Kennesaw Georgia
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm
The numbers don’t lie. Criminals are like water, they seek the path of least resistance. So why not require every household in America to own at least one firearm? I am southern born and bred, behind most every door was a rifle or shotgun. No one ever tried to break in.
So tell me why it shouldn’t be required. Of course if you agree feel free to speak up.
I think it’d kind of turn into the Old West. Maybe people wouldn’t break in as much, but I think we’d end up with gun fights, innocent people getting caught in the cross-fire, etc. Not to mention, some people wouldn’t care enough to practice their shot, so some would be better shooters than others.
Also, would there be a restriction on what kind of gun it was? Would we need to be carrying them around with us at all times, or just keep them next to the bed? Just some standard issue? Or would everyone have a choice, and some end up with more powerful guns than others?
I’m asking these questions seriously so that I can better understand your question.
That would be great. I live in a high crime area but not being terribly materialistic the kids breaking into my house have generally been prety disapointed. Not much market for my 10 year old sterio and the computer is too much damn trouble. I sometimes feel guilty about the lack of return for their efforts.
A gun would be good though, easy to carry and easy to fence. I wouldn’t have to feel so bad about them leaving empty handed.
[sarcasm]If it weren’t for the fact that gun accidents would skyrocket, and that thieves would know that, no matter what house they broke into, a free gun would be for the taking, I would consider it to be a simply marvy idea![/sarcasm].
Where in the HELL do you think the guns already on the streets come from? They are stolen from people that think that mere ownership of a gun somehow creates an invisible shield of safety between them and the big, bad world.
Requiring everyone to own a gun would be just as unconstitutional as banning guns outright. If someone wants to own a gun, they should be allowed to own a gun. If someone chooses not to own a gun, they should be allowed to not own a gun.
There is a problem here by not having comparisons, locally or nationally or internationally. Also, having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide, gun accidents, and domestic gun abuse/violence against one’s spouse, for whatever that’s worth. I could probably prove that bars on the windows prevents crime too, but then we wouldn’t be talking about guns. I don’t see anythng wrong with a gun in the home, but I see something wrong in thinking crime is prevented by more guns involved. I think it is always a diversion from real social issues, capable of overshadowing needed political debates such as abortion, which also prevents crime, by threatening to abort guns too. That’s why GW Bush has to pretend to be a cowboy. Why people buy into it is no mystery.
Why is requiring someone to go to Europe or Southeast Asia and carry a gun (and get shot at by people who also are carrying guns) constitutional, but requiring someone to carry a gun here isn’t?
And as for you people that say that this will increase other gun fatalities: Reeder’s shown his cite. Let’s see yours.
Cite?
You mean “requiring people to undertake military enlistment, with all the training and benefits that go along with it”, don’t you? There’s a difference between throwing a whole slew of guns to citizens and giving both guns AND the training and discipline that they require to a scant few.
So goes Kennesaw Georgia, so goes the rest of the country.
I’m sure that what worked in Kennesaw will work in New York, Miami, Baltimore, Los Angeles, New Orleans…
Several rather glaring problems with your suggestion, Reeder.
1. You assume that the entire country is similar to some small town in Georgia. Different communities are different and what works in this one small town will not work everywhere else. I’m guessing that New York City is just a little bit different than Kennesaw.
2. You assume that all criminals behave in a logical and rational manner in accordance with their own best interests. (If they believe the house contains a gun, they won’t enter.) You can’t expect a criminal to act rationally. Many don’t.
3. You assume that every household will be able to handle the great responsibility that comes with owning a gun. What about convicted felons who are out of prison? What about people who beat their wives? People who are easily enraged? People who have children and yet are irresponsible practically to the point of negligence? People with certain mental disorders to whom a gun would make them a danger to others or to themselves? People who have already attempted suicide? The list can go on. Should all those people have guns? It’s absurd to think that a whole host of new problems won’t arise if everyone is required to have a gun.
4. You assume your cite is a legitimate source of information. A small sampling of items from the News page at that website (all bolding mine, italics in original):
Yeah, that’s real objective. Got a better source? Perhaps from somewhere that doesn’t claim that CBS is staging a holy war against Republicans, that the leadership of the Girl Scouts has become “dominated by Lesbians”, or that white-on-black crime is made the subject of national outrage (and is always a hate crime) while black-on-white crime is largely ignored and left to local media?
This is incorrect. Criminals do act in thier own best interest, the only thing is that the acts they consider in their own best interest are well … crimes. Of course, commiting the crime itself is not acting in ones best interest, but we see that from a law-abiding citizens point of view. From thiers it is.
Also, a survey of drug dealers revealed (detailed in “The Truth About Self Protection”) that they are most afraid of other drug dealers (#1) and their customers (#2) and muggers (#3). These reasons were cited as being their reason for arming themselves (nice vicious circle with regards to #1) since the people they fear the most are generally armed or in the case of their customers willing to take up arms if they get desperate enough.
A survey of burglars (also in “The Truth About Self Protection” and some other places) showed that they #1 fear was the occupant having a firearm.
The fact is that criminals, just like the rest of us, have a healthy fear of being shot. They are human beings after all.
This shouldn’t be taken as agreeing with the op. Mandatory gun ownership is silly. It simply is too heavy of a responsibility to place on everybody against their will. It is also not practical. Some people would be simply unable to operate a firearm. Others would lack the training to use it properly and would find the firearm a detriment to their safety.
As somebody else already put it, the policies that work in a small town in Georgia would not work in the rest of the US.
Just because you have a gun does not mean you will have the wherewithall to actually point it at someone and shoot. Criminals know this.
