# What are the negative and positive effects of guns in society? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 17, 2014, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895 "2014-03-17T02:10:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/61 "2014-03-18T00:09:13Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > As a class, the gun-nut is the best behaved in our society. I don’t know what you mean by “gun nut,” but if you mean a person who carries a gun, the evidence goes the other way. Next time in a univerity library, check out: [Is an armed society a polite society? Guns and road rage](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16434012) There’s a bit of a summary here: > **[Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public...](https://hsph.harvard.edu/research/injury-control/)** > > The Center aims to reduce the societal burden of injury and violence through surveillance, research, intervention, evaluation, outreach, and training. and here: > **[The "Weapons Effect"](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect)** > > Just looking at weapons such as guns may make people more aggressive. > [@](#): > > Research also shows that drivers with guns in their cars more likely to drive aggressively.[3] A nationally representative sample of over 2,000 American drivers found that those who had a gun in the car were significantly more likely to make obscene gestures at other motorists (23% vs. 16%), aggressively follow another vehicle too closely (14% vs. 8%), or both (6.3% vs. 2.8%), even after controlling for many other factors related to aggressive driving (e.g., gender, age, urbanization, census region, driving frequency). ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/62 "2014-03-18T00:14:35Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > From Wikipedia, we have the “big five”: > > United States of America - 89.0% > Brazil - 8.0% > China - 4.9% > India - 4.2% > Indonesia - 0.5% > > Yeah, unique, unless the country is the size of a postage stamp. Now don’t misunderstand me, UK sports the highest rate of violent crime, per capita, of any other nation in the world. They’d be idiots to let guns loose in Great Britain. On the other hand, make every Palestinian mother pack a handgun on her hip, with instructions to control her men-folk, maybe we’ll start seeing real peace progress in the West Bank. > > It’s like any double-edged sword, it cuts both ways. The OP got it right, there’s positive **and** \*\* there’s negative. A gun it just a thing, neither good nor evil. Like black jacks and atom bombs. Your post is a little too obnoxious for me to think it’s worth responding further. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/63 "2014-03-18T00:33:57Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > From Wikipedia, we have the “big five”: Your link doesn’t work, so I’m not sure what it was supposed to prove, but I’d be curious to compare the U.S.'s stats on gun ownership and violence to, say, South Africa’s. Well, not curious enough to go ahead and actually do the work, but whatever. And the rest of your post is pretty much gibberish. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/64 "2014-03-18T00:48:08Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Felons can’t own guns … worst possible case for the typical gun-nut. As a class, the gun-nut is the best behaved in our society. Is it that neo-nazis have to own guns, or that they can’t be felons? If guns were outlawed, I think they’d get over the first, and as for the second, I would be quite surprised to find that they had such strict entrance requirements that they wouldn’t allow a felon into their ranks. Besides, if guns were outlawed, then they could actually ease up on the second, as nobody needs to own guns any more. A win-win situation, as it were. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/65 "2014-03-18T02:06:12Z")
Presuming that guns can be made so rare that no one would in turn need a gun defensively is unrealistic. First of all if guns magically simply couldn’t exist you’d still have the outnumbered and the weak being victimized. A gun makes an 80 lb woman and a 250 lb attacker equal in a confrontation; and it makes a lone victim substantially dangerous to three or four attackers, even if they all have guns, whereas without them four people are virtually omnipotent over and invulnerable against one person. Secondly you can’t get rid of guns if a substantial portion of the population wants them. The NRA is politically influential because millions of Americans want to hold onto their guns, despite well-funded opposition. There’s no way that hunting guns would ever be completely banned, and even if they were regulated up the wazoo they could still be diverted for criminal use. Thirdly, let’s say for the sake of argument that the Constitution could be amended to nullify the Second Amendment: A 2/3 majority of Congress and a voting majority of 3/4 of the state legislatures ratified such an amendment. Depending on distribution of votes, that could mean as little as a bare majority of the public supporting outlawing guns. Where would that leave us? The biggest scofflaw culture since Prohibition would hoard hidden guns, a steady trickle of guns would be smuggled into the country along with narcotics, and you would have a vast underground of illegal gun manufacturing. There have always been amateur gunsmiths with basement workshops; in recent years CNC tooling has decreased the expertise needed to produce quality metal working, and 3D printing hobbyists are working constantly to perfect a workable printable gun. In WW2 the demands on industry and the bottomless need for more guns led to several designs like the British Sten that could be made from stamped sheet metal with minimal machining; those designs are public domain\*. And finally you would have people making and distributing guns motivated by ideology rather than profit; it would have more in common with _La Résistance_ than a cartel, and be equivalently harder to eliminate. \*[http://thepatriotperspective.files.w…heap-quiet.jpg](http://thepatriotperspective.