against him. You lie to the police to keep from going to jail because you have a felony warrant. You don't lie because you are legally carring a handgun. If something negative happens from that encounter call his supervisor to educate that officer. WE had people who lied to the police because they were hiding a meth lab in their house last night...thats a lie. They went to jail and now you think that placing handguns in most hands will protect us, think again. The general public does not see the BIG picture.

 

[Rookie]

I agree and disagree with your post. "We have the right to bear arms." That is absolutely correct. Not using them to settle differences is also correct. Where do we disagree? Whether you or I trust someone should not be the determining factor.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Rookie is spot on. The fact is, those 90% could go out today and buy a gun. Many of them HAVE guns either on them or at home. Are there idiots in the world? Hell yeah! But IMO they wouldn't go around killing for no reason just because they had guns anymore than they do now.

LRahm, I will take you up on that offer. Give me the info for it and the rules.

 

[jeremy]

A lot of people need to back up and think about what they just said. I won't be too popular by the time this is completed and will receive some bad reps. You do not want the majority of people to have a weapon. There are some seriously crazy people out there with some real problems. I figure there are about 10% of the population who actually have a grip on what's going on. You put guns in the hand of most citizens, you will have shootings over parking places, shootings because the neighbor won't keep their sidewalk clean, drug impaired people killing people for knocking on their door. These are actuall cases that we are called on each day. I wouldn't trust them with a toothpick yet alone a gun. When you have robberies over playstations or a murder over a pack of cigarettes, throw a gun into the mix.

I remember the same arguments when I was in Texas in the '90's when they were striving to get concealed carry started there. There has been a whole lot of blood shed down there...

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The problem with being a "guard dog", lrahm, is that pretty soon you start thinking that only you-and-yours are worthy and capable of "guarding" the public. This isn't a slam at you or law enforcement officers, it's an observation on our society. There are going to be predators in any society. Whether those predators are kept in check by the government (through LEOs or other paramilitary forces) or by citizens depends upon the nature of the society and the mindset of the government and the citizens.

Over the years, our government has, by its penchant for sticking its nose into the states' and the public's interests, gradually eroded people's liberty and rights in the name of "fairness", "law and order", "officer safety", "equal rights", "multi-culturalism" and any number of other excuses. By treating adult citizens like children, government can justify all sorts of measures to do things to us "for our own good". This has turned our society from a land where a man was self-sufficient and worked to support his family; if he didn't, he was shunned by the rest of the community. The government has done all it can to destroy the concept of manhood, motherhood, extended family, traditional Judeo-Christian morality, and self-sufficiency and has created a nation where about half the population is in a state of extended adolescence, with very little sense of "right and wrong". That's why there are so many of you and your brothers in blue.

Having said all that, we are STILL endowed by our Creator with those inalienable rights, and if people choose to grow up and exercise those rights, YOU will have less work to do.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I remember the same arguments when I was in Texas in the '90's when they were striving to get concealed carry started there. There has been a whole lot of blood shed down there...

When I was in Houston in the early-to-mid 80s, citizens weren't allowed to carry handguns. That didn't stop idiots from shooting it out after fender-benders on the crowded freeways around town with legally-carried SHOTGUNS. It also didn't prevent people from carrying handguns anyway, and the level of gun crime, as I recall, was fairly steady.

What I object to, in this whole concept that "some people shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons" is that EVERYONE has the right to self-defense, whether they choose to exercise it or not, so any governmental entity or representative has no moral authority to deprive any individual not incarcerated of the right to self-defense, unless that entity is willing to be responsible for each disarmed individual's personal safety. Since our courts have specifically exempted police from that responsibility, government has no moral authority to deny citizens the means of self-defense.