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

[SlowwHand]

I'd just as soon be shot as hit over the head with a rock.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dissident


well I won't deny there will be millions of deaths if everyone had a gun.

But once that bloodbath is overwith. Things should be very peaceful

millions?

Do you realize there are less than 300 million people in the US? I seriously doubt that millions would die.

[Az]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Or grenade launchers.

again, if they can put their hands on them, they already do that, today.

[Illyrien]

Concealed hanguns reduce some types of crime, notably murder, violence and rape. Theft and bruglary (in homes with nobody home) on the other hand rise a little.

Concealed handguns makes it more risky for a criminal to try anything.


If anything should want to study to topic more in detail, I would recommend "More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott, jr.

[Ben Kenobi]

Azazel:

We cannot stop all murderers, so do we stop punishing those we can catch?

It's the same with gun control. Yes, we might still have guns, but you make it much more difficult for criminals to use them.

And the bullet idea is an interesting one. Especially if you make people think before they shoot, because they don't want to run out of ammunition.

[Az]

You haven't adressed my line of thought at all, Ben. I am saying that the "arms race" theory doesn't work. criminals already try to get their hands on the heaviest equipment around, not just 'to gain advantage over the common man', esp. since law enforcement already have them all. Therefor, letting people have handguns, will not lead to criminals trying to seek assault rifles, since they already get them if and when they can.

[Dis]

we'd just all stockpile ammunition before the law goes into effect

[Ben Kenobi]

we'd just all stockpile ammunition before the law goes into effect

Gotta run out sometime.

As for the escalation theory, yes some criminals already have assault rifles, but why would you need one if most people did not have a gun? I would think you would have more criminals aquiring assault rifles than before.

[Az]

As for the escalation theory, yes some criminals already have assault rifles, but why would you need one if most people did not have a gun? I would think you would have more criminals aquiring assault rifles than before.

Why? because police have guns. And assault rifles, as well.

[MrFun]

So what would happen if I walked into the Apolyton coffee shop with an uzi??

[Az]

Uzi is a farely decent guy, I know him.


Which reminds me... this guy, above is an Israeli singer, named Uzi Hitman. What can I say?

[Paul Hanson]

That's deliberate, right?

[Az]

Well, we do have to educate our children to the grim realities of the conflict, and the bright future of conquest. (He writes lots of kids' songs.)

Seriously, no!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Azazel
Uzi is a farely decent guy, I know him.


Which reminds me... this guy, above is an Israeli singer, named Uzi Hitman. What can I say?

Going for the Smart*ss Award, are we?


Reach for the stars, reach for the stars!

[Az]

Yep, the sky is the limit.

[Dr Strangelove]

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.

You should watch "Gangs of New York". Other than the fact that very few New England protestants were actually psychotic sado-masochistic cannibals, that the probability of a woman surviving a late term abortion via C-section in the nineteenth century were practically nil, and that the US Navy during the Civil War did not use the type of explosive shells that came into use around the time of the Spanish American War, its depiction of the nineteenth century American city as a crime sodden hell hole was fairly accurate.

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.

Well the fact that school marms in the ninetenth century had the right to cane miscreants almost to the point of death probably had something to do with the good behavior of students in those days. There actually was a history of school shootings in the nineteenth century. At the University of Virginia a student became so upset over being expelled from school for cheating, even though he was caught with written material in the test room, that he assasinated the professor who expelled him. The solution that U.Va. came up with however was very interesting. They did not arm their professors, but instead instituted the first honor system, effectively taking discipline out of the professors hands and putting into someone elses! (Thereby taking the faculty out of the line of fire!)

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.

I'm not sure about the nineteenth century, but during my life gun ownership has bugeoned without noticably reducing the crime rate. In 1960 there were about 30 million privately owned weapons distributed amongst a population of just under 200 million. Today there are over 150 million weapons owned by 290 million people. It's my guess that even fewer people owned guns in the nineteenth century, since they were proportionaly more expensive. Today an average man, who brings in about $30,000/year can purchase a handgun for $100 - $200. In the nineteenth century a Colt revolver would have sold for about $20 - $40, but the average man earned less than $200/year!

[SlowwHand]

"Today an average man, who brings in about $30,000/year can purchase a handgun for $100 - $200."


What can of crap you buying, sawbones ?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Today an average man, who brings in about $30,000/year can purchase a handgun for $100 - $200."


What can of crap you buying, sawbones ?

Well JEEZZZZZ. What kind of crap does it take anyway. When we went to a music store to buy my daughter's clarinet I saw a "Taurus" revolver offered for under $200. It wasn't fancy, but frankly if I was to buy a handgun for self-defense I doubt that buying anything fancier would make a difference.
The big point is that if you need a gun today you can get one for a fraction of 1% of an average man's annual income, where as in the nineteenth century you'd pay about one-quarter of his annual income. Buying a handgun then would almost have the same impact on personal finances as buying a car today.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Illyrien
Concealed hanguns reduce some types of crime, notably murder, violence and rape. Theft and bruglary (in homes with nobody home) on the other hand rise a little.

