Face it, the U.S. was a whole lot safer when everyone had guns

Dis · September 28, 2003, 04:15

Well not everyone had guns, but honest citizens gun ownership was much, much higher percentage-wise than it is now.

Look at the 19th century. Crime was almost non-existant. Sure you had the occasional OK corral. But contrary to what western movies would have you believe, shootouts were very rare. Why? Because everyone was packing, and you were libel to get yourself killed drawing your weapon on someone else. School shootings? They would not be a problem of the students were packing heat.

Why not commit crimes now? I look around my city, and armed robbery is so easy to do. No one ever gets caught. I can't figure out why everyone doesn't do it. The police don't even investigate armed robbery anymore. They are too busy with more serious violent crimes. But they hardly solve those either.

Why trust your life in the hands of inept police?

I suggest buying a gun.

Drake Tungsten · September 28, 2003, 04:18

I can't have a gun over here. It makes me feel like some *****, homo-gay Eurocom.

BeBro · September 28, 2003, 04:19

homo-gay

Drake Tungsten · September 28, 2003, 04:29

It's such a great term, isn't it?

BeBro · September 28, 2003, 04:30

Without the "-" one could think it is a new kind of human, the homo gay

Ben Kenobi · September 28, 2003, 04:37

By that reason, packing more heat ought to lead to more security?

Why don't you buy a grenade launcher and really protect yourself?

Dis · September 28, 2003, 04:39

alas, I cannot get my hands on one of those

Drake Tungsten · September 28, 2003, 04:39

Quote:

Why don't you buy a grenade launcher and really protect yourself?

A grenade launcher isn't an effective weapon for self-defense. I'd much rather have a nice shotgun.

BeBro · September 28, 2003, 04:42

Everyone should have mininukes. That would give new meaning to MAD

Ben Kenobi · September 28, 2003, 04:42

Quote:

A grenade launcher isn't an effective weapon for self-defense. I'd much rather have a nice shotgun.

It's all about intimidation. Who's going to take you on with a grenade launcher?

Paul Hanson · September 28, 2003, 04:54

Me. I'd run up to him with a baseball bat and batter him from close range, where the grenade launcher would be ineffective.

Drake Tungsten · September 28, 2003, 05:02

Quote:

It's all about intimidation. Who's going to take you on with a grenade launcher?

See above.

DanielXY · September 28, 2003, 05:08

Depends on how crazy the person is... he could just pull the trigger and blow both of you to pieces

DanielXY · September 28, 2003, 05:13

Hm, I think I should wear a clearly visibel explosive belt as a self-defence measure, add a crazy impression to your face and you will always have a free path in front of you

Proteus_MST · September 28, 2003, 05:31

Quote:

Originally posted by DanielXY
Hm, I think I should wear a clearly visibel explosive belt as a self-defence measure, add a crazy impression to your face and you will always have a free path in front of you

Too dangerous.
In Public People might try to shoot you from a Distance with their Grenadelaunchers and Shotguns

Things might go different of course if you carry a clearly visible nuclear Warhead

BeBro · September 28, 2003, 05:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
Me. I'd run up to him with a baseball bat and batter him from close range, where the grenade launcher would be ineffective.

But at close range he could use the launcher to beat you back

Kropotkin · September 28, 2003, 05:49

Quote:

Look at the 19th century. Crime was almost non-existant.

Yeah, right!

Starchild · September 28, 2003, 06:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I can't have a gun over here. It makes me feel like some *****, homo-gay Eurocom.

We queer bois prefer swords anyway. More phallic.

Skanky Burns · September 28, 2003, 06:03

Halberds. They are bigger.

Rufus T. Firefly · September 28, 2003, 06:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Well not everyone had guns, but honest citizens gun ownership was much, much higher percentage-wise than it is now.

Look at the 19th century. Crime was almost non-existant. Sure you had the occasional OK corral. But contrary to what western movies would have you believe, shootouts were very rare. Why? Because everyone was packing, and you were libel to get yourself killed drawing your weapon on someone else. School shootings? They would not be a problem of the students were packing heat.

Why not commit crimes now? I look around my city, and armed robbery is so easy to do. No one ever gets caught. I can't figure out why everyone doesn't do it. The police don't even investigate armed robbery anymore. They are too busy with more serious violent crimes. But they hardly solve those either.

Why trust your life in the hands of inept police?

I suggest buying a gun.

Diss, get yourself to a library or bookstore right now and get a copy of Luc Sante's Low Life, which is his account of crime in New York in the 19th century. That should put to rest any ideas you have about the crimeless 1800s.