Would you be required to take this firearm with you when you left the house? When I used to be thief, I used to break in when people weren’t home. If people don’t take the guns with them, there are gonna be a lot of stolen guns. Then the people have to go and buy another gun…
Was it a gun store that thought of this?
What section of the Constitution do you contend is violated by requiring everyone to own a gun?
Criminal activity is almost always an act of desperation. Every household having a gun will not alleviate that desperation. Instead it would simply result in an escalation of armed burgularies. In other words, it will make already desperate people even more desperate.
Just had another thought. If this thesis is correct, then we should also require all middle school and high school students to carry guns. Obviously there would be fewer school shootings if all students were armed.
These discussions always remind me of the very nice couple I met at my spouse’s holiday office party.
They kept guns for self protection and to ward off burglars.
They had a collection of half-a-dozen or so guns of varying types. One was in the bedroom, in case of a late-night intruder; the rest were locked into a lovely guncase in the study.
Astoundingly enough, the burglars waited until they weren’t home to break in, and had no difficulty at all getting the guns out of the glass-fronted case, which was secured with a lock just about equivalent to that on your average suitcase. In fact, they didn’t even seem to have any problems finding the gun in the nightstand drawer.
Of course, insurance covered and the nice couple replaced all of their guns within a few weeks.
They just couldn’t believe it when all of their guns were stolen again only a month later!
When I spoke to them, they were waiting for the insurance money so that they could go buy more guns. I asked them if they were planning on purchasing a gunsafe - they looked at me blankly. I mentioned the fact that they had already armed quite some number of criminals, and were getting ready to arm a few more. They got all huffy - after all, they have the right to own guns, and it’s just not fair that their guns keep getting stolen, and they shouldn’t have to do anything differently because those people should quit stealing their stuff!!! :rolleyes:
Or my coworker, who asked if I knew where she could get a handgun. After all, her [druggie, running wild] son had stolen hers out of her purse and she needed a new one. I asked her how she would manage to keep this one, since she wouldn’t throw her son out of the house. She didn’t answer.
And so on, and so forth…
Mandatory guns, great idea! Let’s arm ALL the criminals!
Czarcasm said:
Do you have a cite for this? I was always under the impression that most illegal guns came from straw purchasers. Hence, the one gun a month proposal.
Which, BTW, is one of the few proposals I see as possibly reasonable.
SPOOFE Bo Diddly said:
Now Spoofe, I think you are off base here. IIRC there were times that every male between certain ages WERE required to own a weapon.
I know my cite requesting butt is going to be asked for a cite for that, so I’ll just let you know in advance that I’ll start looking around.
Brian Bunnyhurt said:
Then my head started spinning again and I had to move on.
Protesilau
Thanks for the heads up, I would have missed that brilliant Coulter piece if it weren’t for you:)
FTR…Do you really consider that content to make the paper irrelevant?
Je$$e Jackson --This is a major story carried by all the major outlets.
Democrats In Despair — This is quoting from the New York Times…so what’s the problem?
CBS’s Anti-Bush Jihad Continues --Definite slant on this one.
Democrats Changing Their Tune on Campaign Finance Reform --Thank God they are. Is there a factual problem in this article?
More Facts, Fewer Liberals --This is commonly known as an EDITORIAL. (and what a nice one it was)
Uproar Over Ad Reveals Campus Censorship --We covered this here on the SD, and the consensus was similiar.
Schumer Says He Wants Truce with NRA
–Reporting favorably on Schumer is now considered right wing bias?
Invasion of Your Privacy Has Just Begun --Notice we have a Republican controlled House, Senate and Presidency. This is not biased.
Now It’s Reparations for Mexicans? —Interesting.
Media Bias Exposed --Conservative issue, but again, do you have any factual disagreements with it?
Sexual Trespass: Mr. Clinton’s Neighborhood --Right-wing article.
SAT is Best Measure of General Aptitude --What’s the problem here?
I don’t think this is a gun control issue as much as it is a paranoia issue. Are you really THAT concerned that someone’s going to break into your house at night that you have to ARM yourselves? How many people do you know had intruders come into their homes and harm them?
I know of one. I met her when I was volunteering with sexual assault victims, so I had a much higher possibility of coming across such people. I’ve never met another.
Where do you people live? Cabrini Green?
-L
I can’t speak for Spoofe, but there’s a decent argument to be made that it would violate the second amendment. It does, after all, speak of the “right” to keep and bear arms. I would think that the granting of a right gives you the right to choose whether or not to exercise it. Just like we all have the right to free speech and, by implication, the right not to speak at all.
I find it interesting that many people support the theory that more guns is the answer to lower crime. Basically a fight fire with fire theory by threatening worse violence on those who might wish to commit violence against you.
I’m all for protecting yourself if someone is threatening you or your loved ones or even neighbors but c’mon. Are more guns really the answer? This seems like the easy way out of a problem without actually solving the problem. Kinda like a doctor giving cholesterol medicine to a chain smoking, heavy drinking, massively overweight person as the solution to their health issues. The pills may help but the real solution to this person’s problems are quitting smoking, moderating or quitting drinking, a healthy diet and excercise. It sure is a helluva lot harder than taking a pill but it addresses the underlying causes of the problem and the patient will be FAR better off this way in the long run.
What could be done with all of the money spent on guns and money given to the NRA to address underlying causes of crime? I really have no idea but I would wager there is enough money there to make more than a dent in these issues.
Crime can probably never be made to go away entirely but I have a serious problem with the notion that the best answer to preventing crime is an implicit threat of violence.