Would you rather live in a place where everyone carried a gun or no one carried a gun?

Let's see, Kennesaw, GA or Washington, DC. Tough choice.
I spend about an hour every day surrounded by a crowd of people wielding deadly weapons with varying degrees of skill. I see nothing odd about that.

silly question...where no one carried a gun, of course.....

If everyone carried a gun, I think there would be less crime.

really?

less crime out of fear of being shot?
what if the crime involved a gun?

are you saying there would be less petty crimes?

i think everyone would be trigger happy...

bill: less of a certain type of crime, perhaps (doubt there would be less embezzling, say), but more accidents for sure...

aha...EB lost the star...hahahaha

magbast: as I've tried to explain before, the grammar star is ephemeral. I imagine hunter has it now, for correcting Pomeranian.

I'd much rather live in a place where no one carried a gun. But I don't think I'd want to live somewhere where you could not, by law, carry a gun.

I'm defining "place" and "nobody" very very broadly- place=planet and nobody=NOBODYNOBODY, in that case I can see no reason for it at all though we'd probably invent something else to take it's place.

When you say "no one" does that include the criminals who do not obtain proper licenses or register their guns?

I believe the term "no one" is self-explanatory

seven: the politicians where I live are blind to the fact that guns exist in the hands of people that they do not know about. Thanks to the new laws my name and fingerprints are being entered into the same criminal database as rapists and murders even though I have done nothing wrong. Some people believe that if guns are outlawed and the police go around and collect everyone's registered guns that there will be no problems. By definition criminals do not follow laws and are not permitted. Also 9 out of 10 criminals prefer unarmed victims If it were 100 certain that nobody would carry a gun I would not either.

bill: you said carry, I assume that ownership is still permitted.

A pro-gun friend of mine (he is actually an rifle instructor) talked to me about the case where a criminal-type pulls a gun in a robbery or just some random shooting spree. Normally, no one else has a gun and everyone becomes a victim. But, if the norm was that everyone was carrying a gun, it's very likely that the criminal would have a lot more trouble succeeding. Crime rates would likely go down as well, as performing such a crime would just be so hard.

I thought it was at least an interesting mental exercise to think about the solution to the violent crime problem in the opposite way. Normally, we all think - "oh, get rid of the weapons", but if we instead think - "oh, give everyone a weapon" it may actually be even more effective. Banning weapons doesn't really work (people will get them on the black market, and generally a law like that only stops the responsible people from having guns). So, perhaps it would be better to arrange for the good/responsible people to have guns as well. Then the criminals would be out-numbered.

I recognize that this survey was worded in an exaggerated way (all or no one), but I was having trouble writing it in an unbiased way and/or a way that doesn't touch upon law (as I see that as a rat-hole). I believe my question still captures the essence of the issue though.

I think the core issue here is that our society sees banning and limiting everyone's freedoms as a way to protect the people. I believe this is essentially flawed logic. The result is that we have a populace which feels little or no responsibility for the maintenance of their environment and civilized state. If everyone (and most of us are good and responsible people) had to have a gun, was trained in its use and carried it with them - we'd be reversing this trend of irresponsibility. Instead we'd be empowering every citizen to be responsible.

No guns. Don't make me respond with my fists.

bill - given the question as written I go for no one, but given a choice between a place where everyone carried a gun and was trained in its use and a place where no one except criminals and other bad people carried guns, I might have answered differently.
Then again, maybe not. I've been thinking "handguns" and I suspect most other folks are, too, but if I envision the world where everyone is carrying fully automatic machine guns, the picture is very different and much less appetizing.
One of my concerns is that, popular wisdom to the contrary, guns are not defensive weapons -- you can't protect yourself with a gun except by shooting someone else who strikes you as a potential threat. That's the classic case of escalation waiting to happen -- I can see where "preemptive self defense" might take more lives than violent crime does today.
Interesting question.

I voted everyone. I would much rather live in a place where absolutely everyone is trained in their use and safety and is taught to respect guns. the style or type of gun may become a status symbol, but that is no sillier than anything else.
I am not claiming that crime would disappear or that killings would stop, but I think they would be less. the problem is that you couldn't just say 'this is a good idea' and drop them in society today.. that would be a disaster. you'd have to gradually introduce it over the course of a decade or two for it to properly take effect.
how many shootouts were there in the old west? I'm betting that there weren't as many as popular fiction would have us believe.