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/oleg-volk-sten-smg-illegal-guns-will-be-cheap-quiet.jpg) Saying “if there simply **were** no guns” is as unrealistic as saying if there simply were no roaches. ---
**Author:** ![ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThisUsernameIsForbidden)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/66 "2014-03-18T02:06:13Z")
Positive effect: you shoot someone Negative effect: someone shoots you ---
**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:** [March 18, 2014, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/67 "2014-03-18T02:11:18Z")
> [@ThisUsernameIsForbidden](#): > > Positive effect: you shoot someone > Negative effect: someone shoots you Someone shooting you is almost always a negative effect. On the other hand you shooting someone else may or may not be a positive effect. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/68 "2014-03-18T02:43:28Z")
> **[Gun ownership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership)** > > In 2018, the Small Arms Survey reported that there are over one billion small arms distributed globally, of which 857 million (about 85 percent) are in civilian hands. The survey stated that American civilians account for an estimated 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms, or about 120.5 firearms for every 100 American residents. > The world's armed forces control about 133 million (approximately 18 percent) of the global total of small arms, of which over... Sorry if the link was wrong above. There’s a quarter billion guns in the US that aren’t used in crimes. ---
**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:** [March 18, 2014, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/69 "2014-03-18T02:48:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > None at all. So self defense is not a positive effect? > [@](#): > > Eventually, but it will take a long time due to the already existing ocean of guns out there. And what do you suppose happens in the meantime while we wait for all the guns in criminal hands to be confiscated. > [@](#): > > Yes, the presence of guns in a home significantly increases the chance of suicide. Removing them whether by law or the decision of the homeowner reduces the risk of suicide. > > But people are less likely to use them than guns; guns make it too easy. And yet America’s suicide rate is typical of NATO or EU countries despite a much higher rate of gun ownership. So how do you figure that gun ownership is significantly increasing the risk of suicide (I know it increases the risk of gun suicide and I know that guns are a particularly lethal form of attempted suicide but how do you explain the absolutely typical suicide rate in our country). I also once assumed that the abolition of guns would greatly reduce suicides, then I looked at suicide rats in other countries and I don’t think it would make much of a difference. > [@](#): > > Nonsense, it would disarm the criminals as well; the “law abiding citizens” are where they get their guns. It wouldn’t disarm any of the criminals that already have guns. You’re just saying that it would reduce the flow of guns into criminal hands. And what do you suppose those criminals will do with those guns now that they know that the populace at large is disarmed? > [@ticker](#): > > I think it is worth pointing out that even in the UK, a country with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the World, it is quite possible to own a rifle or shot gun for either sporting purposes (including hunting) or for vermin control. I doubt a repeal of the second amendment would stop duck hunting, though it may limit the sort of weapon you could use. My point is that any politician that hopes to win an election anywhere other than deep blue districts is going to have to appear friendly to guns generally and being “caught” duck hunting is a time honored method for liberals to show that they are gun friendly without offending their liberal base. > [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > In the end, gun control is really about handgun control. Long arms, even assault rifles, simply make up too small a part of the problem to be a real factor. Even the flashy things like Adam Lanza and such are really a small - but very mediagenic - part of the overall issue of gun violence. And yet assault weapons bans are the sort of things that the gun control side spend their political capital on. > [@](#): > > There are certainly negatives such as more death and injury by handguns than there would be if such weren’t so freely available. I don’t think anyone could debate that. The presence of the thing increases the use - positive and negative - of the thing. Duh. I suppose the trick is to decrease the negative uses without decreasing the positive uses (I proposed licensing and registration of handguns (on a “shall issue” basis) as a method of reducing the negative without really decreasing the positive all that much. > [@](#): > > 1. Extreme anti-gun side: some nutters who make noise but don’t represent much. > 2. Extreme pro-gun side: One of the most powerful and effective lobbying groups the world has ever seen. Having the facts on your side tend to make you a more effective lobby. It also helps that the other side is so incredibly clueless and incompetent. