NinjabreadMan said:
So basically you believe 100% gun ownership would reduce crime, which might be reasonable if everyone could be relied upon. And i'm saying 0% gun ownership would also reduce crime. Now regardless of whether or not there was 100% or 0% gun ownership in the general public, the organised criminals would get their way to them somehow (unless guns were completely removed from the world, which is incredibly unlikely to happen). So I guess that will never go away. I'll still stick with my viewpoint that the 0% gun uptake would be superior to the 100%, as living in fear is bull, the crime for regular citizens would be less as humans can be incredibly eratic at times, and the organised crime wouldn't go away. They'd just learn how to kill you in more efficient manners. |
I think you meant to quote me... but anywayz...
Yes, I believe that 100% gun ownership would be more beneficial than 0%. An armed populace can enforce what it believes in. A disarmed populace will either get bent over and ... well... or die trying to stand up for themselves. I believe that most Americans (I can't speak for other countries) are very reliable in a pinch. The Old West is looked upon as a very dangerous time, but really it was extremely safe as far as gun ownership was concerned.
BTW, who brought up organised crime...? I was talking your average run-of-the-mill criminal who has a gun. I would feel much safer if I owned a gun while walking around in unfriendly territory, than if I didn't own a gun in the same area.