**dpolicar: You can't really block or parry with a handgun, but I'm not sure if that's what you mean. Then again, I don't know what you mean by "defensive weapon" or why one would be preferable to an "offensive weapon". The overwhelming majority of defensive uses (90%+) of legally-owned firearms do not result in a shot being fired so I'd have to say that "popular wisdom" is correct.

I would prefer a place where no one, not even law enforcement carried a gun, or any weapon for that matter. Unfortunately that would require everyone to agree that hurting one's fellow man is an intolerable act.

bill: you say "I think the core issue here is that our society sees banning and limiting everyone's freedoms as a way to protect the people. " Well, in your scenario people's freedom is limited as well, since they are *required* to carry a gun.

Also, what about blind people? Elderly or handicapped people who can't work a gun? Do they just never go out?

daver - if everyone carries a stick and someone tries to hit me with their stick, I can use my stick to stop them. I don't have to hit them with it unless I choose to. If everyone carries an Uzi and someone tries to shoot me with their Uzi, I don't have that choice -- I have to shoot them before they shoot me. That's what I mean by a "defensive" weapon -- I can defend myself with it without having to attack someone else.
Granted, the other thing I can do with my Uzi is wave it in someone's direction and threaten to shoot them. I suspect that works much better on television than in real life, though.
Also granted, Uzis are somewhat different from handguns in terms of logistics, and you are talking about handguns. But since Bill's original question had to do more generally with eliminating weapon restrictions, I assume people would use the best weapons available, 'cuz why not?

reality - if I could assume everyone carrying a gun were well-trained in its use and safety, I'd be more for universal gun ownership, but that also seems unrealistic.
And old-west-style six-shooters are, I think, a completely different item than a modern military assault rifle. The amount of destructive potential in one person's hands makes a qualitative difference in the way I think about this issue... after all, would you rather live in a place where everyone owned nuclear weapons and delivery systems or no one did?

No one carries a gun... I have always disliked guns... I won't even touch one... I knew a kid in high school who was shot by a neighborhood kid that took his dad's gun out of the house. Bad things always seem to happen around guns... which makes me think that guns are bad things...

Does anyone have the stats (or feel like looking them up) for gunshot wounds in England?

dpolicar - Your first comment's rewording of the question is the way I was going to word the question, but then I decided that it would be a biased and annoying wording. So, I scaled down to this (knowing few would answer "everyone"), I hoped to show how afraid of guns we all are - this despite the potential good that might come from responsible citizens carrying guns.

elijahblue - my survey question was an extreme/unrealistic case (to make a point), if our society was to do something like this it would of course not actually be required but encouraged and training would be provided as well perhaps. Of course some people wouldn't be able to or wouldn't want to carry a gun, but hopefully enough able-bodied people would.

dpolicar: that is kind of the point, being sure everyone is trained... age XX, where XX is determined by consensus, you get your training if you want to have a gun. you are trained and licensed and go on your way. much like a car.
the issue here is that not everyone would want one, and the quality of training available. there would have to be checks and such to make sure there were minimum standards adhered to. I'll go with the section of bill's response for people who don't/can't use a gun.
the biggest plus is that people would be taught to respect them and they wouldn't be 'neat' or 'new' or even 'strange' the way they are for most people now. it would just be like another appliance in your house. show it off if you get a new model, but otherwise who cares? and yes I am kind of assuming handguns, but larger weapons (rifles or other easily portable things) would be an option. perhaps the requirement could specify handguns?

nuclear weapons are an entirely different kettle of fish.

**dpolicar: As I mentioned earlier, "threaten to shoot them" works very well. Going by the FBI's numbers, it is the single most effective way to avoid injury when faced with an armed attacker (and this includes offering no resistance at all). If you are also concerned with avoiding injury to your attacker then firearms still do quite well, coming in ahead of any other weapon (including sticks) and behind offering no resistance.
I don't think that firearms technology has advanced as much as you apparently think. I agree with the qualitative change at a given level of lethality, but I'd place it closer to the nuclear weapon end of the scale than the assault rifle end.

**hunter: IIRC, the UK had about 1/10th the rate of firearm homicides as the USA. The UK's rate is increasing and the US's is decreasing. It's a very large difference. If you want the exact number I can look it up.