Concealed handguns makes it more risky for a criminal to try anything.


If anything should want to study to topic more in detail, I would recommend "More Guns, Less Crime" by John R. Lott, jr.

I read some of the research this man based his writings on. In the study they analyzed the murder rate during the same year in states before and after concealed weapon laws went into effect in about one dozen states. As you know there is no set date on which a state's laws go into effect. Legislatures usually try to set a date that gives adequate time to prepare for it-such as setting up the mechanics to deal with the increase in applications for licenses. In order to deal with the partial year data they used "dumb-weighting". In the study I read I couldn't find details about their statistical technique, but usually what "dumb-weighting" would mean is that they took the fraction of the total year that the particular data set dealt with, then multiplied the data by the inverse in order to make the data approximate an entire year. They did this with data for the part of the year before passsage of the concealed weapon law and for the part of the year afterwards. One of the key problems with this technique is that it assumes that murders are evenly distributed throughout the year, which is not true. In most of the US there is a summer increase due to the "hot time in the city" effect. Many northern states also have a winter increase due to the "cabin fever" effect.

Since the publication of Mr. Lott's work many more states have eased the requirements to obtain a concealed weapons, yet since that time the murder rate has once again risen from a twenty year low of about 15,000/year to 19,000/year or about the same as it was when the movement to make it easier to get a concealed weapon permit began. Now that's progress!

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by DanielXY
Yeah great plan. Dead ppl. dont shoot at each other... hmmm ... what will the US do with all the free property once the smoke fades? ...

Sounds like the Survivors will have a great time.
With at least half of the Population dead thee will be enugh jobs for everyone.
Especialy undertakers will have a Job Boom

Maybe we should follow Americas example and also solve our Unemployment-Problem this way

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Gotta run out sometime.

What on earth would you be using the ammo for?

As for the escalation theory, yes some criminals already have assault rifles, but why would you need one if most people did not have a gun? I would think you would have more criminals aquiring assault rifles than before.

Aren't gunfights usually decided by who shoots first?

[mrmitchell]

I'd just as soon be shot as hit over the head with a rock.

I can help you test that

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Today an average man, who brings in about $30,000/year can purchase a handgun for $100 - $200."


What can of crap you buying, sawbones ?

I bet a $100 gun can kill you as dead as a $1,000 gun.

[Dis]

but you wouldn't look as cool doing it

[Theben]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I like the pump action shotgun. Has that distinctive sound that induces pant shitting amongst home intruders.

I was thinking of getting one just for that very reason.

But sans the rounds. Listened to a crime patrol cop say if you can't visualize yourself killing someone, them don't own a gun. It's much more likely to kill you in a confrontation. Don't know if I could kill a person, and I don't care to find out anytime soon.

[Dis]

I know for a fact I could kill someone. I think about it everyday

[Theben]

Originally posted by Dissident
I know for a fact I could kill someone. I think about it everyday

Sounds like you have a particular target.

[GePap]

As gun laws have gotten tougher and more draconian in NYC the crime rate has declined. Most southern cities now whish they were as safe as NYC.

[Dis]

Originally posted by GePap
As gun laws have gotten tougher and more draconian in NYC the crime rate has declined. Most southern cities now whish they were as safe as NYC.

That's a nice way to construe statistics to your liking. There are many factors that lead to a decrease in crime in nyc.

Imho the biggest of these are that most criminals that cause a lot of repeat crimes are in jail. There are 2 million people in jail in the U.S.! With these people off the streets, the streets are proportionally safer.

but I'm willing to give you the fact that the lack of guns may have contributed to the decrease in crime in nyc. But you need to factor in economic improvement as well. NYC was a shithole in the 70's. It is so much better now. It's best you just go ahead and thank Guliani right now.

[GePap]

NYC invariably has a higher unemploymeny than the rest of the country. We also have more pockets of ingrained poverty. And drugs and organized crime remain issues. Yet gun ownership in NY is not that high..certainly lower thsan in much more violent araes in the south, areas that might very well have lower unemployment.

The point is guns are tools: in that they make deadly crime easier, they are a factor for more dealy crime, not les. BUt the fundamental reasons for crime are societal, or based on the policies of government (NYC police is very involved). I have no porblem with rifles or shotguns..but handguns need very tight regulation.

[Dis]

I think you overstate how bad crime is in the south. I have lived in the south, and crime is so much better than where I live now (Las Vegas). Many people are religious, maybe religion keeps these people in check.

I lived in a very poor neighborhood in Newport News, Va, yet I was never victimized by crime (and I was one of the few white people living in that neighborhood). Despite the poverty, crime was not that bad. Same think with Charleston, SC. Florida crime wasn't that bad. And I never seen any crime in Pascagoula, Mississippi either.