A really simple question for opponents of gun control

More than a few times I’ve been presented with the argument that in places where almost everyone carries a gun there is very little crime. In fact, my uber-con, dittohead coworker has offered the correlative that if everyone had a gun there would be virtually no crime. Here’s the question:

What kind of person would want to live in a world where you aren’t safe unless you have a gun on you? Call me a granola-eating peacenik, but to me that’s just an incredibly dystopian picture.

Please prove that those of us who oppose total and complete civilian disarmament (which is what “gun control” is, it’s not just licensing and safety, the goal of “gun control” loons is to ban civilian ownership of firearms, 100%) are of the complete opposite extreme to 100% disarmament. I oppose gun control as it currently is being promulgated (a codeword for “outright ban”), but I’m not an extremist in the opposite direction.

It’s not a matter of “want”. Many people see that as being the situation, whether they want it or not.

In any case, you’re misrepresenting the opinion of what, I believe, most pro-Gun types hold. They want everybody to have the option of being able to have a gun… not necessarily carry it with them everywhere they go.

Further, the theory works like this: In areas where people CAN, if they want to, carry a gun with them (either through lax concealed-carry laws, or through readily-available concealed-carry permits), or own a gun in their houses, criminals will either move to another area that doesn’t have as many guns pointed back at them, or substitute crimes against people for crimes against property… ie- swapping shoplifting instead of mugging.

Now, whether the evidence supports that theory or not, that’s the debate, but let’s at least get the basic foundation right… few pro-Gun types envision a world where everyone’s packin’.

Would you like to be unarmed when that small traffic acident becomes a shoot out ? Of course not :smiley: If everyone carries gun simple things get solved the violent way.

I apologize if my subject title was misleading, but for the sake of brevity please assume that I am referring to individuals that would agree with the following logic: More guns and fewer restrictions on them make a civilian population less prone to crime. Therefore, fully armed civilian populations must be virtually crime free.

Furthermore, for the purpose of this thread I intend for all debaters to work on the presumption that such logic is not flawed. So the question remains, even if guns do in fact make us safer, and a lot of guns make us a lot safer, would you like to live in a world where everyone packs heat? Or is the example of the UK, for instance, a better idea? Is that more clear?

If “a lot of guns makes us a lot safer” is taken as true (as you are asking us to do), then yes I would want to live in a world where everyone’s packing. Because through substitution your question becomes “Would you want to live in a much safer world, ceteris paribus?” Of course we would.

Ok, now I’m confused.

IF you assume that an armed populace will result in a crime free society, what about such a society do you consider dystopian?

What exactly about a society free of crime are you equating with one which is "as bad as can be; characterized by human misery "?

Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean by a crime free society. Or you could specify what would be bad about such.

Why do the pro- gun control people always assume that if guns were widespread we’d be living in Dodge City? Do they really have that low an opinion of the public? I for one would much rather live in a city where the majority of the middle class carries licensed guns (and the punishment for misusing them is swift and draconian) then a city where the only citizens carrying are the career criminal lower class.

Rashak Mani:

I call “Bullshit!” Prove it.

Anecdotal incidents don’t work for us, so guess what…

In my book, if there’s a chance of someone shooting back at me should I become…*unreasonable…*then I would seriously consider being exceptionally polite to everyone I met at all times.

Cainxinth: is this supposed to be some sort of “what if” mental exercise?

I personally wouldn’t feel the need in such a world to go armed at all times; I never felt that particualr need when I had a concealed carry permit. I let it lapse because my circumstances changed and I no longer felt that I needed it. If my circumstances change again in the future, I may reapply, although now that I am in Missouri it may be more problematic than when I lived in Texas.

It is the considered opinion of many that more guns equals less crime, but I doubt that anyone who adheres to that principle would argue or agree that that principle, if extrapolated to its extreme, would still hold, or that it would necessarily be beneficial to society.

There is no “magic number” that I know of, or that I know of anyone putting forth, for a percentile of armed populace necessary to deter violent crime; there is also no number that I know of, or have heard put forth (by reasonable, intelligent people), of a percentile of the population where more guns equals more crime. I assume that it is understood that I am talking about percentage of the population legally carrying, open or concealed, and NOT about the percentage of the population that simply possesses firearms to some degree or another.

If there was unrestricted carry in the world, with carry being prohibited in government buildings and on any private property where posted, I think that most people would get tired of it real soon (as I did) and give it up except for when they really felt they needed it.

As far as your co-worker is concerned, you can tell him a card-carrying Life Member of the NRA says he’s an idiot who shouldn’t be allowed to breed, much less play with dangerous implements.