Real people die when guns are used. I think a lot of people forget that fact when they talk about how guns in the hands of the good guys can "deter" the bad guys. Guns cause deaths (of good guys and bad guys) in confrontations that could have another ending.

Real world statistics: The death rates from firearms in the UK and Japan - two countries where guns are almost impossible to have, so pretty much only criminals have guns - are lower for the entire countries (over 160 million people combined between the two) than for any decent-sized US city.

I don't believe for a minute that people from Japan or the UK don't get as pissed-off crazy violent as people in the US. Without a gun, though, their capacity to inflict harm is greatly reduced.

johnathan: I would rather have any bad guy KILLED than hurt or rape a loved one. How about you?

daver - ah, I see what you mean now... I hadn't parsed the "90% of defensive firearm uses result in no shots being fired" statistic properly (or really at all... it puzzled the hell out of me when I read it). I find the numbers implausible but am uninterested in researching the underlying study, so I'll accept 'em, in which case you're right that guns are indeed defensive weapons (perhaps even when unloaded, which is an interesting idea in and of itself).
Re: weapons-tech -- -- the fully-automatic, hundreds of bullets vs single-shot, six bullets distinction makes a big difference for me, but it's admittedly a fuzzy line.
reality - So what you're proposing is a system whereby people get to have guns if and only if they go through the appropriate paperwork and pass whatever requirements the government sets for issuing a license for that type of gun? Yeah, given the right set of requirements I'd go for that. Then again, I thought that's what we had now.

**jonathan: Take a look at the death rates from fists, feet, and sticks. I'm pretty sure that those weapons are equally available in Japan, the UK, and the US so there must be some reason that the US has a higher rate of murders using those weapons as well.

dpolicar: sort of. a lot of states, require so much licensing, checking, and just general hassle that it isn't worth it. others don't.
there is also that it probably isn't considered polite to carry a gun to someone's house. guns aren't accepted, they are tolerated and seen with fear/awe. making them 'normal' or common would remove a lot of that. who do you respect more, a policeman, or a policeman with a gun? why?
basically, what I am suggesting is that everyone, regardless of whether they want a gun or not, be taught about them to remove the misconceptions that people have. I am proposing that the idea of the gun be made acceptable and that everyone who wants one be required to have the proper training.

reality - got it. yeah, that makes sense... I doubt I'd ever carry a gun regularly, but I trained with pistols for a while so I wouldn't be scared of them. If that were a standard part of high-school physical education, I wouldn't object. (Well, no more than I do to, say, basketball.)

** daver: I won't deny that the US has a higher rate of violence in general, but I'm convinced that gun violence is orders of magnitude higher in the US largely because there are so many guns here.

** hillbilly: If you're willing to live with the fact that other good people would die so that your loved ones may live (the more guns = more deaths argument), that's your choice.

** reality: As long as guns are here, I'm entirely for everyone knowing how to use one. It's like knowing how to do your taxes, not something particularly fun to do for most people but something you should know how to do. I just don't think guns should be here to stay.

I am terrified of guns.

I'd definitely rather live in a place where no one carried a gun. However, I would not want to impose my will upon them to stop them from carrying guns (unless they were constantly menacing me with them then I might think about it)

Actually, maybe having everyone carry a gun would solve the overpopulation problem.

On some level this issue is a "where do you draw the line" kind of thing. A gun, a knife, a sharp stick? Where is the point where the law should step in and so "no, you can't have that". Perhaps it is never, we should have the right to defend ourselves, but then you might say, "what about nuclear weapons?" Would you like to live in a world where everyone carried around a nuclear weapon? absurdity! I think dpolicar's mention of automatic weapons is an interesting example (a baby step on the escalation line). A non-automatic handgun is one thing, an automatic assault rifle is another. ...and it only gets more absurd from there. I should run this escalation thing by my pro-gun friend.

I think fear of guns is a real problem. It only gives power to the criminals. If we all had to be trained to use guns at some point in our lives, we'd probably be better off - the fear would be lessened (replaced with respect hopefully).

I'd prefer the latter, but wouldn't expect it to stay that way.

I'd rather live in the second, but only if there was NO possible way for ANYONE to be an exception to the rule. As soon as anyone (including career criminals or the fed/state/local government agents) can possibly have a gun, then I'd have to choose the first instead.

