Poll of the Day > Would Mandatory gun ownership reduce gun violence due to mutually assured death?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Just like How nukes prevent war between nations that have nukes?
---

No because for every life saved due to a good guy with a gun, we'd have ten stories of somebody shooting their foot out, gun going off accidentally, or some kid bringing it to school.

Mandatory gun ownership with proper classes on gun safety and care, maybe.

Just handing everyone a gun, no.
---

It'd just escalate the level of violence out there. Most gun violence(and violence in general) is pretty spur of the moment, whether the gun is being used on yourself(i.e. suicide rates lowering with a gun not being in the home) or on others(not even counting the massive increase of accidental deaths due to discharge). Everyone having a gun just makes it more likely that the drunken fist fight or the five fingers across the face of a loved one becomes a hot one in the dome.

What we need is better gun safety(not the same as just banning guns), better mental health treatment, and stricter screening for gun purchasing/licensing. That doesn't help violent crimes committed with illegal guns, but that problem is almost separate from the other gun issues because the causes, effects, and groups affected by it are so far removed from the other kinds of similar issues. It's like trying to discuss deliberate arsonists when talking about making a building safer against fire danger in general. If a person is actively looking to burn that building down you are going to have to plan differently than if you are worried about sparks from a faulty outlet or a particularly dry, hot summer.
---

Jesus, mods. How can he make these topics but I get warned for saying shut up to someone?
---

Nukes take time before hitting, at least long enough that the other can fire off their nukes. Unless 2 people are at a stand off you wont have enough time to kill the person that shoots you, so mutual destruction wouldnt work. And bystander syndrome would mean 99% of the people that do have guns will run away or cower in fear. The 1% that shoot could very well miss causing more damage since firing off a gun isnt as easy as saying a cool one liner then head shotting the bad guy while holding the gun sideways with 1 hand. Though it could help in a lot of situations.

That said its not like im against people having guns. There is no real winning situation here. Making getting guns easier means more people would be able to defend themselves but more shootings would occur. Making guns harder to obtain while it might lower some shootings rates wouldnt affect it by much since getting guns illegally is easy and people would have less means of defending themselves when they do get caught up in such a situation.

The situation that i think would be best is if they further non lethal weapons like making Tazers better and a viable option and give those out.

Considering that many shooters have no problem dying during their rampages, no.
---

Quol posted...

Nukes take time before hitting, at least long enough that the other can fire off their nukes. Unless 2 people are at a stand off you wont have enough time to kill the person that shoots you, so mutual destruction wouldnt work. And bystander syndrome would mean 99% of the people that do have guns will run away or cower in fear. The 1% that shoot could very well miss causing more damage since firing off a gun isnt as easy as saying a cool one liner then head shotting the bad guy while holding the gun sideways with 1 hand. Though it could help in a lot of situations.

That said its not like im against people having guns. There is no real winning situation here. Making getting guns easier means more people would be able to defend themselves but more shootings would occur. Making guns harder to obtain while it might lower some shootings rates wouldnt affect it by much since getting guns illegally is easy and people would have less means of defending themselves when they do get caught up in such a situation.

The situation that i think would be best is if they further non lethal weapons like making Tazers better and a viable option and give those out.

It's a fallacy to believe that people actually defend themselves with guns when confronted with an armed attacker. Even trained officers and soldiers falter under gunfire, and they are both specifically trained and expect to go into those situations. Saying you need a gun for self-defense is like claiming your Taekwondo lessons are for self defense. There's legit reasons to have it, there's recreational reasons to have it, but that specific one is bullshit in 999 of 1000 cases.
---

Mass shootings possibly.

Regular homicides would spike.

In other news: Gun stocks (publicly tradable stocks, not shoulder braces) have jumped 3%

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-maker-stocks-surge-after-mass-shooting-in-las-vegas-2017-10-02

Why is disaster always good for the economy?
---

Lokarin posted...

