Would the United States be safer if every person owned a gun?
- Thread starter blobfish
- Start date
I'd rather have a gun.
RoryN
You're screwed.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2003
- Posts
- 57,419
Most people who shoot other people aren't crazy.
Well, replace "crazy" with "homicidal".
Joeybagadonuts
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 6, 2010
- Posts
- 9,202
if everyone carried, that would increase the odds of you being killed by friendly fire.
RoryN
You're screwed.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2003
- Posts
- 57,419
Okay. Most people who shoot other people aren't homicidal.
Is this going to be some racist thing?
Recidiva
Harastal
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Posts
- 89,726
The question is - are all people who have guns prone to homicide or insanity.
No. I have guns and know how to use them. I believe they are a way I could better defend myself and my family from assault and theft in the same way I believe a fire extinguisher is a way I could use to better defend myself from fire.
People die in car accidents, are all people who drive homicidal?
RoryN
You're screwed.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2003
- Posts
- 57,419
This has nothing to do with racism. This is about flawed logic.
You're saying the U.S. would be safer if everyone owned a gun because "the homicidal people would be outweighed by the good people". Homicidal people aren't the crux of the problem when it comes to guns - ordinary people are.
Of course not.
Last edited:
Recidiva
Harastal
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Posts
- 89,726
Based on what evidence? You think that someone who is determined to kill won't find a way to do it anyway? "Oh, no guns. I guess all my rage-filled revenge fantasies are for naught. I shall take up knitting."
Adre
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2012
- Posts
- 23,913
You ain't seen nothing.
RoryN
You're screwed.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2003
- Posts
- 57,419
Um, no. But they're not the issue.
Homicidal people are a very small portion of the population.
This post or whatever just seems like a massive instigation.
Adre
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2012
- Posts
- 23,913
You're catching on. But it'll get stupider before it dies
Recidiva
Harastal
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Posts
- 89,726
So we have laws that punish them after they've acted.
It is kinda the issue. Having a gun is a proven defense and offense and negotiating technique. Cops carry them for a reason.
There are too many things of low technological value that can kill people, including guns. Guns are centuries old technology. There's no way to limit the technology without taking it away from the law abiding and providing proliferation opportunities to sell and be better armed by the bad guys.
Recidiva
Harastal
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Posts
- 89,726
Welcome to Lit.
RoryN
You're screwed.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2003
- Posts
- 57,419
You're arguing a straw man.
I'll bring us back on topic: the logic that the U.S. would be safer if everyone owned a gun because "the homicidal people would be outweighed by the good people" is flawed because homicidal people aren't the main issue. None of that has to do with laws, gun or otherwise.
Recidiva
Harastal
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Posts
- 89,726
I think the main issue is that if I'm armed and trained, which I am, I become less of a helpless victim from a threat at range, and I want the opportunity to use it. If I'm in a crowd of people like me who are also armed and trained, we are cumulatively less at risk from a threat at range.
Guns would be a menace without the training, but assuming someone is not afraid of guns, not afraid to defend themselves, and not afraid to use that advantage to negotiate with the weapon one way or the other, I'd prefer to be in a crowd of armed and trained than in a crowd of terrified and helpless.
RoryN
You're screwed.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2003
- Posts
- 57,419
Perfectly valid. But not the topic of this thread.
Recidiva said:
There you go. That addresses this topic.
Recidiva
Harastal
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Posts
- 89,726
No, it's valid. The thread doesn't stipulate as to training or not. I'm stipulating the training. You're stipulating lack of training. You'd be right if everyone was untrained and immediately shot themselves in the ass trying to figure it out. I'm right if someone who gets a gun gets the basic training required to operate it in the same way that someone buying a car gets the basic training required to operate it.
Cops do better against threat armed and trained. Armies do better against threat armed and trained.
Newspaper articles are legion of individuals who manage to stop a crime from taking place because they are armed and trained.
The only argument against individuals carrying guns openly is the argument that people are weak, stupid and crazy.
That's why...the rest of us who aren't...do better with the guns than without.
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Would it sound less stupid if you weren't new?
RoryN
You're screwed.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2003
- Posts
- 57,419
Yes it does - by omission.
That's why it's a straw man.
No - the OP did. There was no training implied in his premise, was there?
Similar threads