GET THAT POO-STICK(tm) AWAY FROM ME, YOU MONSTER!!!

For the record, the UK/US comparisons are overstated, especially here in New England, and the *total homicide* rates are quite close, which indicate that even in the absence of firearms, humans will find ways to kill other humans.

Fwiw, the the rate of gun ownership by a population seems to have less to do with the violent crime/homicide rates than other socio-econimic factors. All parts of New England (which contains low ownership states like MA and a couple high ownership states like NH and ME) have rates about one-half the national average.

stutter much

This is an obvious question only because of the way you pronounced it. If no-one had a gun in your area, you'd feel safe and you'd have no need to carry a gun yourself. However, are muggers, thieves etc. still a threat. One of the most prolific arguements circle on the dilemma of whether it is safer to have a gun in your possession or not. In today's society with the high levels of gun related crimes, it may be safer for individuals in certain areas to carry guns but in terms of the question, if there were no guns in your area, that would mean no guns were needed for protection.

If someone carries a gun, he is ready to use it. And the only purpose of guns is to maim and kill. (Contrary to recreational drugs and sex, over which a lot more fuss is done) If nobody carries a gun, at least the chance of a killing is lowered considerably.

And I do! No guns in our house, thank you. ;)

If we could magically make all guns disappear as well as the knowledge to make more, I think we'd soon have a more violent society. Those who are strong and skilled at fighting would quickly learn they have little to fear from most of the rest of us.

Of course we can't do that. What we can do is pass laws which most strongly affect those who obey the laws, exactly the people you don't have to worry about. An obvious case in point is Australia which removed most guns from the general public not long ago. I hear that armed robbery was up 44% last year. I suppose it could be just coincidence, but you know, when the model that predicts that sort of outcome keeps being right and the model that predicts otherwise keeps being wrong, I'm inclined to lean towards the model that predicts more accurately.

**dab: Not only did armed robberies increase, armed robberies with a firearm increased (using ABS numbers). I thought Australians got rid of all of their guns.

bill: good?/responsible? people and their families are making mistakes everyday and shooting friends, their family and innocent people. and is a requirement of this "everyone carry a gun state" going to be that everyone take safety classes and firing lessons etc.... the good and responsible sector aren't always that! it's not that black and white!!

jettles - I believe that reports about such mistakes are exaggerated by the media. I believe that accidental deaths from guns are not very common (there are many other much more common deaths - e.g. car accidents). Should we ban cars?
Yes, safety courses and training would be essential to such a gun-toting country.
I agree it's not black and white. But, I'm starting to think that banning guns (many people seem to think this is a good idea - myself included) is another extreme that will not work. So, I'm now pushing on the other extreme to see what's wrong with it. I'm not convinced that if everyone carried a gun, more innocent people would die.

Duh!

guns=bad

anonymous: not bloody likely.
people = bad
a gun is an object, objects have no inherent goodness or badness.

well said reality

Guns don't kill people, bullets do!

While guns are not "bad" I would rather live someplace where no-one carried a gun because anything that makes murder easy makes more murders. While I realize that baseball bats, axes, etc. can also be used to kill people I would prefer if people would not carry them around either. The best option would be if people had no desire to harm others, as an alternative I would prefer to make harming others difficult.

The only time someone should have a gun on them is when they are hunting wildlife not humans.

anonymous: actually, countries with fewer guns do not have lower murder rates; they merely have lower proportions of ther murders committed with firearms. There are much more effective ways to fight violent crime.

I lived in Dublin, Ireland for four years. Nobody had guns. I've never felt as safe in any other city. Being able to walk through a city completely without fear is a wonderful thing.

...Especially walking home late at night, after a few too many pints at the local Public House.

I think you're mistaken, Antony, if you think there is anywhere in Ireland where there are "no guns". I think what you sensed was the different culture.

I have to use Canada once again as an example of why you don't need to carry guns. Consider: we are 1/9 the size of the United States and have essentially the same standard of living, the same lifestyle, everything. We have gun control. Note that number of people killed by guns is much much less than 1/9, which it should be since we have 1/9 the population. Even our large urban areas have lower rates than similar sized US ones.

Aside from the argument it is a violation of rights, the potential for accidental death by firearm will always be present. In fact, this itself is reason enough to ban guns outright.

