- Bo BobtheDog
- Olympia, WA
- United States
Standard gun owner belief: if all were armed with the potential of deadly force, the incident of gun violence would decrease.
If we all were armed, with the potential of deadly force; i.e. we all had guns and we knew how to safely employ and use them, there would be a downward pressure on those that would commit potentially deadly crimes with guns. Statistics would eventually prove this and society would be a safer place as a result.
Science should be able to be aplied to the issue to give some kind of factual spin.
Old West tales implicate that this is true. With the reality of lawlessnes the legend and history suggest existed as the US expanded west, there was always the element of fear as you encountered an unknown person(s).
Would we be better off with or without the potential of returning instaneous death upon those that intend to kill with impudency?
Would the incidence of occurance decrease or increase with the means available to all?
Are we talking about a static statistic? Has the rate of incidence been effectively the same throughout historical recordings, when has it risen, fell, why?
Given that TED challenges the best minds, mine being feeble by comparison, I am also a proud gun owner, plus a defender of my fellow man, where does the scientific community sit? Man seems to be man's greatest impedement to progress. The potential of one man, one small group, and one large group to inflict great harm upon others, even in massive numbers, seems to be the largest hurdle to progression of the human species. Other ideas seem to indicate that a form of population control is in order, disease, genocide, wars, etc. I disagree. But I am not a scientist, great thinker or even have appropriate facts. But as a person who believes in his right to defend himself against insanity, where does this fit into humanity's potential?