Current Events > Ok, a hot take, but hear me out.

(+) Yeah! (+)

So I think a great way to improve our society is to arm everyone. Every man and woman.

If someone tries to rob you, shoot them.

If someone tries to sexually assault you, shoot them.

If someone tries to hurt you, shoot them.

If someone tries to destroy something you own, shoot them.

This way everyone would truly be judged on their own actions. If you hurt people, rob them, try to sexually assault them, or try to destroy their property, you would be shot.

Of course, there would be limitations, mentally unstable people would not be allowed access to firearms, and children too. But think about it.

I came to this theory when I saw a statistic that said %97 of women will be, or have been sexually assaulted. But there's no way %97 of men would do that. Which means there's scum in our world that keeps getting away with it. Over and over with innocent girls. And if anyone were to shoot that man, not only would she save herself, but others as well.

Eventually everyone who would do harm would quickly realize that they will die if they try.

I'm sure there are downsides to this plan, but feel free to share. I'm open to debate.

---

But I don't want to shoot people.

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

If someone tries to hurt you, shoot them.

I call your sweater ugly. It hurts you.

I think that would lead to a significant increase in the suicide rate.

---

Antifar posted...

I think that would lead to a significant increase in the suicide rate.

You stub your toe. That hurts you.

TC:

---

idk, if everyone was armed, it might also escalate situations that might have been nothing than heated arguments otherwise, since they'd feel like they have something that puts them on equal ground.

or they might feel it's better to use their gun before the other person has a chance to.

---

nothanks1 posted...

I call your sweater ugly. It hurts you.

Physical attacks. My response to that is, toughen the hell up.

BloodMoon7 posted...

But I don't want to shoot people.

A completely fair point. And truth be told nobody should have to. But I think of a good quite from Metro at times like these. "One more generation must throw away their lives so the ones that come after may live in peace." I'm paraphrasing a bit but it's a good quite.

---

So lets say Im getting mugged. The mugger has a gun because we all have guns. So he shoots me while I draw my gun, and I fire back. I miss and my shot hits someone walking by. Theyre obviously going to shoot back at me right? They wouldnt know or wouldnt care that I was trying to shoot someone else. Literally every altercation would end in blind gunfire from everyone in the area.

---

Im not opposed to the logic, but it would fail at keeping people in check. There would simply be more people dying and getting hit by crossfire. Lots of people would default to the gun to deal with more trivial issues.

---

That just means the next generation must also throw away their lives, chasing peace for the next generation. You could just...not throw away your life. That's pretty peaceful.

---

g0ldie posted...

idk, if everyone was armed, it might also escalate situations that might have been nothing than heated arguments otherwise, since they'd feel like they have something that puts them on equal ground.

or they might feel it's better to use their gun before the other person has a chance to.

Imagine the fucking Aurora shooting if everyone had a gun.

It would have been a fucking bloodbath.

---

BloodMoon7 posted...

You stub your toe. That hurts you.

TC:

Anyone who has followed me for a while knows that I have absolutely zero regard for my own life.

Antifar posted...

I think that would lead to a significant increase in the suicide rate.

Ok.

g0ldie posted...

idk, if everyone was armed, it might also escalate situations that might have been nothing than heated arguments otherwise, since they'd feel like they have something that puts them on equal ground.

or they might feel it's better to use their gun before the other person has a chance to.

This is also a fair point. But you'd think that you wouldn't shoot someone knowing that everyone around you also has a gun and will shoot you for it if the other party didn't harm you.

---

Armed minorities are harder to oppress, and you cant fight fascism with thoughts and prayers.

---

not everyone is decent enough to make it work and if everyone's decent, we wont need the guns at all

---

Chicken posted...

So lets say Im getting mugged. The mugger has a gun because we all have guns. So he shoots me while I draw my gun, and I fire back. I miss and my shot hits someone walking by. Theyre obviously going to shoot back at me right? They wouldnt know or wouldnt care that I was trying to shoot someone else. Literally every altercation would end in blind gunfire from everyone in the area.

Where the hell are you getting mugged? Just say, "Hey this asshole is mugging me, would you guys please draw your firearms and not let him shoot me?"

Everyone draws their guns.

Now the mugger can't shoot you without being shot by everyone. So he would then be apprehended by police and arrested.

Simple security camera footage would prove that he was trying to mug you.

No bloodshed. No mugging.

Or if you're in a non populated area, you don't have to worry about anyone getting caught in the crossfire. But if you get mugged in a non populated area, then this whole theory doesn't matter, because it would play out the same whether everyone was armed or not. Because nobody is around to help you. The mugger would've just gotten a gun and proceeded with the mugging anyways.

