Having everybody carrying firearms is merely reverting to the days of the wild west, it didn't promote lawfulness then and it certainly won't do it now. If this happens, I would put a lot of money on the fact that it will eventuate in the the ultimate downfall of firearm ownership as we know it today.

We are all aware of the consequences of having everybody armed, both then and now. How did the Sherriffs of the day clean up their towns and lower the number of shootings? They disarmed the populace and killed those that did not want to obey the rules. Also, having every citizen armed will merely escalate the violence. If the bad guys think that there is a good chance that their intended victim is armed, what is their obvious answer? .... Shoot first, do not give him the chance to use his weapon. Drive by shootings are a good example of this type of thinking. The shooters do this because they know that there is a chance that their victims are armed or have access to arms nearby. This example is a microcosm of what will happen to crime if every citizen is armed.

Also criminals are risk takers, criminality is a risk taking business. They undertake crimes bearing in mind two things:

(1) All criminals think they won't be caught.
(2) They have the advantage of surprise as they choose the time and place of the crime.

So the fact that their intended victim might be armed, and might use it is not a great deterrent to them, it merely raises the chances that they will shoot their victim(s) first.

Firearms are great tools, and can be beautiful and highly collectible pieces of craftsmanship, but if wrongly used, will certainly result in their own banishment.

Gun Crimes are actually a small percentage of the crime in most jurisdictions. Property crimes, narcotic based crimes, and crimes against person (violent w/o weapon) are all greater percentages all generally are a bigger piece of the pie chart than homicide or attempted homicide/agg assault with firearm. Alot of the homicide/agg assaults are committed with impact weapons (bats, sticks, pipes, hammers etc) or stabbing cutting instruments (knives, box cutters, and one I worked a meat fork)

The jurisdiction I work in it's a good bet that any residence you enter will have a deer rifle or at least a shotgun. Yet our incidents of firearm violence account for about 1.5% of the total stat's for the last year, and two incidents were accidental shootings during hunting season, 1 self inflicted.

Our incidents of home invasion burglary/robbery are .5 % the 1 incident last year was a dope house that got taken down by arival cook/dealer. Now compare that to my former agency in a large urban area (I work in the burbs on the very edge now) where firearm ownership was not nearly as prevelent and you worked home invasion's every freakin night. Because the scumbags were pretty sure the vic's weren't armed.

Any large man who lifted weights in prison for 20 years can beat and kill a normal person with his fists. Thus, the old saying "God created man and Col. Colt made them equal." Don't put much faith in the good will of a dim witted monster sparing you and your family from harm.

The real question is:

Would you rather be shot, stabbed, or beaten? You have to choose one - violence is inherent in humanity.

In life, you don't have to choose just those three. As Mel Gibson said in We Were Soldiers, "Three strikes, and you're not out! There's always one more thing you can do!"

Originally Posted by senojekips

Also criminals are risk takers, criminality is a risk taking business. They undertake crimes bearing in mind two things:

(1) All criminals think they won't be caught.
(2) They have the advantage of surprise as they choose the time and place of the crime.

And almost without exception they choose to prey on the weak and those who have the least chance to defend themselves. To them thats just a good business strategy.

You very seldom see a scumbag choose to try and take down a 6'2 225 lb athletic 20 something male. They much prefer a softer target that reduces their risk.

Originally Posted by 03USMC

You very seldom see a scumbag choose to try and take down a 6'2 225 lb athletic 20 something male. They much prefer a softer target that reduces their risk.

Very true, but the point I was trying to make is, that as a group they are inherent risk takers, and if everyone is armed, and therefore supposedly equal it will not stop them, they will just try too improve the odds in their favour,.... if there's any doubt, they'll shoot first.

All this actually achieves is a much greater risk of the intended victim being killed.

If I could be armed without the knowledge of my attacker, I have a real advantage (over not being armed), but once the crim realizes that I am armed, my advantage largely goes out the window and he will be a lot more nervous, making my position much more dangerous. One sneeze or unexpected move, and I'm dead.

Sorry but I hate to tell you Criminal are cowards.... I know this on a personal level. I deal with them and their victims everyday. Most criminals attack the weak and timid. Most victims from criminals in the area that I work are small mexican workers, little old ladies, and women in general. I hardly see them go after someone that is a 6'2 260LBS man that works in construction. I see them target folks that are 5'0 and work in picking veggies from a field or cleaning dishes.

When I do get dispatched to folks that fight back against the criminals. Guess what... they flee or surrender. When I get dispatched to a burglary and the home owner went after the burglar with a firearm, baseball bat, or kinfe. 99.9% of the time nothing is stolen and the criminal flees in fear.

Criminals are not risk takers. They're cowards and predators. They prey on the weak and timid of society.

As for the wild west. It was a safer and more polite time. Why? Because everyone was armed. Respect was common because the idea of pissing off someone and getting into a fight meant getting shot, beaten, or stabbed.

AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY

Being a coward has no bearing on their ability to murder people.

Of course criminals are risk takers, the one thing that stops most persons from becoming criminals is that they are not going to take the risk of getting caught or being killed, whereas criminals just see it as another challenge to be overcome, they are convinced that others, (police and honest citizens are fools) and that they have the perfect plan. The fact that a great number of them are unsuccessful and get caught, and go to jail is no deterrent, they are in fact the "Classic Risk taker" just the same as he gambling addict who knows the odds are against him yet he must always have just one more gamble.

The wild west was not called that because it was quiet and peaceful. The real outlaws were in all reality just drunken thugs, the movie script writers have a lot to answer for.

I doubt that we'll ever see a movie or read the history of the peaceful west.

I've met a good number of people in my lifetime that I'd consider highly dangerous. The type of criminal who doesn't care if he makes it through the day because the thrill is all that matters. The type who randomly pulls insane stunts in all manner of vehicles because he has a death wish.

Those are the only ones I fear, outside of organized crime.