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > I think the OP is completely wrong about the results of just simply repealing the 2nd Amendment. In this situation, the _Federales_ still wouldn’t have the right to control gun ownership. Something like 44 of the 50 States have clauses in their own State Constitutions that guaranty gun ownership. Once we repeal the 2nd, the 10th Amendment kicks in. The 10th amendment is virtually meaningless in the face of the commerce clause. Federal law pre-empts state law. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Meh, if you want to reduce violence, don’t bother banning guns. Just legalize drugs. That would only deal with about 75-85% of the violence in this country and the gun control activists would howl about the other 25%. Too many gun control activists aren’t really as concerned about violence as they are about guns specifically. > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I question your priorities in putting guns up there with Free Speech, Equal Protection, Suffrage and Lutherans, but okay. Other than the right to vote, why would you put one of the constitutional rights over the other? Why is the right to effective self defense any less important than the right to free speech? > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, when _your_ city (or county or whatever) gets litigated into bankruptcy, then I guess nobody will notice, but you were talking about going after other cities where, just maybe, not everyone pays for their own health care, the police are effective, fire stations are wanted and garbage is collected by contractors hired by local government, and all because they don’t view guns the same way you do. Don’t worry. The gun debate isn’t one sided (at least not money-wise). If the NRA started picking on small communities, then mayors against gun violence would step in to fund the defense. All you really get are a few test cases that force the courts to define the state of the law and any jurisdictions that run afoul of decided law deserves to be bankrupted if they obstinately cling to their personal version of the constitution. I always wondered why gun control advocates (and moderates) didn’t just try to take over the NRA. Every once in a while the NRA will have a sale on lifetime memberships (normally $1000) for as low as $300. There are about 5 million NRA members but only about 1 million of them are eligible to vote (either a member for at least 5 years or you buy a membership at life level or above). Only about 100,000 of them actually bother to vote. This is in large part why the NRA is more extreme than its membership, the 5,000,000 members are represented by a board that is elected by about 100,000 members. So for about $30,000,000 you could buy enough voting memberships (if you get it on sale) to control the NRA board in three years (I think the board member terms are staggered over three years). > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > I don’t know what you mean by “gun nut,” but if you mean a person who carries a gun, the evidence goes the other way. He probably means people with CCW licenses. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/70 "2014-03-18T03:35:03Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That would only deal with about 75-85% of the violence in this country and the gun control activists would howl about the other 25%. > > Too many gun control activists aren’t really as concerned about violence as they are about guns specifically. Well, congratulations, Columbus, you’ve discovered the continent of misplaced priorities. Let me give you a nice slow round of applause. Bra-vo. I started to write up responses to your other comments, but then I remembered [the last time I tried discussing this issue seriously with you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16945235&postcount=378) and life’s just too short. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/71 "2014-03-18T12:35:18Z")
[No guns here; don’t you feel safe?](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_T961o3r1ib8/TIkQMNcxeeI/AAAAAAAAKoE/k5V6X2xPopc/s1600/clockworkorangecostume.jpg) ---
**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:** [March 18, 2014, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/72 "2014-03-18T12:40:15Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > [No guns here; don’t you feel safe?](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_T961o3r1ib8/TIkQMNcxeeI/AAAAAAAAKoE/k5V6X2xPopc/s1600/clockworkorangecostume.jpg) No guns [here](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-53xNyZ7sm3o/UVwwEZFODxI/AAAAAAAACXI/BWgZJjtBptg/s1600/Lord_the_Rings_Battle_Middle_Earth_II_apocagames_2.jpg) or [here, either.](http://www.mmobomb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Dungeons-and-Dragons-Online-4.jpg) :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/73 "2014-03-18T12:49:15Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > [No guns here; don’t you feel safe?](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_T961o3r1ib8/TIkQMNcxeeI/AAAAAAAAKoE/k5V6X2xPopc/s1600/clockworkorangecostume.jpg) Yes, [movie theaters are scary places.](http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/records-man-theater-shooting-texting-22896676) ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/74 "2014-03-18T12:53:43Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > No guns [here](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-53xNyZ7sm3o/UVwwEZFODxI/AAAAAAAACXI/BWgZJjtBptg/s1600/Lord_the_Rings_Battle_Middle_Earth_II_apocagames_2.jpg) or [here, either.](http://www.mmobomb.