In other news: Gun stocks (publicly tradable stocks, not shoulder braces) have jumped 3%

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-maker-stocks-surge-after-mass-shooting-in-las-vegas-2017-10-02

Why is disaster always good for the economy?

Because the NRA can use anything as an excuse to sell more guns. And if there's nothing else, they will just go back to thier usual "They are trying to take away your guns! Teach them a lesson by buying more guns!"
---

No. Life isn't a video game, enemies aren't colour coded. If there's gunshots and thirty people pull out their own guns, how much harder does that make it to figure out who did the original shooting? How much more does that open up the possibility that a Good Samaritan is going to be shot for having their gun out and trying to fight off the real shooter?

Lokarin posted...

Why is disaster always good for the economy?

People will want to buy guns now. For protection, out of fear that a crackdown is coming, whatever. This is why gun sales were roaring during the Obama years and why they've piddled out under Trump.
---

GeminiX7 posted...

Quol posted...

Nukes take time before hitting, at least long enough that the other can fire off their nukes. Unless 2 people are at a stand off you wont have enough time to kill the person that shoots you, so mutual destruction wouldnt work. And bystander syndrome would mean 99% of the people that do have guns will run away or cower in fear. The 1% that shoot could very well miss causing more damage since firing off a gun isnt as easy as saying a cool one liner then head shotting the bad guy while holding the gun sideways with 1 hand. Though it could help in a lot of situations.

That said its not like im against people having guns. There is no real winning situation here. Making getting guns easier means more people would be able to defend themselves but more shootings would occur. Making guns harder to obtain while it might lower some shootings rates wouldnt affect it by much since getting guns illegally is easy and people would have less means of defending themselves when they do get caught up in such a situation.

The situation that i think would be best is if they further non lethal weapons like making Tazers better and a viable option and give those out.

It's a fallacy to believe that people actually defend themselves with guns when confronted with an armed attacker. Even trained officers and soldiers falter under gunfire, and they are both specifically trained and expect to go into those situations. Saying you need a gun for self-defense is like claiming your Taekwondo lessons are for self defense. There's legit reasons to have it, there's recreational reasons to have it, but that specific one is bullshit in 999 of 1000 cases.

Dude read my first paragraph i literally say that 99% would cower in fear or run away even with guns.

IF we are talking about a mass shooting the people at the forefront would most likely be useless, its the people that are far enough from the situation that would be able to fight back with their own guns. OP is talking about the idea that if everyone in a group had a gun then one would be less likely to fire in that group as at least one victim would fire back. Of course that heavily relies on the fact that the shooter values their life. There have been situations where people fought back against shooters without a gun so given the opportunity that a person has a gun and has not been noticed by the shooter, its not too far of a stretch that more people would fight back.

Quol posted...

GeminiX7 posted...

Quol posted...

Nukes take time before hitting, at least long enough that the other can fire off their nukes. Unless 2 people are at a stand off you wont have enough time to kill the person that shoots you, so mutual destruction wouldnt work. And bystander syndrome would mean 99% of the people that do have guns will run away or cower in fear. The 1% that shoot could very well miss causing more damage since firing off a gun isnt as easy as saying a cool one liner then head shotting the bad guy while holding the gun sideways with 1 hand. Though it could help in a lot of situations.

That said its not like im against people having guns. There is no real winning situation here. Making getting guns easier means more people would be able to defend themselves but more shootings would occur. Making guns harder to obtain while it might lower some shootings rates wouldnt affect it by much since getting guns illegally is easy and people would have less means of defending themselves when they do get caught up in such a situation.

The situation that i think would be best is if they further non lethal weapons like making Tazers better and a viable option and give those out.

It's a fallacy to believe that people actually defend themselves with guns when confronted with an armed attacker. Even trained officers and soldiers falter under gunfire, and they are both specifically trained and expect to go into those situations. Saying you need a gun for self-defense is like claiming your Taekwondo lessons are for self defense. There's legit reasons to have it, there's recreational reasons to have it, but that specific one is bullshit in 999 of 1000 cases.