CARRRNE_ASADA posted...

Im not opposed to the logic, but it would fail at keeping people in check. There would simply be more people dying and getting hit by crossfire. Lots of people would default to the gun to deal with more trivial issues.

People who would default to gun would quickly and swiftly be delt with by others. People would learn quick.

"If I shoot this guy, I will be shot by everyone else."

BloodMoon7 posted...

That just means the next generation must also throw away their lives, chasing peace for the next generation. You could just...not throw away your life. That's pretty peaceful.

In an ideal world, nobody would have to do it. But all of human history has been people dying to protect the future. Think the revolutionary war, the civil war, WWI, WWII, etc. Human have never changed since the dawn of time, and most likely will never. But this may be a step in the right direction.

DrizztLink posted...

Imagine the fucking Aurora shooting if everyone had a gun.

It would have been a fucking bloodbath.

If I remember correctly, that was the nightclub right? I need to know what this was before I make a comment.

---

CommonJoe posted...

Armed minorities are harder to oppress, and you cant fight fascism with thoughts and prayers.

Hell yeah, this guy gets it, up top brotha!

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

If someone just randomly shoots someone, they in turn will be shot. Thus motivating people to not randomly shoot people.

Nukazie posted...

not everyone is decent enough to make it work and if everyone's decent, we wont need the guns at all

Please elaborate.

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

If I remember correctly, that was the nightclub right? I need to know what this was before I make a comment.

Movie theater, unless I got the city wrong.

---

Mutually Assured Destruction indeed prevents conflicts, but if a conflict does occur everyone dies.
---

This is how things work in all those start-from-nothing MMO survival games.

>People with guns acknowledge each other and go on their merry way, because the risk of combat doesn't justify the reward.

>Anyone without arms better hide and scavenge, because they are at the (admittedly hilarious) mercy of any unfriendly fucker who has a gun.

>People who do take the risk of initiating combat open themselves up, and everyone within earshot realizes a distracted man is easy prey.


---

Guide posted...

This is how things work in all those start-from-nothing MMO survival games.

Bandits would like a word.

---

Duncanwii posted...

Mutually Assured Destruction indeed prevents conflicts, but if a conflict does occur everyone dies.

I have acknowledged this in other posts. It's not you vs one other person. It's you vs everyone around you. You WILL be shot if you shoot someone for no reason.

Guide posted...

This is how things work in all those start-from-nothing MMO survival games.

>People with guns acknowledge each other and go on their merry way, because the risk of combat doesn't justify the reward.

>Anyone without arms better hide and scavenge, because they are at the (admittedly hilarious) mercy of any unfriendly fucker who has a gun.

>People who do take the risk of initiating combat open themselves up, and everyone within earshot realizes a distracted man is easy prey.

I saw that ZP video too. And the logic holds up in my opinion.

---

CommonJoe posted...

Bandits would like a word.

I am unfamiliar with even the title! How's that work?

---

Guide posted...

I am unfamiliar with even the title! How's that work?

Its not a game its a phenomenon that was priominent enough in DayZ to be coined as a term but generally happens in any open PVP game, but especially survival ones.

Bandits are people that kill on sight regardless of the circumstances. These are in contrast with Bambis, newly spawned people, and Heros, people who go out of their way to not be Bandits.

---

CommonJoe posted...

Bandits would like a word.

Elaborate please. I don't understand.

---

CommonJoe posted...

Its not a game its a phenomenon that was priominent enough in DayZ to be coined as a term but generally happens in any open PVP game, but especially survival ones.

Bandits are people that kill on sight regardless of the circumstances. These are in contrast with Bambis, newly spawned people, and Heros, people who go out of their way to not be Bandits.

Oh, ok I see.

---

CommonJoe posted...

Its not a game its a phenomenon that was priominent enough in DayZ to be coined as a term but generally happens in any open PVP game, but especially survival ones.

Bandits are people that kill on sight regardless of the circumstances. These are in contrast with Bambis, newly spawned people, and Heros, people who go out of their way to not be Bandits.

How many people in real life are going to instantly start murdering people on sight when they get a gun though? Arguably, less since it's real life and there is no respawn. Spree killers will find a way to hurt everyone, and people who are armed can protect themselves.

---

CommonJoe posted...

Its not a game its a phenomenon that was priominent enough in DayZ to be coined as a term but generally happens in any open PVP game, but especially survival ones.

