# Firearm rights hypothetical **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 3, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547 "2015-11-03T19:08:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/41 "2015-11-04T17:37:34Z")
If everyone was armed, there would be more shootings, both purposeful and accidental, not a political statement, just simple math. Some crimes might drop. It remains to be seen if its worth it for most people to tolerate that change ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/42 "2015-11-04T20:12:40Z")
The lethality of playground fights would skyrocket. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/43 "2015-11-04T21:11:49Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > First, its a hypothetical, not a “magical hypothetical”. > Second, I was asking because if the only persons to be disqualified are felons and those deemed to be legally insane, we have a pretty good idea of how many felons and former felons there are in the United States, so I was inquiring as to what impact, _if any at all_, the “insane” part would have on the equation. Are there enough people declared legally insane in the United States to even be worth discussing? He is not excluding felons. He is excluding people who are in jail whether they are felons or not. This is a pretty silly hypo, I don’t see what it adds to the debate but I suspect the Op is trying to make some sort of point that probably requires straw manning the gun rights position while at the same imagining a nonsensical scenario. There is no possible reading of the constitution that would prohibit restricting guns from felons. None. The number of felons and adjudicated insane are low but their portion of gun murders is very high. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/44 "2015-11-04T21:17:03Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > The point (if there is one) behind my question/debate is; > > I have a friend (more of a facebook acquaintance), who is quite convinced that if we only had complete and unfettered access to firearms (much like in my hypothetical), then we would have a much improved society, with less crime, more civility and an overall improvement on the quality of life. In short, it would be a fantastic place to live. > > I take the opposite tack; That we would have more accidental deaths due to people generally being dopes, as well as additional killings by people in moment of anger/passion (eg. two guys in a bar getting into an argument, and rather than fists, guns come out). More innocent bystanders getting shot as well. I don’t subscribe to an apocalyptic Mad-Max future, but rather an marked increase in shootings generally, with no measurable increase in “politeness” or a better society. > > He is adamantly opposed to my way of thinking. I am apparently an idiot for even considering any downside to his utopia. We have 50 states in this country and over the last 100 years we have had gun control regimes that go from virtually no regulation at all to a total ban on firearms and we haven’t seen the sort of extremes that you or your friend are concerned about. The swings are fairly mild. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/45 "2015-11-04T21:20:11Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > The number of felons and adjudicated insane are low but their portion of gun murders is very high. What portion of gun murders belong to the adjudicated insane? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/46 "2015-11-04T21:21:18Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > As my esteemed colleague alludes to below, it is an increase in what we see now and hardly the end of the world. All these things are happening already, they will happen more often. Its not like there isn’t a history of jurisdictions with high gun ownership and virtually no gun control. We didn’t see gun violence that is two or three times as high. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/47 "2015-11-04T21:25:57Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > we’d see a “new normal” of random gun violence. I’d guess three times the accident rate and three times the homicide by gun rate. We might see three times the accident rate if everyone was forced to own a gun and keep it in their home (I doubt it but we might) Even if we are forcing criminals to own guns then I don’t think we will see three times the homicide rate (or three times the suicide rate) that borders on the hysterical. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/48 "2015-11-04T21:32:09Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I don’t really grok the notion that it would reduce robberies/burglaries/muggings/carjackings. An armed victim just means you gotta get the drop on them (already the case with unarmed ones) and then shoot first (which is easy when you have the drop on them). Much easier to hotwire a car than get into a shootout over it. Much easier to burglarize an empty home than rob one that is filled with armed people. Crimnals may value life less than others but they still don’t want to die over a Honda Accord. > [@](#): > > Hell, most liquor store cashiers, bookies and the like - i.e. clerks at commonly robbed places - are \*already \*armed. They still get robbed at gunpoint, and most of the time those robberies succeed. Because ultimately few people are eager to risk getting into a deadly shootout over a small, insured stack of twenties which more often than not isn’t even really theirs. These places are armed BECAUSE they are commonly robbed. Why do you think these places bother being armed, just for the fuck of it? It deters robberies by increasing the risk presented to the criminals. Is it really that much of a reach to conclude that criminals would rather rob unarmed folks than armed folks? is it really that much of a reach to conclude that criminals would rather burglarize a home when no one is home rather than rob a home when armed people are present? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/49 "2015-11-04T21:34:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > In my opinion, this would probably happen. If you’re a mugger now, having a gun is a tactical advantage during a robbery. You threaten your victims and they give you their valuables. > > But if you’re a mugger in a society where people are generally armed, merely possessing a gun is no longer an advantage. In order to rob armed victims, you have to shoot them before they’re able to defend themselves. So muggers would routinely shoot their victims in the back and then rob the corpses. So you think that in an armed society armed robberies would all turn into murders? We have jurisdictions that that have high gun ownership rates and the criminals do not go around killing people to loot the corpses. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/50 "2015-11-04T21:36:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > What portion of gun murders belong to the adjudicated insane? Not sure, but I am going to guess that the number starts to get high if we force them to own a gun ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/51 "2015-11-04T21:44:04Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Not sure, but I am going to guess that the number starts to get high if we force them to own a gun I was referring to your statement of fact: > [@](#): > > The number of felons and adjudicated insane are low but their portion of gun murders is very high. Where did this come from, how big a part do the “adjudicated insane” play in that equation, and would it make a difference if we took out the words “adjudicated insane” and substituted the words “left-handed albinos”? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2015, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/52 "2015-11-04T21:45:19Z")
I’ll bet prison rapes would go way down if we armed all prisoners. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2015, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/53 "2015-11-05T18:06:48Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > He is not excluding felons. He is excluding people who are in jail whether they are felons or not. > > This is a pretty silly hypo, I don’t see what it adds to the debate but I suspect the Op is trying to make some sort of point that probably requires straw manning the gun rights position while at the same imagining a nonsensical scenario. > > There is no possible reading of the constitution that would prohibit restricting guns from felons. None. > > The number of felons and adjudicated insane are low but their portion of gun murders is very high. I did not intend a “straw man” argument. I have actually heard (from real people) an argument that more guns in the hands of every member of the public would make for a better, safer society. Full stop. Even some here seem to feel that violent crime would markedly decrease, and any increase in accidents, or suicides would be worth it. In terms of comparisons of jursidictions with differing rules about guns (and corresponding gun homicides), the data is[not as clear-cut](http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/) as some here would have us believe. > [@](#): > > Weaker gun laws were common among the states with higher gun death rates: “In fact, none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register their weapons in any of these states. Meanwhile, many of the states with the least gun violence require a permit or other form of identification to buy a gun,” reporter Thomas C. Frohlich wrote. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/54 "2015-11-06T00:24:46Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I was referring to your statement of fact: Where did this come from, how big a part do the “adjudicated insane” play in that equation, and would it make a difference if we took out the words “adjudicated insane” and substituted the words “left-handed albinos”? What is your point? I was using felons and adjudicated insane as shorthand for prohibited persons (not because its shorter but because people keep asking who is a prohibited person. This is not adjudicated insane so maybe its a bad cite but… > **[Homicides by mentally ill : Mental Illness Policy Org](http://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/1000-homicides.html)** > > 1000 Homicides by mentally ill Several different studies and calculation methods (presented below) suggest that \[…\] mental illness has a lot to do with murder rates. Felons commit ~40% of murders and it is likely that they commit a higher percentage of gun murders. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2015, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547/55 "2015-11-06T00:38:46Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I did not intend a “straw man” argument. I have actually heard (from real people) an argument that more guns in the hands of every member of the public would make for a better, safer society. Full stop. Next time why don’t you ask them if they also mean to arm felons, little children and the mentally ill. I bet their"full stop" actually includes a lot of exceptions. > [@](#): > > Even some here seem to feel that violent crime would markedly decrease, and any increase in accidents, or suicides would be worth it. I don’t think we would see much of an increase in suicides but accidents would probably increase (I don’t know if the population of people who don’t own guns but would be FORCED to own guns would be more likely or less likely to have an accident but at least some of them will have accidents). > [@](#): > > In terms of comparisons of jursidictions with differing rules about guns (and corresponding gun homicides), the data is[not as clear-cut](http://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/gun-laws-deaths-and-crimes/) as some here would have us believe. Why would you distinguish between gun violence and violence generally. The correlation that people point to disappears when you replace gun murders with murder (by any means). Its like saying there are more gun suicides in America than in Korea so guns must be the cause of all those additional gun suicides. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/firearm-rights-hypothetical/736547.md?page=2)