Dude read my first paragraph i literally say that 99% would cower in fear or run away even with guns.

IF we are talking about a mass shooting the people at the forefront would most likely be useless, its the people that are far enough from the situation that would be able to fight back with their own guns. OP is talking about the idea that if everyone in a group had a gun then one would be less likely to fire in that group as at least one victim would fire back. Of course that heavily relies on the fact that the shooter values their life. There have been situations where people fought back against shooters without a gun so given the opportunity that a person has a gun and has not been noticed by the shooter, its not too far of a stretch that more people would fight back.

And that would be much more likely to leave a bystander dead than the attacker. That's my point. The way people react in actual life-or-death combat situations, especially when firearms are involved, are nothing like what happens in movies, video games, etc. People definitely do take defensive measures, but there is a large difference between lunging at an attacker(even an armed one) and unholstering a weapon, judging distance, making your target, making sure there isn't a bystander in the way, firing, etc. on the spur of a moment when everyone around you is also panicking and rushing in every direction.

Despite the tone my post might have had, I was actually agreeing with you for the most part. Not sure where the hostility was coming from. I was just adding onto what you were already saying.
---

GeminiX7 posted...

And that would be much more likely to leave a bystander dead than the attacker. That's my point. The way people react in actual life-or-death combat situations, especially when firearms are involved, are nothing like what happens in movies, video games, etc. People definitely do take defensive measures, but there is a large difference between lunging at an attacker(even an armed one) and unholstering a weapon, judging distance, making your target, making sure there isn't a bystander in the way, firing, etc. on the spur of a moment when everyone around you is also panicking and rushing in every direction.

Despite the tone my post might have had, I was actually agreeing with you for the most part. Not sure where the hostility was coming from. I was just adding onto what you were already saying.

My bad, ive been on Poll of the Day - Gfaqs too much.

it might slow down normal crime but mass shootings where the shooter knows hes probably gonna die anyways? nah.

I really do think gun safety should be taught in schools though, was in my middle school technically but it was labeled hunter safety, and gun safety was just a portion of the class, where as most of it was learning the laws around hunting, and safe hunting practices. but if you took band or chorus you could avoid that class. and the gun portion only involved rifles not handguns unfortunately.
---

GeminiX7 posted...

Quol posted...

GeminiX7 posted...

Quol posted...

Nukes take time before hitting, at least long enough that the other can fire off their nukes. Unless 2 people are at a stand off you wont have enough time to kill the person that shoots you, so mutual destruction wouldnt work. And bystander syndrome would mean 99% of the people that do have guns will run away or cower in fear. The 1% that shoot could very well miss causing more damage since firing off a gun isnt as easy as saying a cool one liner then head shotting the bad guy while holding the gun sideways with 1 hand. Though it could help in a lot of situations.

That said its not like im against people having guns. There is no real winning situation here. Making getting guns easier means more people would be able to defend themselves but more shootings would occur. Making guns harder to obtain while it might lower some shootings rates wouldnt affect it by much since getting guns illegally is easy and people would have less means of defending themselves when they do get caught up in such a situation.

The situation that i think would be best is if they further non lethal weapons like making Tazers better and a viable option and give those out.

It's a fallacy to believe that people actually defend themselves with guns when confronted with an armed attacker. Even trained officers and soldiers falter under gunfire, and they are both specifically trained and expect to go into those situations. Saying you need a gun for self-defense is like claiming your Taekwondo lessons are for self defense. There's legit reasons to have it, there's recreational reasons to have it, but that specific one is bullshit in 999 of 1000 cases.

Dude read my first paragraph i literally say that 99% would cower in fear or run away even with guns.

IF we are talking about a mass shooting the people at the forefront would most likely be useless, its the people that are far enough from the situation that would be able to fight back with their own guns. OP is talking about the idea that if everyone in a group had a gun then one would be less likely to fire in that group as at least one victim would fire back. Of course that heavily relies on the fact that the shooter values their life. There have been situations where people fought back against shooters without a gun so given the opportunity that a person has a gun and has not been noticed by the shooter, its not too far of a stretch that more people would fight back.

