If Everybody Carried A Gun The World Would Be Safer?

Question

Because any criminal or shooter would immediatly face return-fire from everybody around him.

Therefore school shootings would never go very far, armed robbery would end up with the criminal being shot.

In most cases the criminal would be long dead before the police arrive.

But now, thanks to the libs, they would want only the criminals to be armed.

If guns are outlaws, therefore outlaws will own them but not the rest of us and therefore outlaws will be free to do any crimes they want without fearing to be stoped.

By the time the police arrive, the damage will have been done.

What do you think ?

Answer 1

the first few years there would be lots and lots more shootings but after awhile people would realise i dont want to piss this guy off he has a gun too and i dont want to risk my life just to argue with this guy. plus research proved that a city where everyone has a gun has less violence then the city that didnt allow guns

Answer 2

I never carry a firearm out in the woods unless I am hunting. There is no reason at all to carry a weapon in the woods unless you are hunting. Bear mace is more effective than a 38 special round. A 38 special MAY slow the bear down, but the bear mace will stop the bear in it's tracks. I have been doing wilderness trips since I was 12 and have never been in a situation where I needed or felt like I may need a gun or bear mace for that matter. Most people getting hurt or killed by bears or other wild life are getting killed because they did something wrong. As long as you are not stupid most animals won't attack you. Using a gun of a handgun caliber (short of a Desert Eagle) will only make the bear angry and could exacerbate the situation. Now I love guns and believe people have the right to own them, but they have no place in backpacking. The number of things that can go wrong when people carry guns around in the woods far outweighs the number of things the gun could actually be used for. Worry about the important stuff like making sure you know where you are goin, how to get there, first aid, and equipment. Get some bear mace at an EMS or REI if you really feel scared about bears.

Answer 3

I agree.... but sadly practice does not work like that.
It probably would cut down on some crime, as every criminal would know the people they are attacking can defend themselves. Otherwise as you say people are defenceless, as is the case in many places in the world like South Africa.
On the other side, the abuse factor is too great. Stupid mistakes would be covered by saying that the person was attacking you, etc. Plus, it's an armed escalation, as has also been seen in many countries - you get guns, the criminals get AK-47's... and so it never ends.

No guns in Singapore, and very very low crime. It only works if the law is swtrictly enforced tho.

Answer 4

"everyone" is an awefully big word. However, despite the nay-sayers, law abiding sencible people do not become crazed criminals simply by having a weapon in their possession. I strongly believe licenced gun carriers should be able to carry in schools. As, as you suggest, it would make schools less likely to be targeted. more guns does not equal more violence, in fact its been pretty well demonstrated that the areas witht he highest concentration of firearms are the least likely to be assaulted. Compairing the US to other countries is really a moot point. The Culture of the US is much more ingrained to accept personal violence than many other countries. The real cure for gun crime is to punish those who commit said crimes, not the law abiding citizen.

Answer 5

I agree with don q. People compare the U.S. with other countries when cultures are extremely different. According to statistics, approximately 14% of homes in Switzerland have fully automatic weapons in their homes, and has a lower gun crime rate, than England with far stricter gun laws. Australia has far stricter gun laws, therefore guns are involved in only 17% of murders. BUT THE MURDERS STILL OCCUR USING WHATEVER MEANS THE PERP CAN USE! I believe that it all boils down determining who is responsible enough and who isn't.

Answer 6

Yes the world would be safer as long as only the people with no criminal history have guns or anyone with psycological disorders or minors. There are statistics that prove that in states where people are allowed to carry there weapons there is less crimes because criminals don't want to risk getting killed for stupid crimes.

Answer 7

Yes, makes sense.

People seem to forget the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment being to prevent government tyranny.

Switzerland is safe and probably has the highest per capita gun ownership.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
http://www.jref.com/society/foreign_crime_in_japan.shtml

"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." - Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia, (Case No. 04-7041), (decided March 9, 2007)

COMPARISONS BETWEEN CIVILIAN AND POLICE USE OF FIREARMS
(Source: Civil Rights Attorney Don Kates, St. Louis
University School of Law, in \Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out,\ \Firearms and Violence\, and "Gun Control and the Subway Class." The first two are books; the last is an article in the January 10, 1985 Wall Street Journal.)

Percentage of privately owned handguns used in crime: .004%

Number of times a year private handguns successfully used in defense: 645,000

Percentage of times armed police have succeeded in wounding or driving off criminals: 68%

Percentage of times armed private citizens have succeeded in wounding or driving off criminals: 83%

Percentage persons shot by armed police who are innocent of a crime: 11%

Percentage of persons shot by armed private citizens who are innocent of a crime: 2%

Answer 8

Yes, It would probably be safer.
That's what I don't understand about gun legislation today. Don't take guns away from law-abiding citizens and outlaw sales of guns.
Do you really think a criminal won't get a gun just because it's not legal?

Answer 9

Personally I don't think any one should have them at all, they are for killing and killing only. If no one had them then we wouldn't have to worry about small kids getting a hold of their parents handguns, there would be no school shootings,armed robberies, and no one standing on bridges shooting into traffic on the freeways, and hundreds of thousands of animals would not be killed only to be stuffed and stuck on someones wall like a trophy. I disagree with you on so many levels

Answer 10

Everybody in the Middle East is carrying a gun and look what is happening over there.