Bandits are people that kill on sight regardless of the circumstances. These are in contrast with Bambis, newly spawned people, and Heros, people who go out of their way to not be Bandits.

Did bandits survive for very long?

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

How many people in real life are going to instantly start murdering people on sight when they get a gun though?

A nonzero amount, though Im not pointing it out to make a point against the topic

Guide posted...

Did bandits survive for very long?

Depends on what weapons they have and how good a shooter they are. Gunplay in DayZ is janky so typically youd just get sniped because getting into a run and gun firefight was aids.

---

CommonJoe posted...

A nonzero amount, though Im not pointing it out to make a point against the topic

Ok, but as soon as someone tries to start spree killing they're immediately going to be shot by everyone else.

Yes, they may hurt or even kill one or two people, but then the psychopath will be killed and now society is safe from them now and forever. It's a tragedy but it helps secure a future of peace.

Others would see what the consequences of those kinds of actions would be, and refrain from doing them. Because they will be killed.


---

Once we arm everyone, then you just need to create a posse to always have your back and you theirs. Once enough do this maybe we could get uniforms or colors to identify which posse we are with.

---

Guide posted...

This is how things work in all those start-from-nothing MMO survival games.

>People with guns acknowledge each other and go on their merry way, because the risk of combat doesn't justify the reward.

>Anyone without arms better hide and scavenge, because they are at the (admittedly hilarious) mercy of any unfriendly fucker who has a gun.

>People who do take the risk of initiating combat open themselves up, and everyone within earshot realizes a distracted man is easy prey.

Ive played about a thousand hours in rust and dayz mod and lemmie tell you, the people with guns acknowledging each other and moving on always stopped at mid level play. Inevitably youre going to make enemies among the other groups so it comes down to gunning down anything on sight or you risk getting wiped off the server. Weve had month long battles spring up because of a small misunderstanding.

---

KILBOTz posted...

Once we arm everyone, then you just need to create a posse to always have your back and you theirs. Once enough do this maybe we could get uniforms or colors to identify which posse we are with.

This is the dumbest argument.

You know, there's a reason firearms are called the great equalizer.

But you want people to be separated into groups.

Whether it be groups of: Race, Gender, Religion, or even something as stupid and arbitrary as gangs.

In my idea, everyone is completely equal. But you don't want that equality for some reason. You want there to be in-fighting and conflict.

Why?


---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

Of course, there would be limitations, mentally unstable people would not be allowed access to firearms, and children too.

I'm sure this will work

---

ChrisTaka posted...

I'm sure this will work

Elaborate.

---

Chicken posted...

Ive played about a thousand hours in rust and dayz mod and lemmie tell you, the people with guns acknowledging each other and moving on always stopped at mid level play. Inevitably youre going to make enemies among the other groups so it comes down to gunning down anything on sight or you risk getting wiped off the server. Weve had month long battles spring up because of a small misunderstanding.

That fits in pretty well with the tribal aspect of human history. After that, we get all the weird and varied power consolidation of modern nations.

---

My idea is to arm floating spheres, not the people. When excessively aggressive/violent stuff happens, they shoot everyone they consider aggressive.

---

uwnim posted...

My idea is to arm floating spheres, not the people. When excessively aggressive/violent stuff happens, they shoot everyone they consider aggressive.

Death drones, I like it!

---

Sounds similar to a western show. Though Gunsmoke did show not everyone had guns and that not having one protected you lawfully in some ways.
But yeah,sounds like the wild west.

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

Elaborate.

I'll give you a hint: mentally unstable people and children already can't buy guns and we still have mass shootings.

---

uwnim posted...

My idea is to arm floating spheres, not the people. When excessively aggressive/violent stuff happens, they shoot everyone they consider aggressive.

Robots and AI are too flawed for that to be plausible. Even then, the whole point of this is to hand authority to the individual. This completely missed the mark.

Tsuyoi3 posted...

Sounds similar to a western show. Though Gunsmoke did show not everyone had guns and that not having one protected you lawfully in some ways.
But yeah,sounds like the wild west.

Sweet.

ChrisTaka posted...

I'll give you a hint: mentally unstable people and children already can't buy guns and we still have mass shootings.

Yes, because they don't fear the people they are attacking. Because they know not everyone is armed. It's easy to feel powerful when you think you're attacking people who can't fight back. But if they knew EVERYONE was armed, they might rethink their actions. Or at the very least, they won't get as far as they would otherwise.

---

When seconds count, 911 is always minutes away.

Arent there counties in texas or georgia where everyone is required to own a gun?