I find it funny that the United States is such a dynamic and evolving society yet the majority of the populace clings to this outdated belief that somehow people should carry weapons. And why? Because they need to protect themselves. So take guns away from everyone else, and you have nothing you need to protect yourself from.

A million less guns is a million less ways to get killed. It isn't hard to figure out, folks.

North79, what about deaths by other means? How does Canada compare to the U.S. in total homicides? Removing guns doesn't make us safe, it just makes us safer from guns. Gun supporters will claim that people are going to kill somehow, with guns or not. The stats you quote are "deaths by guns"; how well does banning guns reduce the overall murder rates?

**Bill- guns facilitate murder. The odds of survival of someone who is being attacked with a knife or baseball bat are greater than surviving bullet wounds. Guns are superior weapons!
Removing guns does make you safer from guns...isn't that reason enough? Not all people with the intent to kill would be able to if it were not for guns. An individual may be able to outrun a person with a weapon that isnt a gun, or defeat them in hand to hand combat..the odds are better for the victims. The reason guns are so scary is because they can transform the most harmless individual into an instant killing machine. Load, point, fire. Dead. Anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Well, I can assure you I will never try to murder someone. But, if someone came at me with a knife with the intent to kill me, it's very likely that I would be killed or at least very seriously hurt. If I was allowed to have a gun to defend myself, it is very likely I could prevent such an attack. You want to take away my right to defend myself. Why? I'm no murderer.
I agree that guns are very effective weapons and that the effect they have is that they enable almost anyone to use deadly force. But that force is also a great equalizer. If a strong young man attacked a weak old woman, how else could she possible defend herself than with a gun? By banning guns, you are simply empowering the next level of weapons (knives and such). These weapons require more physical strength and ability to use. Thus, you are tilting the balance in favor of the strong.

While I do not agree with you bill I see the logic to your argument.
I just find that it raises the stakes involved. It is like the arms race between the USA and the USSR during the Cold War. It plays off the idea that if everyone has to one-up to even the odds. Why not just one-DOWN everyone?

Given the choice between having someone come at me with a knife or a gun, I would surely pick the knife. If we both have guns maybe we will both end up dead. If it occurs on a crowded street, everyone may pull a gun on everyone else and then even more people end up dead.
In other words, more guns create exponentially bad murder rates because of the accessibility of such an effective weapon. Overall murder rates in Canada are lower regardless of with what weapon. I cannot conclude, based on the similarity of the USA and Canada, that this is for any other reason other than tighter gun control.
Giving guns to everyone is curing the disease my killing the patient

I notice, North79, that you ignored the part of Bill's argument about disparity of strength and ability. That's why the sixgun in the old west was called the equalizer. It changed the world in that it was no longer the case that the large and strong always won. Old, injured, and weak people were no longer completely at the mercy of others.

As for which would I rather be attacked with, if we both have the same weapons I'd much rather be attacked with a gun. Especially a handgun. Since most criminals aren't particularly skilled with handguns, if I can get any distance from the attacker I have an excellent chance of surviving unscratched. Everything I've read about knife fights says you will get cut and knife wounds are very serious, some people think worse than gunshot wounds.

Your point about guns being a possible danger to others around though is important, though to fully understand they're both a danger and a protection. Some people argue that those who carry guns around with them for protection will be swaggering around and much more likely to get into situations where they'll haul out the gun and start shooting wildly. That's just not the way it works, at least not for most. It's an incredible responsibility and a concern for others weighs on you all the time.

**dab..I was actually in accordance with bill's point until you picked it apart yourself!

The gun is an equalizer because it allows the old, the injured and
the weak a way to even the odds, correct? You then point out that
you would rather be attacked with said gun, since most criminals aren't particularly skilled with guns. Then will the old, injured and weak be? If a gun is such a great equalizer, it must be easy to use. Apparently, this isn't the case.

I live in a society where guns are virtually non-existent yet crime rates are lower. You may argue this is post hoc fallacy, but I cannot fathom any other significant difference, legal or cultural, which would explain the discrepancy. Another point I did not mention was accidental death by shotgun.

The bottom line is, guns are more trouble than they are worth. It is better to have one man who dies because he is unable to protect himself than ten of them dying because everyone had access to a weapon to raise the stakes in what would have otherwise been a fist or verbal fight. It is better than having children finding a gun and accidentally blowing their brains out. And it is much better than
living in such a state of fear from day to day that you would require a gun at your side to live your life.

