Yeah, ask 10 differant cops from 10 differant deptments and you will get 10 differant deffinitions. some say overnight, some say cross one county line, some say two, and I have a feeling this adjusted for hair length and or skin color as needed by many deptartments.
Several states have ‘open carry’ provisions, simply because of the mechanics of a physical object. I suppose if you really want to outlaw guns, you prevent them from being moved, a tactic already in use.
I understand it is very unwise to carry a firearm into Mexico from the US, there are anecdotal stories of hunters having a bad time of it at least. And, what is the legality of a hitch-hiker or homeless?
If everyone was armed, the market would be ripe for a new kind of weapon that would give criminals the advantage over your average joe and another kind that would give cops the advantage over criminals.
Evidently you don’t remember the TEC-9.
When it was learned that pretty much the only appeal of this cheap POS gun was to gangsters and those who want to appear to be gangsters an injunction was placed against the further manufacture ond distribution within the U.S.
The company lost a bundle trying to appeal to thugs and gun makers are not in business to lose money.
Certainly a gun maker could make an expensive weapon that would appeal to thugs, but this is already the case with the AR-15 and similar units. But you seldom see a gangster or other criminal with one of these because they are bloody expensive when legally obtained, and thrice as expesive to get illegally.
So whats left is bombs and bazookas which are pretty impractical for gangtsers to use. There just isn’t money enough in the criminal market to convince someone to invent the next generation of weapons, and military wepons no longer trickle down like they did prior to WW II.
The evidence doesn’t suggest that at all.
Yes - in a world where not everyone is armed and the existing crop of weapons is sufficient for crime and intimidation. My post was a prediction of what would happen if everyone was armed.
Like what? A laser death ray?
Do you really think criminals are going to say “Well, sure, I can get killed over stealing $20, but I think my gun is a bit bigger than his, so let’s go for it.”?
No, he thinks the criminals will seek out a weapon that gives them an advantage over the average Joe.
What’s so complicated about that? Sheesh. It’s not like he said they’d find one, just that they’d seek one.
You make it sound like we’ve reached the limits of personal weapon technology. What better market to research and develop new weaponry than one that is saturated with old weaponry?
A) There are already plenty of advanced weapons out there that are better than anything a law abiding citizen can get ahold of when it comes to killing people and yet criminals are not getting ahold of them.
B) War and the prevention of war are the primary impetus for modern advancement. Your theory works fine when it is just a cave man getting a bigger club opr tying a rock to the club he has, but these days it takes hundreds of millions of dollars and into the billions to make a true innovation in weapons and much of that money goes up in smoke or is at least not a profit engine for a very long time due to manufacturing factors.
Criminals do not have the money as it stands to fund arms development, nor would they in an armed society where theyre prey is harder to fleece in the first place. The only establishment with this kind of money is the Federal Government and they are doing a pretty damned good job of keeping the newe ultra weapons of the streets. When was the last time you heard of a bank robbery using a laser guided fragmenting 20MM internally guided rounds? Fact is criminals have not gotten ahold of innovative weponry since the 1930s when Thompson was selling (legally mind you) his submachine gun in Sears catalogs and the Gov learned to control certain weapons for this reason.
zen101 - I’m not arguing your statements, but for the most part you’re describing history and current conditions. I was answering in the context of the hypothetical society defined in the OP, where everyone is armed and well trained. The weapons market in such a society would surely be different than anything we’ve seen before.
Think about it - to arm EVERYONE, the gun production business would be HUGE, and probably include government subsidy, especially if the impetus to arm everyone was protection from realized danger. There would be tons of money in firearms, much more then there is now. Which would mean much more money for R&D, much wider interest in technology, and the ability to mass produce weapons that are very costly in today’s environment for a much cheaper price. You just can’t predict what would come out of such a market based on current conditions.
On the other hand Zwaldd: You are a criminal with laser guided fragmenting 20MM internally guided rounds. On the other hand, everyone in the bank has at least a pistol on them, and a .22 can kill as well as a 20mm. The mere fact that hostage situations would start out as shootouts makes the criminal w/ gun == requires negeotiation equation skewed.
The idea that criminals would seek a “bigger gun” to combat armed citizens is silly to me.
Do you think criminals would truly continue muggings, and such? Is it worth definitely putting their life at risk for a bit of money and someone’s credit cards?
Would the criminal think to himself: “Well, he has a weapon that can kill me, but my weapon is cooler and meaner, so I guess that makes me safe?”
In all likeliness, criminals would turn to more honest work, or turn to crimes where there’s less likeliness of encountering someone.
I’m still waiting, though - we’ve got millions of CCW holders in the US, where are the massacres over parking disputes?
For that matter, where are the bar brawls gone bad? Around here I can and do **legally[b/] carry a pistol in bars and I’ve don’t see any gunfights in the news.
So… millions of people carry today, and nothing bad is happening… but if we were to arm more people, we can only assume mass slaughter?
Well, even if they did, bigger weapons are harder to conceal. A shotgun or rifle is often a far more effective weapon then a handgun, but also tend to be fairly tough to conceal. And most carry laws in the US are concealed anyways, so the guy carrying a bazooka into a bank is going to arouse some suspicion.
Also, Bigger is not nessercarily better. A magnum means nothing if you couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn with it. Training means a lot. Bigger guns with bigger calibers tend to have more expensive/bulky ammo, not to mention being pretty damn heavy.
There are tradeoffs in any firearm, and it would be hard to think of any firearm that would by itself give it’s user a tremendous advantage in a firefight.
Well, maybe the smart (motion tracking) gun from ALIENS …
I think “bigger gun” was simply stated to mean a “better more effective weapon”.
I have the ultimate weapon for criminals to use and it is currently legal to carry and impossible to detect if the owner uses it well.
Compare the total amount of money stolen across the nation in 2002 by use of force to the amount gone missing due to questionable book keeping practices and shady dealings by Enron.
The bigger gun is out there and it does not need to be hiddun under your coat.
It’s an interesting idea, but a far more likely scenario would be that criminals would keep the weapons they already have and just seek out a different situation that gives them an advantage over the average Joe… like ambushing individuals from dark alleyways instead of one gun-wielding nut holding thirty people hostage in a cafe.
In that instance, people would just have to fall back on the age-old advice… avoid dark alleys.
Good point. Reminds me of a qoute from the book of The Godfather where Don Corleone tells Tom Hagen to go to law school because “You can steal more money with a law degree then with a gun”.
I wouldn’t go to bars, people would start wearing bullet proof clothing, you could say goodbye to slinky, sexy outfits worn by women, and lots of children would get killed in playground fights.
Oh, you wonder about criminals? They would form gangs and get better tactics. How exatcly do you defend yourself from somebody shooting to kill you from a second-floor window while you’re walking down the street?
Are you trying to be funny?
Do they rent these second story windows? If so then they are somewhat locked in to a location where the police will raid them. No?
Maybe they raid some citizens home and take over? This works less well if this citizen is armed. As it stands now, most citizens are unarmed and yet home intrusions by gangs are not a problem. Why? Of the attempted home intrusions that do occur the only ones that are repelled are homes wherein a gun resides. Unarmed persons do poorly in defending themselves from home intrusion, unsurprisingly.
Because shooting someone from a window is a far cry from a moneymaking scheme. Firstly because this could happen for about a week before people stopped carryiong money entirely and also because in an armed society the street shoots back, there is no waiting for the police to fail to arrive in time. The thugs must leave the building at some point.
I would call this argument an example of poor reasoning if there were any reasoning evident at all contained within it but there isn’t. It’s propoganda designed for fear purposes and without regard to reality.