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Dungeons-and-Dragons-Online-4.jpg) :rolleyes: When swords are banned, only orcs will have swords. ---
**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:** [March 18, 2014, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/75 "2014-03-18T19:19:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, congratulations, Columbus, you’ve discovered the continent of misplaced priorities. Let me give you a nice slow round of applause. Bra-vo. > > I started to write up responses to your other comments, but then I remembered [the last time I tried discussing this issue seriously with you](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16945235&postcount=378) and life’s just too short. I was being a bit facetious. Of course a reduction of 75% of violent crime would be great. And I was mildly making fun of French Canadians in the pit fer chrissakes. Noone actually thinks that all French Canadians eat those pine cones. 😃😛 ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/76 "2014-03-18T20:24:13Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Positive effects of guns: > > [ul] > [li]makes a small weak person able to deter or stop a large strong person [/li][li]allows an armed majority to resist a tyrannical minority. [/li][li]conversely, allows an armed minority to deter a tyrannical majority, or failing that to put a higher price on their lives. [/li][li]makes home invasion a far riskier thing. [/li][li]fun- hunting and target shooting.[/li][/ul] > Negative effects of guns: > > [ul] > [li]You can have a worst-case scenario where a small number of criminals and bullies have guns while most other people don’t. [/li][li]extreme premium on personal judgment and responsibility, often lacking.[/li][/ul] Don’t forget, they’re collectible as well. Of the people I know with guns, about a quarter are actual collectors, and another quarter are de-facto collectors. They’re also a surprisingly non-crappy way to do something with spare money. By that, I mean that as physical objects go, they retain a lot of value, especially if bought used. ---
**Author:** ![tigerwahoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@tigerwahoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tigerwahoo)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/77 "2014-03-18T21:13:27Z")
Semi-long-time lurker, finally registered to jump in. Haven’t a few studies of gun ownership vis-a-vis gun deaths found that Americans living in homes that contain at least one gun are more likely to be killed/wounded by a gunshot than those living in gun-free homes? I distinctly remember reading a source (perhaps here on SDMB?) asserting that the number of “home invasions” that end up with someone’s drunk teenager getting shot or a dead spouse outnumber the ones where ski-masked thugs get dealt some street justice. Regardless, I find the best way to deal with NRA types railing against some (usually imaginary) liberal that wants to take away _all[_ the guns in America by inviting them to consider what they, sometimes explicitly, state as their preferred alternative would accomplish - would you really feel safer if every American age 18 and up owned a gun, much less carried it in public? We can all agree that, while it’s not a good idea to completely disarm the public, it would be an equally terrible idea to require that EVERY American carries a gun with them everywhere they go. Even with the logical restrictions on violent felons/the incarcerated, minors, the mentally incapable, etc. it should be clear that even those proposing that MORE gun ownership would somehow cause less gun violence would admit that. The ideal rate of gun ownership (and statutes on how, when, and where it is acceptable to carry them) is somewhere between 0 and 100%. Reasonable minds can disagree on where the various lines should be drawn, but in no way does suggesting light-to-moderate restrictions on gun ownership and use make one a fascist. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/78 "2014-03-18T21:28:58Z")
> [@tigerwahoo](#): > > Semi-long-time lurker, finally registered to jump in. > > Haven’t a few studies of gun ownership vis-a-vis gun deaths found that Americans living in homes that contain at least one gun are more likely to be killed/wounded by a gunshot than those living in gun-free homes? > > I distinctly remember reading a source (perhaps here on SDMB?) asserting that the number of “home invasions” that end up with someone’s drunk teenager getting shot or a dead spouse outnumber the ones where ski-masked thugs get dealt some street justice. > > Regardless, I find the best way to deal with NRA types railing against some (usually imaginary) liberal that wants to take away _all[_ the guns in America by inviting them to consider what they, sometimes explicitly, state as their preferred alternative would accomplish - would you really feel safer if every American age 18 and up owned a gun, much less carried it in public? > > We can all agree that, while it’s not a good idea to completely disarm the public, it would be an equally terrible idea to require that EVERY American carries a gun with them everywhere they go. Even with the logical restrictions on violent felons/the incarcerated, minors, the mentally incapable, etc. it should be clear that even those proposing that MORE gun ownership would somehow cause less gun violence would admit that. The ideal rate of gun ownership (and statutes on how, when, and where it is acceptable to carry them) is somewhere between 0 and 100%. Reasonable minds can disagree on where the various lines should be drawn, but in no way does suggesting light-to-moderate restrictions on gun ownership and use make one a fascist. Well… that’s what some hardcore libertarians DO think would be a good idea. Not _require_ because that would be absurd, but allow, yes. Presumably there would be a learning curve as the Darwin Award winners discovered the limitations of going armed. One would hope that after a generation or two people would be intimately familiar with what’s wise gun behavior and what is not. For now I’ll chalk up universal armament as a (currently?) unobtainable ideal. ---
**Author:** ![tigerwahoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@tigerwahoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tigerwahoo)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/79 "2014-03-18T21:53:46Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Well… that’s what some hardcore libertarians DO think would be a good idea. Not _require_ because that would be absurd, but allow, yes. Presumably there would be a learning curve as the Darwin Award winners discovered the limitations of going armed. One would hope that after a generation or two people would be intimately familiar with what’s wise gun behavior and what is not. For now I’ll chalk up universal armament as a (currently?) unobtainable ideal. It’s not as far off as you think, though, depending on where you live: [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts](http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts) > **[Kennesaw, Georgia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia#Gun_law)** > > Kennesaw is a suburban city northwest of Atlanta in Cobb County, Georgia, United States, located within the greater Atlanta metropolitan area. Known from its original settlement in the 1830s until 1887 as Big Shanty, it became Kennesaw under its 1887 charter. According to the 2020 census, Kennesaw had a population of 33,036, a 10.9% increase in population over the preceding decade. Kennesaw has an important place in railroad history. During the Civil War, Kennesaw was the staging ground for th Not professional sources, I know, but a quick google on Kennesaw, Georgia will turn up lots of hits about the town’s controversial gun law. Note that this is a town of some 30,000 people - it’s a bit more systematic than the citizens of some neighborhood watch signing a blood pact around somebody’s backyard pool that they would all go buy a gun the next day. The wiki states that there are exemptions for the impoverished, mentally unstable, felons, and those who “oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine:” i.e. anyone who doesn’t want to buy/own a gun, basically, and I can’t find any examples of citizens faced with legal action for failing to comply with the law, so in reality it seems no different than any of the various silly unenforced laws still found in the codes of some states - no sex with your wife on a Tuesday (in the shower!), and such. Regardless, it’s still surprising to me. As to whether or not the law (in “effect” since 1982) has had any tangible effect on violent crime (and gun crime in particular), well, that’s a bit murkier. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895/80 "2014-03-18T23:25:19Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Thirdly, let’s say for the sake of argument that the Constitution could be amended to nullify the Second Amendment: A 2/3 majority of Congress and a voting majority of 3/4 of the state legislatures ratified such an amendment. Depending on distribution of votes, that could mean as little as a bare majority of the public supporting outlawing guns. As mentioned earlier in the thread, a variety of guns are legal in many, I think most, countries, despite lack of a second amendment. Saying that without the second amendment our guns are outlawed is the kind of wild exaggeration I would expect from a politician, rather than from a Straight Dope Charter Member 😉 All it takes is a swing of one vote on the Supreme Court, and the second amendment goes back to being pretty close to a nullity. Even with the current Supreme Court, it may be that the type of carry permit regulations found in New York City, where it is quite difficult to get one, would be upheld. Demography is destiny. And that destiny is [nationally long-run favorable for the Democrats](http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/demographic-trends-not-looking-good-for-republicans/). This doesn’t mean someone is going to come and grab your guns. But it does make it likely that our poorly worded second amendment will go back to being a nullity, and without any need for repeal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-are-the-negative-and-positive-effects-of-guns-in-society/683895.md?page=5)