If Everybody Carried A Gun The World Would Be Safer?

Dont get Infected

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

Free Girl Now

I think the majority of people in the world are smart...at least smart enough to make decent decisions...but there are so many out there that are stupid. Do we really want all those stupid people carrying guns? Aren't there enough stupid people with guns already?

onelostphilosopher

No, because people come up with stupid reasons after shooting someone to justify it. In the heat of the momment people dont use logic or their brains for that matter

beernotcider

Just take a look around you at what is going on in America today where every idiot and his dog owns a gun. Now adding more guns into the system will only create more idiots. Go figure...

bozomarty

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?

Lov'n IT!

Squiddy

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

molly

did you know that Canada has the lowest murder rate in the world? and if owning a gun guaranteed safety then the USA would be the safest country on the planet would it not? But we know better dont we? oh and by the way I think Charlton Heston is a douche bag.

Billie A

On the news and in the papers about a month ago, there was a death due to a fight over the new xbox game. As long as you have uneducated and short tempered people in this world there will be unneeded deaths. Now if we can get the uneducated and rejects to kill each other, it might not be so bad!

jkva12707

i really dont think it would be any safer. i think it would make crime rates go up higher. there would be so much more murder rates, and i believe a majority of people have no reason to have a gun.

mike g

No, there would eventually be more shootings and for dumb reasons

PS Drummer

No I think that more guns = more death and misery. Your question is like asking if more wars will create a more peaceful world.

rhino_poacher

Using this sort of logic, one could argue that the world would be a safer place if every country had nuclear weapons.

And I doubt many people would agree with that.

Itrolla

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

kris13iam

Logic dictates more guns = more shootings = more deaths.

Japan has no firearms and it is VERY safe.

wmicah33

I think people would probably be a lot more polite.

Unicornrider

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.

willf1981

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.

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%

CGIV76

Wrong. You should have thought of all the ramifications before you asked the question. Not just give your opinion.

Dontugetit

H?LL YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WILD WILD WEST

Alexander B

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.

open4one

I think it would be better to be tried by twelve than to be carried by six.

don q

"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.

Slow

Yes, Afghanistan is a good case in point. Central Asia has the longest and most established tradition in the world of owning weapons and nobody has ever been able to rule Central Asia for long. High weapons ownership prevents the formation of stable centralised governments and the resultant loss of individual autonomy.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: