To Have Firearms or Not to Have Firearms? That Is the Question

So I was thinking, the real question surrounding gun control lies in the question of the extremes.

The hardcore gun control activist desires all guns be outlawed and for no one to have guns. This means that criminals do not have guns, but they also know that nobody else has guns either.

The other extreme for that position would be that EVERYBODY had a firearm and knew how to use it properly. This would mean all the criminals have guns, but they know that everyone else has a firearm and knows how to use it.

Given those two extremes, which would you choose and why?

 

With only the 2 extreme choices, I would choose that everyone have a gun. The gun is the great equalizer. If nobody was armed, every thug in America could get with 3-4 of his hoodlum friends and invade whatever home they like. If everybody were armed, they wouldn't be so eager to be the first in the door.

By everybody, I don't include children. I don't care if you do capitalize it.

 

The problem is the way you set it up. Law abiding people will give up their guns, but the law breakers will not. Maybe after a few years we would finally get all the guns off the street. However, in the meantime, people like my family would be helpless in a home invasion because law enforcement is a minimum of fifteen minutes away. Probably not even that close unless a deputy sheriff just happened to be in the right spot. Even, if all the guns are off the street, we would still be relatively helpless given our age.

Your choice, as presented is not worth discussing.

 

This is the issue with gun nuts. They see it as one extreme or the other either everyone is allowed to get guns with no regulations at all, or no one gets a gun. they see any attempt to regulate firearms such as keeping them all the hands of convicted criminals, or the mentally ill,etc..., As an attempt to strip everyone of the right to bear arms. No matter how sensible normal people consider a regulation they will always oppose it.

I mean I've even seen people call the regulations on on explosives and rocket launchers an infringement on gun rights.

 

I live in a world where everone does have a firearm, with exception of people wearing such scant clothing (such as a bikini) so as to make concealing one impossible. Everyone else could be concealing a firearm, and statistically speaking, at least 1 or 2 out of every hundred ARE.

 

No it’s a hypothetical. In a world where we could get rid of all guns (not weapons, just guns) would we take that over a world where everyone is armed?

I would posit that given a world where the criminals know that no one has a gun, they will be far more likely to engage in criminal activity with other weapons knowing the likelihood their victim is armed with a knife, much less capable, is very low.

Whereas in a hypothetical society of everyone having firearms. The criminals would know that even though they have guns, so does everyone else and it’s likely they’re carrying. They would be far less likely to engage in violent crime because the risk would be too high.

 

“Normal people”?

 

Furthermore it’s worth discussing because if we understand that neither position is actually attainable, yet we can come to agreement that the “world with guns” is preferable... then on what grounds can one argue that, on that spectrum between the two “ideals”, we should be closer to the “no guns” end as opposed to the “everyone has guns” end?

 

People who understand sensible gun laws and don't want to either completely deregulate them or ban them all together

 

Let me ask you a couple questions if you don’t mind.

Would you mind telling me what the intent for including the second amendment into the constitution was?

 

“Sensible” is subjective. Apparently “normal” is reserved for people who think just like you.

You don’t get to decide what’s sensible for other people. To do so is textbook authoritarianism.

 

Gun control isn’t at all about guns it’s about controlling people. It isn’t about school shootings or any other gun related crimes.Those that want to take our guns want to so they can take away our freedom. They want to control every aspect of our lives and not give us a choice. How do I know this? Those same people are extremely angry because we don’t agree with them, angry enough to riot, loot, burn and murder, murder those that don’t agree with them. Under those circumstances they think murder is acceptable, justified and might even be done with a gun. Remember this is about a difference of opinion not because of anything we’ve done. For the last three months we’ve seen how these people treat those that disagree with them and those that stand between those that disagree and them. They tell us they hate America, our flag, our religion, our culture, our economy and our laws They do not want to discuss any of this in a civil manner, they tell us they have demands and that there is nothing else to talk about. If these people are this angry now imagine if the were were able to seize power over us. The first thing they would do is come for our guns. Hopefully none of this will ever happen but we still have to remember why we have the Second Amendment, it is the only protection we have against totalitarianism. The day we willingly give up our guns is the day we give up our freedom. These crazed people in the streets eventually will pack up and go home. Unfortunately there are many of these same people in the halls of our government, we know who they are because they engage in a lot of the same psychotic babble and openly pledge their support for the rampaging mob. Right now we have the Constitution, a document that describes our rights and freedoms in detail, it is the consensus of a free nation. We must never allow these people to be in a position to cancel the Constitution like they’ve canceled everything else.

 

So you take them.

 

Actually we do, that's what laws are.

 

Take them? With what... whack them upside the head with a summer sausage?

 

Anyone recall that Middle East proverb, along the lines of an Arab, his camel, his tent, and a cold night? Yep, one "common sense" gun control measure after another, each more restrictive on the "law abiding" than the last, and each one enacted is never quite enough, always need to have another. Damn right we "gun nuts" will oppose the "common sense nuts" until the last ditch because we know what the long game is here. Like that old Arab we'll be sitting out in the cold, while they'll be sitting in the tent laughing.

 

Thank you

 

To eliminate the need for a Standing Army

 

Yes, most people are authoritarian. That’s my point.

 

You are making a "...in a perfect world ..." argument. But in a perfect world no-one would need guns - cause it's a perfect world.

Real world, many criminals don't care if you have a gun cause they watch the same movies you do and think they can out-shoot you in a fight.
Mass shooters are pretty much in a mindset where they are going to die on the scene and become famous - so guns don't really factor into their plans.

Real world, there are plenty of people who are not mentally sound, and probably shouldn't be allowed to have guns.
Real world, not everyone is comfortable having guns or has the mind-set to learn gun safety.

I'm not against private gun ownership, but in the real world, real people realize that guns are not panaceas to the world's problems.

 

You're right, "... guns are not panaceas to the world's problems."

But wouldn't you be more comfortable with one in the event of a home invasion or murderous mob attacking your home?

Yes, it can happen to you. I can remember 3 times in which I've used my firearm to defend myself against individuals whose plans were not to make me any happier, healthier or wealthier.

 

You have as much chance of that happening as you have of being hit by lightning. Having a gun in the home has dangers all it's own. Arguments or mental health issues or even stupid accidents can become deadly shooting incidences.

That is either bullshit or you PUT yourself in situations like that.

I have walked this planet for 66 years. I have lived near NYC and Newark NJ most of my life (withing 7 miles of both). I have worked in NYC in some "rough neighborhoods".

I have never been in a situation like that and in fact know no one personally who ever has

 

Oh well I guess that means it doesn’t happen right?

 

I worked documenting crime scenes for nine years.
In that time I recorded over a dozen domestic shootings, even more suicides by gun, one incident of self-protection, and one horrific accidental child on child shooting. I have no romantic illusions about "protecting the family" and I've owned guns all my life.

And if you have actually been in three separate gun pulled, ready to shoot, incidences - then you might need to take a long look in a mirror.

 

So let’s try it this way.
Do you think a criminal, with or without a gun, is more likely to commit a violent crime against you if he thinks you do have a firearm or if he thinks you don’t have a firearm?