Mass carry of defensive arms

[Expendable Grunt]

Alright guys I really need you to be mature on this one, so leave the gibbs to the various spinoff threads you can make. I'd guess Bob would have the heaviest input on this one, as he seems to be the board athority on all things...

Question is:
Do you think that a mass civilian carry of a weapon classified as defensive* would help curb violent crime such as drive by and others?


Here is what I think: In the long run, yes.

Why? Well, in the long run, once weapons are proliferated throughout those qualified** to use them, people will know they are out there. I do not think that someone is going to try some "funny business" if they know a majority of the people they come across are going to be armed in a similar fashion to themselves.

I do think that there would be a short term spike in crime, maybe. There is also the risk of things that once caused fistfights now causing two people to shoot instead of yell and beat.

I figure the government would regulate this, much as kings/barons/burgomeisters/governers did in centuries past. I figure the weapons would have guidelines, such as Renaissance-era cities having a control on the length of a blade for a personal arm. I'd think it would be limits on the muzzle energy, magazine capacity, barrel length, and munition type. For instance, a weapon could not have a barrel longer than 4", be restricted to 9mm rounds (low velocity, limiting range), and 10 or less rounds per magazine, with a limit of one spare magazine on your person.

So what do you guys think?


*Defensive: Short range munition, low to average capacity magazine, restricted munition types
**Qualified: Defensive arms course, "Right to use and right not to use"

[Garabaldi]

Won't stop criminals - it will only result with the death of more people. Law abiding citizen or criminal.

Criminals and gang members aren't just going to stop being criminals and gang members - the reason these people are the way they are is because they have no other way of earning income - I doubt most of them even have a high school diploma.

IMO, anyway.

[mrmong]

haha no, most people would want them cus GUNZ ARE KEWL, but in reality you get a bunch of cowboys shooting dangerous weapons about trying to be the next john mclane whenever there is a small disturbance.

also being "qualified" wouldn't be good enough, a lot of people would take the test so they can have a gun, it doesn't mean everyone who passes will be really really sensible.

[[R-MOD]dunehunter]

This would probably result in an arms race between the law-abiding citizens and the criminals. Also, everyone's tempers fray at times. When some idiot runs into your car, after you've had a tough day at work, when you're having trouble with your wife/gf...you get out of your car, shouting, and visible angry. The other guy gets scared, pulls a gun, you pull one too, and so on.

Things that can kill or badly wound someone else just by pulling a trigger should be kept to those who know how to handle them.

[[R-MOD]Saobh]

Would this limit the extent of spree shootings ? very probably so.

But how many of those account for the vast majority of gunshot killings in America ? very few in fact.

The number of crimes might go down a bit, but they'll prove to be a lot bloodier. As in doubt a criminal might prefer to shoot first rather then take the risk.

And frankly in a civilized country going down the "every citizen needs to be armed for his security" speaks more of the failing of said society then anything else.

[Deadfast]

Once I saw a programme on TV about firearms problem.
One part was about 2 ~40 years old men, that had some neighborhood disagreement (one was parking his car in front of the other one's garage or what).
Well, yeah, nothing special, if it wouldn't end with the guys shooting on each other...

Another thing is, that it actually could get you hurt much easier than protect you.
Try to imagine this: There's a guy, who sticks a gun to your face and says "Give me your valet !". Instead of giving him your money, you'll take out your pistol, because you thing "I've got a gun, now he's gonna run away scared".
Try to guess what could happen instead.

[LekyIRL]

I don't think this would work,like communism;good on paper,bad in practise.
More guns=More violence.

[[R-MOD]Bob_Marley]

Nope.

I'm against civilian ownership of firearms for self/home defense. Sporting uses, pest control and possibly collecting I accept and fully support but other than that, no.

When you put firearms in peoples hand's with that in mind you dangle a great temptation in front of them. Its much easier to pull a pistol out of a shoulder holster and shoot someone you're angry with for whatever reason that it is to get the key to go inside, get the key to your gun cabinet, open it take your weapon out, open you ammunition cabinet (in the UK you have to have the ammunition and weapon stored in seperate secure places), load the weapon and then find said person. You're much more likely to have calmed down and thought better of it. Even the laws for carrying a firearm in public mean you would have to open seperate containers and load your weapon before you could fire it at someone.

I don't agree with every part of UK firearms law by a long way, but that part I fully endorse.

Civilians should not have weapons with the intention of using them on other human beings. End of.

Also, bullets, any bullets, are very dangerous. Say someone panics in the middle of the street because they think they're about to be attacked and pulls their gun. They'll have high adrenaline levels and whatnot. They're not going to be the world's best marksman. Thats another point, pistols are notoriously ineffective unless trained with constantly. Literally every day. A military handgun being used by someone who doesn't is likely to be extremely ineffective beyond 15-20m. Anyway. Say they fire 4 shots. One of those hits the person they percive to be "attacking" them. Thats 3 more rounds flying about. When you say 9mm I guess you mean 9x19mm Luger, which can get out to 150-200m with relative ease, especially European loadings. Thats a lot of potential for collateral damage.

While many would argue that "Most people are good, so more people with guns means more good people with guns". This may be true. But everyone has their bad points. Anyone can fly into a fit of rage. Without a gun you'll probubly kick seven shades of **** whoever is causing it, but if you've got 10 rounds of 9mm under your arm who knows what you'll do.

[Expendable Grunt]

Hm, you guys are right, maybe it is a bad idea.

I still endorse concealed carry, though.

[MrDow123]

I agree with using firearms for hunting, pest control and target practice for civilian use, but thats about it

in the 17 years I have been a hunter in Canada, I've owned 3 rifles and 1 handgun, and not once has it ever been pointed at another human being, and come September 1st, the only thing it will be pointed at is my next Elk kill