And that would be much more likely to leave a bystander dead than the attacker. That's my point. The way people react in actual life-or-death combat situations, especially when firearms are involved, are nothing like what happens in movies, video games, etc. People definitely do take defensive measures, but there is a large difference between lunging at an attacker(even an armed one) and unholstering a weapon, judging distance, making your target, making sure there isn't a bystander in the way, firing, etc. on the spur of a moment when everyone around you is also panicking and rushing in every direction.

Despite the tone my post might have had, I was actually agreeing with you for the most part. Not sure where the hostility was coming from. I was just adding onto what you were already saying.

I would like to point out I have personally known people that would be dead or have been severely hurt had it not been for defending themselves with a gun. now with that said guns aren't for everyone, not everyone has the right mindset to handle one, as pointed out some would be too scared to use it effectively.
---

also according to a article I just looked up, there have been cities to pass laws requiring gun ownership in this country before, unfortunately they failed to talk about how that affected crime rates. and also mentioned in most cases the laws where not actually enforced.

I know I read an article a long time ago that talked about this and how the crime rate dropped nearly 80% in that city/town or some shit like that.

edit: just wanted to point out one of these said cities is literally named "gun barrel city"
---

GeminiX7 posted...

Lokarin posted...

In other news: Gun stocks (publicly tradable stocks, not shoulder braces) have jumped 3%

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-maker-stocks-surge-after-mass-shooting-in-las-vegas-2017-10-02

Why is disaster always good for the economy?

Because the NRA can use anything as an excuse to sell more guns. And if there's nothing else, they will just go back to thier usual "They are trying to take away your guns! Teach them a lesson by buying more guns!"

It's funny how so many people think the NRA is this giant boogeyman. All they do is send annoying shit in the mail.
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

It's funny how so many people think the NRA is this giant boogeyman. All they do is send annoying shit in the mail.

No, they bribe politicians and block reports on gun violence.
They post videos threatening violence if you even think about making guns harder to own.
They use fear to progress their political agenda. Literally the definition of a terrorist organization.

knivesX2004 posted...

No, they bribe politicians

That's their job as lobbyists

and block reports on gun violence

This isn't true, go look up the CDC study done in 2013

They post videos threatening violence if you even think about making guns harder to own

I've never seen the NRA threaten violence ever, plus it's their job to stop dumb legislation from passing

They use fear to progress their political agenda. Literally the definition of a terrorist organization.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorist+organization
They use neither violence, nor the threat thereof, they are not terrorists, quit buying into the media on this this.

The NRA exists to protect the 2nd Amendment and gun owners from politicians trying to pass unreasonable and overbearing limitations on their rights. Why not treat the sick individuals who seek to cause violence rather than fuck over the people who aren't doing anything wrong.
---

Lets say that everybody on the Strip carried guns.
Nobody would have been able to stop this shooting. In the best case scenario, the police would have got reports of multiple possible subjects and the real shooter would have had a longer time pumping out bullets before the police located him.
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

This isn't true, go look up the CDC study done in 2013

Yes, it is true.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-funding-20160614-snap-story.html

Also, the CDC has been banned for decades from studying the causes of gun violence or collecting any statistics related to it (a ban that was put in place in part thanks to extensive lobbying by the NRA in the 90s). Obama briefly overturned the ban via executive order, but that executive order is now expired.
---

Zangulus posted...

EvilMegas posted...

Jesus, mods. How can he make these topics but I get warned for saying shut up to someone?

Telling someone to shut up is not a violation. I smell a lack of information.

Kimbos_Egg once got warned for saying he didn't want to go to France. There's no other context, just that.
---

The original poster is from Russia, he's a plant to divide us, ok?
---

ClarkDuke posted...

The original poster is from Russia, he's a plant to divide us, ok?

Ha! No need for external help to divide Americans we are doing good enough on our own.