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

Yes, because they don't fear the people they are attacking. Because they know not everyone is armed. It's easy to feel powerful when you think you're attacking people who can't fight back. But if they knew EVERYONE was armed, they might rethink their actions. Or at the very least, they won't get as far as they would otherwise.

And what of the attackers who have no intention of living afterwards anyway?


---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

Robots and AI are too flawed for that to be plausible. Even then, the whole point of this is to hand authority to the individual. This completely missed the mark.

I disagree with it missing the mark. It comes naturally from your idea.
Starting from your idea, the pressing question is how do we ensure the guns actually get used? The person being attacked can't reliably use them as the attacker has their gun already out and will immediately pull the trigger if they feel the victim is attempting to get out their gun. So we are relying on a third party. People are rather unreliable. Often they will try to ignore the situation to avoid taking on any risk to themselves. This is an issue, and a solution is to create our own third party that has getting involved as their primary goal. This leads to the death drone idea.

---

ChrisTaka posted...

And what of the attackers who have no intention of living afterwards anyway?

Not many mass murderers plan on living after they start. So all this will do is reduce their body count. You can't predict them, but you can stop them.

uwnim posted...

I disagree with it missing the mark. It comes naturally from your idea.
Starting from your idea, the pressing question is how do we ensure the guns actually get used? The person being attacked can't reliably use them as the attacker has their gun already out and will immediately pull the trigger if they feel the victim is attempting to get out their gun. So we are relying on a third party. People are rather unreliable. Often they will try to ignore the situation to avoid taking on any risk to themselves. This is an issue, and a solution is to create our own third party that has getting involved as their primary goal. This leads to the death drone idea.

No. You're implying that people will just resort to murder instantly.

Some people might, but guess what, if you're getting robbed, chances are, you won't be shit instantly. Once you realize you're being robbed, call your fellow citizens for help. Even one person is enough to help, so I don't believe the bystander effect applies to these situations, as more than likely, many people will try to help. (See earlier mugging examples.)

Unless you're a necrophiliac, you wouldn't murder someone before you sexually assault them. Giving the victim plenty of time to deal with it themselves, or call for help.

Someone who is busy destroying your property, isn't focused on murdering you at that moment. So once they start destroying, get the jump on them, fire first.

The physical assault is where it gets tricky, as some people in this case, may use their firearms rashly, but again, they should be motivated not to, as it will result in them being shot.

Many people who try to commit crimes don't want to become murderers. So if they know all of their potential victims, and everyone around them is armed, they're less likely to try anything.

---

what it'll lead to is a lot of murder with only one side of the story being told.

---

BloodMoon7 posted...

You stub your toe. That hurts you.

TC:

Yeah, the table hurt me. Let's see how my furnitures sweedish ingenuity fares against some hot lead. Bet Ikea didn't take that into account when they put it on the shelves. Pffft

---

PaunchyTurtle53 posted...

No. You're implying that people will just resort to murder instantly.

Some people might, but guess what, if you're getting robbed, chances are, you won't be shit instantly. Once you realize you're being robbed, call your fellow citizens for help. Even one person is enough to help, so I don't believe the bystander effect applies to these situations, as more than likely, many people will try to help. (See earlier mugging examples.)

Unless you're a necrophiliac, you wouldn't murder someone before you sexually assault them. Giving the victim plenty of time to deal with it themselves, or call for help.

Someone who is busy destroying your property, isn't focused on murdering you at that moment. So once they start destroying, get the jump on them, fire first.

The physical assault is where it gets tricky, as some people in this case, may use their firearms rashly, but again, they should be motivated not to, as it will result in them being shot.

Many people who try to commit crimes don't want to become murderers. So if they know all of their potential victims, and everyone around them is armed, they're less likely to try anything.

Murder would not be the first thing they'd resort to. The threat of it would be. And due to the knowledge that their victim is almost certainly armed, they'd be more likely to follow through with the threat.

A gun isn't helping you when you get drugged. It also isn't helping you when you are alone and someone pops out behind you. It does help when that creepy dude tries to follow you after you leave some place.

You are highly unlikely to stumble upon an arsonist or other such folk. That's the sort of crime you try to do when no one will notice.

Behaving rashly and thinking logically don't go together very well. People absolutely would bring out their gun when they shouldn't.

Even if they don't want to be a murderer, the situation would push them towards it. Not murdering has a high chance of resulting in them dying instead.

---

I'm surprised people didn't rip me apart for this topic, it actually sounds like a few of you guys might not entirely disagree with my idea. That makes me happy.

---