People would stop going to sports games, and we couldn’t profit anymore from strip clubs or any party in general unless we sell a lot of tickets! Start selling alcohol in church!
The numbers say otherwise, then again that kind of depends upon what you define as a crime. * If you regard mere ownership of something to be a crime then no. * If you only regard crimes that involve harming anther person then defiantly yes.
Guns raise the risk costs of harming anther person thus significantly changing the cost/benefit value of said act. Making it far more appealing to seek other ways to obtain said benefit including legal ways.
@OddBeMe Mere ownership in many countries of an object for many reasons is regarded as a crime. Such crimes would not necessarily go down at all if more people had the means to defend themselfs and their property.
Crimes against such people however do go down including homicides as @DarkWinterNights pointed out.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
28Opinion
The idea is logically sound but in a realistic sense... I do question if that is even achievable.
Don't care, unless they wipe the population out they are worth it to keep the government in check.
Would more gun regulations reduce criminals using guns? No.
Seems to work for cars, alcohol, cigarettes…am i missing something?
Alcoholics causing death and destruction more than any gun criminals combined. They already tried prohibition. We all know how that went.
20,000 drunk driving deaths
30,000 gun deaths.
But i see your point. But Q: what would be the death toll if we didn't have any regs on alcohol and cars?
People would stop going to sports games, and we couldn’t profit anymore from strip clubs or any party in general unless we sell a lot of tickets! Start selling alcohol in church!
Agreed! So regulations are good for alcohol and cars?
Of course not. That is ridiculous.
You’d think itd be a no brainer. But i simply point below….
The numbers say otherwise, then again that kind of depends upon what you define as a crime.
* If you regard mere ownership of something to be a crime then no.
* If you only regard crimes that involve harming anther person then defiantly yes.
Guns raise the risk costs of harming anther person thus significantly changing the cost/benefit value of said act. Making it far more appealing to seek other ways to obtain said benefit including legal ways.
Brazil relaxed its gun control laws in 2019 and homicide rates dropped by 34% in 3 years.
America has the highest gun deaths per capita in the world.
@monorprise i’m a bit confused by your claims of whats considered crime or ownership. But nevertheless @DarkWinterNights @guardian45 are correct.
Do you have any research to suggest your claims are accurate? Btw…Lott has been debunked. @joeldalton already tried that one.
@OddBeMe Mere ownership in many countries of an object for many reasons is regarded as a crime. Such crimes would not necessarily go down at all if more people had the means to defend themselfs and their property.
Crimes against such people however do go down including homicides as @DarkWinterNights pointed out.
@monorprise can you prove owning means to defend themselves makes them safer?
Like seriously. We’re talking guns not mace. But stats are clear people are more likely to kill themselvs or loved ones accidntally or on purpose.
No. It does not. So those who think women and black people need guns to reduce crimes against them are wrong.
Yep it's been proven
Where? I seriously can't find proof.
It's all over the place. You just have to look
Oh… like God. Just gotta have faith, not proof.
No. Not at all.
that mini smg is the shit in CoD M
I dont know what any of that means. Oh is that Call of duty: Masturbation deluxe edition?
Most certainly not lmao..
On the opposite they increase it.
F@#% NO!