Speaking as someone from a country where guns (handguns especially) are very hard to get ahold of, I would far rather have everyone carrying guns and have no crime, than have crime exist and only small number carrying guns.

Of course, what I would really like is there to be no guns and no crime, but it’s simply not going to happen.

Ah, a “magic wand” question.

What you’re really seeming to ask is “Would anyone like to live in a crimefree (or very low crime) world, if the only thing you had to do to make it happen was carry a gun at all times?”

Hmmm. Well, I’m just the sort to shoot off my own foot by accident, and I’d lose the gun (but since you’ve stipulated that the theory works, no worries about it falling into the “wrong hands”), and it’d be a pain at the beach… but yes, I’d be willing to do that for everyone else’s sake.

What that proves, I’ve no idea.

Rather than address you one by one, I’m going to attempt a one-size-fits all reply for what I’m reading in your responses.

Just because full gun ownership results in low crime it doesn’t necessarily follow that the reverse is true; lack of guns doesn’t promote crime. Furthermore, there are other routes to reducing crime besides simply increasing gun ownership. Off the top of my head these might include, general education, reducing poverty, rehabilitating substance abusers, etc.

As for why I think of a gun saturated world as dystopian… frankly I’m befuddled. What about a world where everyone is armed and anyone who isn’t must fear for their life and property isn’t completely abhorrent to you? I think people who think it would be a good idea if everyone was armed are out of their ever loving minds. They are advocating a return to the wild west.

Do do people have guns? I can understand a rifle for hunting, but why the need for an “ergonomic pistol with ultra-light trigger that comfortably fits within the waiste of any pair of jeans.”??

Pro-gunners are very passionate about their cause, but what’s the REASON? It’s like they want guns to have guns, and only b/c it says so in the Bill of Rights.

Is protection really an issue?

Dark red is mine.

Spoofe said: “Further, the theory works like this: In areas where people CAN, if they want to, carry a gun with them (either through lax concealed-carry laws, or through readily-available concealed-carry permits), or own a gun in their houses, criminals will either move to another area that doesn’t have as many guns pointed back at them, or substitute crimes against people for crimes against property… ie- swapping shoplifting instead of mugging.”

I think you’ve hit upon something important here. This suggests that there must be at least some areas (perhaps states) with strict gun control laws, so that thieves and muggers have a place to go. Not being a thief or a mugger, I prefer to live where gun ownership is optional or even common.

I happen to live in such a place now. I have several friends with concealed carry permits. I am not afraid of them, and I am not afraid of guns. In fact, I’m quite comforted knowing that if some maniac charges into the local McDonalds and starts shooting people, the chances are good that someone there will be ready to shoot back. And as suggested above, such maniacs are also aware of that possibility, and so they tend to go elsewhere, thereby reducing the probability of such an occurrence in my neighborhood.

Face the facts. There will always be maniacs, thieves, and muggers. And with this as a given, I would rather live in a world where people are free to defend themselves from them, than one in which people are disarmed and helpless.

That’s comparing a somewhat problematic solution (guns) with a real problem (crime).

I could rewrite your comment as: “Who would want to live in a world where you can’t be safe unless you have _____”

a) a military to protect your country
b) laws that permit suspension of certain civil rights to fight crime or terrosism
c) an armed paramilitary force to prevent crime (police)
d) locks, alarms, security cameras, and anti-theft tags…

Solutions aren’t all fun and games, otherwise we’d have been doing them already, to use simple-minded phrasing.

To steal from the Ohio Friends of Law Enforcement PR campaign, 1998,

Criminals prefer unarmed victims.

Jess

At what point is the cure worse than the disease? We could also develop a thought police and vaporize anyone who dissents from the state’s mandates, that would certainly put a dent in our national crime figures. But, I think most rational people would find such an option repugnant. Similarly, I’m making the case that a society free of crime but inundated with guns would be equally dystopian.

And so far I haven’t seen any evidence in my own life (nor heard any from you) that things are so bad out there that pursuing other routes to lowering crime have been ruled out. Sometimes I wonder if the gun lovers are suffering some form of psychological addiction to the power inherent in an instrument capable of effortlessly rendering another instantly dead.

Dogface:

Total strawman.

Do you have a cite showing what percentage of Americans want a total gun ban or showing the 0% support registration etc. but no ban?

That ergonomic pistol that’s can fit in the waistband is probably a decent carry piece. After all, it’s difficult to carry a rifle around in our daily lives.

I imagine there’s a wide variety of reasons why people are passionate about their firearms. Recreational purposes can include hunting, target shooting, and collecting for the sake of collecting. Others might see them as source of independence (not having to depend on others for protection) and for others it might be cultural.

Yes.

Marc