If guns are available then the old, injured, and weak have the option of defending themselves. You're right, they may choose not to but that's not a choice you or I should make for them.

As for Canada's low crime rate being because they pass laws against guns, I can easily find other countries that have higher crime rates than the US and stricter gun laws than Canada. Different areas of the US have widely different crime rates which, in fact, appear inversely related to gun restrictions. But the best correlation seems to be by population density and Canada has a much lower population density than the US.

Your final paragraph is a marvelously dense collection of fallacies and poor logic. I'm not able to debunk everything you said in nearly so small a space which I think is one of the reasons that anti-gun propaganda is so effective.

If it was the case that one person died if there were no guns around for each ten who died when there were guns around, then you'd have a strong practical argument. (I divide thinking about guns laws into three categories: practical, moral, and theoretic. For me, all three ways of considering the problem produce the same answer.) But that's not what happens. Compare the 2.5 million times guns are used to thwart crimes in the US each year to the 18,000 homicides or accidental deaths involving guns each year. Certainly not all of those 2.5 million times would have been a killing if there'd been no gun present. One study showed 1 in 6 but that's a very loose number. Still, it'd have to be 23 times lower than that (1 in 139) for the number of lives saved to be less than the number of lives lost IF you assume that no guns meant none of those 18,000 people were killed by another means.

If verbal or fist fights regularly turned into shoot outs, you'd have another strong practical argument. It's rare enough to make national news when it does happen. This is one of the big scare tactic arguments used every time someone proposes loosening gun laws. It was a big deal a few years back when Florida made it easier (read possible) to get concealed weapons permits. There will be blood running in the streets was the cry. It didn't happen. The same argument came up in Texas more recently. They changed the law, no blood running in the streets. It's not that what you fear never happens, it's just so rare that it makes national news whenever it does.

The tragedy of kids offing themselves because they're ignorant of guns is just appalling. Parents yearning to put the blame on someone or something that they think they can control is understandable. And parents who think it's sufficient to just tell their kids "Guns are bad, okay?" and think that does it really bothers me. Guns do exist, ignorance doesn't protect you, and watching all three (four?) Lethal Weapons movies is not useful firearms education.

Finally, being prepared is not the same as living in fear.

dab: "I can easily find other countries that have higher crime rates than the US and stricter gun laws than Canada" -- please, do tell which countries these are.

I saw a list go by on some mailing list not long ago. The two I remember off the top of my head were Mexico and the Bahamas.

Okay, here's some information from assorted countries taken from the United Nations Crime and Justice Information Network (http://www.ifs.univie.ac.at/~uncjin/uncjin.html) and the CIA World Factbook (for country's populations). The crime numbers are from 1986 and the populations estimated at July 1998. It ain't perfect but it's consistent across all the information here. When I found Canada's crime rate at almost twice that of the US (and we all know Canada is safer, right?) I stopped using total crimes reported and restricted the crimes to intentional homicide, major assault, rape, robbery, and theft reported to the police. These were all the categories in the US report so it didn't change the US numbers but it reduced the number of crimes in the other countries. My guess is that Argentina's numbers are due to very low reporting. The UNCJIN didn't have crime statistics for Mexico.

Country		Crimes (1986)	Population	Crime Rate (/100,000)
-------		-------------	----------	---------------------
Argentina	   47784	 36,265,463		 131
France		  755622	 58,804,944		1284
Australia	  469595	 18,613,087		2522
Finland		  131899	  5,149,242		2562
Switzerland	  190537	  7,260,357		2624
Bahamas		   11607	    279,833		4147
United States	13210800	270,311,756		4887
Bermuda		    3764	     62,009		6070
Canada		 1890640	 30,675,398		6163
United Kingdom	 4679437	 58,970,119		7935

A better argument but it still has holes. I find it ironic that you consider anti-gun propaganda when I would argue the same of those who defend the right to bear arms.

When we give the weak, old, and injured the right to defend themselves we are also giving anyone who wants to shoot somebody else a much easier way to do it. Therefore, by restricting everyone, we protect everyone. Nothing to defend against, right? Another thing is we are assuming the old, weak and injured will not use guns inappropriately themselves. If this was the case, then guns would enable an otherwise harmless demographic to commit crime. There are two sides to every coin.