After that, remember that, far from everyone "packing heat," frontier towns practiced a form of gun control that would send Charlton Heston into apoplectic fits: guns often had to be left with the sherrif when you rode into town, and only picked up after you left.

Finally, remember that "everyone" had guns only in rural and frontier areas; big cities had a much smaller percentage of gun owners then than they do now.

Now, you were saying?

axi · September 28, 2003, 08:40

Stupid White Men...

GePap · September 28, 2003, 09:52

Yup, just look at the holywood myths of the low crime US out west..yup, no crime at all.

Excatly why so few people were hung, exacty why anti-crmie camapining became an issue only in the 1960's and so forth.....

Pekka · September 28, 2003, 09:59

I'd settle with automatic shotgun.. assault! Or just plain assault rifle for big problems, and large hand gun for smaller problems.. maybe domestic rk95 rifle for me and desert eagle would be the .. actually I'll settle for less firepower and go with beretta... 92f.. old for sure, but I like it.

But if I really had my own ways, I'd be driving my Susie Q mod II in the streets. No one would dare to turn the red lights for me, since I could take out the whole city.

Drake Tungsten · September 28, 2003, 10:01

I like the pump action shotgun. Has that distinctive sound that induces pant shitting amongst home intruders.

SlowwHand · September 28, 2003, 10:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Well not everyone had guns, but honest citizens gun ownership was much, much higher percentage-wise than it is now.

Look at the 19th century. Crime was almost non-existant. Sure you had the occasional OK corral. But contrary to what western movies would have you believe, shootouts were very rare. Why? Because everyone was packing, and you were libel to get yourself killed drawing your weapon on someone else. School shootings? They would not be a problem of the students were packing heat.

Why not commit crimes now? I look around my city, and armed robbery is so easy to do. No one ever gets caught. I can't figure out why everyone doesn't do it. The police don't even investigate armed robbery anymore. They are too busy with more serious violent crimes. But they hardly solve those either.

Why trust your life in the hands of inept police?

I suggest buying a gun.

No kidding?
Better to have the option, and keep criminals in the dark.
Allowing concealed handguns was a great move in Texas.

GePap, at least we have no fear in going to a park.
Do you often tramp through Central Park at night with no fear?

Yeah, right.

mrmitchell · September 28, 2003, 10:09

If NOONE had guns, there would only be for the large part nonviolent crime--many less muggings and shootings etc. You might see a bit more beatings, but those are a lot better than shootings, right?

Now, on the other hand, if EVERYONE had guns, people would still shoot people no matter what the odds of getting killed. (I don't think many murderers would really care about that

)

When SOME people have guns, the rate is as high as if EVERYONE has guns, and it's a more successful rate at that because only so many people pack protection.

The ideal is NO guns, but banning something only makes it more attractive to get.

So what do we do?

Pekka · September 28, 2003, 10:13

Well I guess there's nothing to be done, since you can't get rid of guns. Criminals will have guns no matter what. They don't tend to obey the law anyway, so banning wouldn't do crap. So, when it has come to the point where there are lots of guns, we should make sure the goodies can protect themselves from the baddies.

SlowwHand · September 28, 2003, 10:21

Mitchell, you're a dreamer.
Guns will never be eliminated from the equation.
Ideally there would be no bad guys.
Rarely have I seen anything that was ideal.

mrmitchell · September 28, 2003, 10:37

Quote:

Mitchell, you're a dreamer.

...I point out an ideal situation then I point out a reason why it's not worth trying to make it happen.

Quote:

Ideally there would be no bad guys.

Of course. But then if there were none, we wouldn't need any guns because we wouldn't have anything to protect ourselves from right?

Rufus T. Firefly · September 28, 2003, 10:44

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
If NOONE had guns, there would only be for the large part nonviolent crime--many less muggings and shootings etc. You might see a bit more beatings, but those are a lot better than shootings, right?

Now, on the other hand, if EVERYONE had guns, people would still shoot people no matter what the odds of getting killed. (I don't think many murderers would really care about that

)

When SOME people have guns, the rate is as high as if EVERYONE has guns, and it's a more successful rate at that because only so many people pack protection.

The ideal is NO guns, but banning something only makes it more attractive to get.

So what do we do?

A few years before he died, Daniel Moynahan (moderate Senator from NY) confronted this very question, and came to pretty much those conclusions. Plus, he noted, even if we did ban guns right now, there are already enough floating around in our society to make the ban meaningless.

His solution: ban bullets. Seriously. Ban the sale of handgun bullets to everyone but licensed law officers, and have law officers get them through tightly-regulated government distribution.

I tend to agree with Sloww that the genie is already out of the bottle. But you have to admit, it's an interesting idea.