Pertaining to the first statistics you provide I would be interested to know what constitutes "thwarting" a crime. That aside, did you consider that the fact 2.5 million crimes were attempted may possibly be related to the availability of guns? In all of your arguments you seem to forget that we are not just taking the guns away from the old, weak and injured and all the upstanding citizens, but the criminals as well. And yes there will still be guns..just not anywhere near as many as there were when 2.5 million crimes were attempted.

I am surprised you are so easily misled by the population density statistic. Are you forgetting that the vast north of Canada is uninhabited? The population densities of Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver are not that different from Chicago, Detroit or Seattle.

Lets examine your three categories. Practical? I have never required the use of a gun in my life thus far. That is, there has never been a time when I wished I had a gun on my person. Guns are weapons, and what need to I have for a weapon?

Moral? This is the one where I find you have least to stand on. In a perfect world, are there guns? What need would there be? If we were to assume all people to be of good character there would be no need for guns. Should we just assume the worst every day, and accept the fact we run the risk of serious crime in our day to day lives?
What you call preparation I call resignation to the status quo.

Theoretically, what is your argument? Do you really believe that if the United States were to enforce tight gun control tomorrow, the crime rate and murders would not fall? It doesn't solve every problem but it is a step in the right direction. Crimes increase in frequency when it is easier to commit them. If you take away something which facilitates crime, fewer crimes will be committed.

Road rage is an example of the problems widespread gun availability create. In moments of frustration, anger and exasperation many good people have become murderers because they had the means to kill.

Florida, in my opinion, is hell. 1993 numbers from the FBI ('Uniform Crime Reports') list it second only to the District of Columbia for violent crime rates - 1,206 incidents per 100,000.

You agree with the tragedy of kids who blow their brains out, so why are you trying to direct attention to the parents? It isn't about who's fault it is, it is the fact they are dead that matters.
It is difficult to properly education a four year old about firearms,
so how are you going to keep them safe from it? Lock it up? Then how does it protect you?

Since you had the courtesy to provide statistics I feel obligated to as well. Statistics Canada and the FBI provide the numbers,and the most recent common year being 1991.

Murder Rate

USA 24,700
Canada 753

There are nine times as many people in the US as in Canada. To multiply our rate by nine gives 6,777. So the murder rate is then roughly four times what it is in Canada. That is good enough for me.

We are all civilized people living in a modern world. Guns are an anachronism from a bygone time, and it is the failure to let go of such a trivial freedom that has resulted in, and will continue to result in, many unnecessary and otherwise preventable deaths.

This is the first survey I have hidden, I wish you guys would have taken this to email.

Okay, I won't respond to North79's latest stuff. I'll only complete the request from anonymous about crime rates since I found the source I was thinking about which includes more countries. It also turns out to be about homicides not general crime. Note, I'm not claiming this shows that guns reduce crime, only that the correlation many people claim between strict gun control laws and low crime (or homicide) rates is only found by carefully selecting which countries you include in your statistics.

>Browsing through my copies of some pages from the UN Demographic
>Yearbook 1989, I quickly found that "nowhere" covers most of this
>hemisphere:
>
>Country        Homicide rate, /100k/year
>
>United States       8.5
>Mexico             19.9
>Bahamas            15.1
>Puerto Rico        17.5
>El Salvador        40.4
>Ecuador            10.1
>Columbia           37.4
>Venezuela          12.9
>Brazil             14.8
>
>(Note that a number of these countries have absolute BANS on civilian
>possession of handguns.)

Sorry for the long-windedness. Just to point out that there are other variables to consider with these countries which are not markedly different between the United States and Canada; poverty and associated propensity to commit crime, standard of living, quality of law enforcement and control of illegal firearms..the list goes on. If you can present similar numbers on G-7 countries you may have a case.

I like guns...I like weapons

I heard recently that there are some European countries (Switzerland? Finland?) where guns ownership is very high and crime is very low...

Why do people think responsible gun owners would become trigger happy? I don't get that part!!! Having a gun in your hand doesn't change your convictions, attitude and morals. WTF

I'm not big on pop-psych explanations but the only answer I've been able to find to this question is 'projection'. They don't think you should be allowed to carry a gun because they don't think they should be allowed to carry a gun.

Could be. Either that, or they just don't trust other people. They would be afraid of accidentally offending someone.