CDZ What if........?

[usmbguest5318]

What would American society be like if the 2nd amendment were repealed and civilians could no longer bear arms (have guns)? What are the pros and what are the cons?

I've never had a safety need for a gun. I'm sure some people who are not cops have, but I have to wonder what percentage of the population they constitute.

Given that I've never needed a gun for an essential purpose, I cannot imagine that my life would be different if guns were prohibited.

I have to say...it occurs to me that fully automatic weapons have been unlawful to sell and few and far between are the instances in which a fully automatic weapon has been used to commit a crime. I realize handy individuals can probably convert a semi-automatic gun into a fully automatic one, and yet it appears criminals by and large don't bother doing so. Insofar as they aren't much using them, it stands to reason they also don't much possess such guns.

That fact pattern suggests to me that bans on firearms do indeed work to impede na'er do wells' ability to obtain them. After all, a fully automatic firearm makes available a different order of tactical options, and why wouldn't anyone with an objective that necessitates criminally using a firearm not prefer to have an edge or wider range of options?

I do not usually have a gun with me; however, since I live in an area where many people have CWPs and do carry their own guns I benefit. The criminal elements don't know that I'm not packing. If guns were banned then the criminal elements would know that the law abiding citizens would not be able to defend themselves.

A tiny 25 year old woman may need a gun to protect herself against large adult males that may wish to abduct and rape her. A gun would give her a fighting chance of defending herself. Otherwise, the strong can overpower the weak.

since I live in an area where many people have CWPs and do carry their own guns I benefit.

I live in a city that for ages banned gun possession. It has had no discernable impact on my life. I'm a rich white guy and that's pretty obvious to any na'er do well who pays any attention to my movements. But for being tall and fit, I'm sure I look like a good target.

A tiny 25 year old woman may need a gun to protect herself against large adult males that may wish to abduct and rape her.

Just In Case Fallacy

I guess the need for insurance falls under the "just in case fallacy" also.

It does, although some forms of insurance -- life, auto, property (in the case of a business) and health, for example -- are a "for when it happens" thing, not a "just in case it may happen" thing, because one can be sure that a coverable loss will occur to each of those insurable things.

In short, insurance is nothing more than entities that know far more about probabilities of events than does nearly anyone else offering to wager that "one's next hand will not be four of a kind;" though they are aware that eventually one will be dealt exactly that "hand." Insurance didn't begin that way, but that's what it's become.

 

[JoeMoma]

What would American society be like if the 2nd amendment were repealed and civilians could no longer bear arms (have guns)? What are the pros and what are the cons?

I've never had a safety need for a gun. I'm sure some people who are not cops have, but I have to wonder what percentage of the population they constitute.

Given that I've never needed a gun for an essential purpose, I cannot imagine that my life would be different if guns were prohibited.

I have to say...it occurs to me that fully automatic weapons have been unlawful to sell and few and far between are the instances in which a fully automatic weapon has been used to commit a crime. I realize handy individuals can probably convert a semi-automatic gun into a fully automatic one, and yet it appears criminals by and large don't bother doing so. Insofar as they aren't much using them, it stands to reason they also don't much possess such guns.

That fact pattern suggests to me that bans on firearms do indeed work to impede na'er do wells' ability to obtain them. After all, a fully automatic firearm makes available a different order of tactical options, and why wouldn't anyone with an objective that necessitates criminally using a firearm not prefer to have an edge or wider range of options?

I do not usually have a gun with me; however, since I live in an area where many people have CWPs and do carry their own guns I benefit. The criminal elements don't know that I'm not packing. If guns were banned then the criminal elements would know that the law abiding citizens would not be able to defend themselves.

A tiny 25 year old woman may need a gun to protect herself against large adult males that may wish to abduct and rape her. A gun would give her a fighting chance of defending herself. Otherwise, the strong can overpower the weak.

since I live in an area where many people have CWPs and do carry their own guns I benefit.

I live in a city that for ages banned gun possession. It has had no discernable impact on my life. I'm a rich white guy and that's pretty obvious to any na'er do well who pays any attention to my movements. But for being tall and fit, I'm sure I look like a good target.

A tiny 25 year old woman may need a gun to protect herself against large adult males that may wish to abduct and rape her.

Just In Case Fallacy

I guess the need for insurance falls under the "just in case fallacy" also.

It does, although some forms of insurance -- life, auto, property (in the case of a business) and health, for example -- are a "for when it happens" thing, not a "just in case it may happen" thing, because one can be sure that a coverable loss will occur to each of those insurable things.

In short, insurance is nothing more than entities that know far more about probabilities of events than does nearly anyone else offering to wager that "one's next hand will not be four of a kind;" though they are aware that eventually one will be dealt exactly that "hand." Insurance didn't begin that way, but that's what it's become.

It's often wise to hedge one's bets against catastrophic events occurring even when there is a very small probability of the event occurring. Thus, its better for the tiny woman to have and gun and not need one than it is to not have the gun and be raped. Just in case fallacy be damned.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I've never had a safety need for a gun. I'm sure some people who are not cops have, but I have to wonder what percentage of the population they constitute.

Given that I've never needed a gun for an essential purpose, I cannot imagine that my life would be different if guns were prohibited.

I have to say...it occurs to me that fully automatic weapons have been unlawful to sell and few and far between are the instances in which a fully automatic weapon has been used to commit a crime. I realize handy individuals can probably convert a semi-automatic gun into a fully automatic one, and yet it appears criminals by and large don't bother doing so. Insofar as they aren't much using them, it stands to reason they also don't much possess such guns.

That fact pattern suggests to me that bans on firearms do indeed work to impede na'er do wells' ability to obtain them. After all, a fully automatic firearm makes available a different order of tactical options, and why wouldn't anyone with an objective that necessitates criminally using a firearm not prefer to have an edge or wider range of options?

I do not usually have a gun with me; however, since I live in an area where many people have CWPs and do carry their own guns I benefit. The criminal elements don't know that I'm not packing. If guns were banned then the criminal elements would know that the law abiding citizens would not be able to defend themselves.

A tiny 25 year old woman may need a gun to protect herself against large adult males that may wish to abduct and rape her. A gun would give her a fighting chance of defending herself. Otherwise, the strong can overpower the weak.

since I live in an area where many people have CWPs and do carry their own guns I benefit.

I live in a city that for ages banned gun possession. It has had no discernable impact on my life. I'm a rich white guy and that's pretty obvious to any na'er do well who pays any attention to my movements. But for being tall and fit, I'm sure I look like a good target.

A tiny 25 year old woman may need a gun to protect herself against large adult males that may wish to abduct and rape her.

Just In Case Fallacy

I guess the need for insurance falls under the "just in case fallacy" also.

It does, although some forms of insurance -- life, auto, property (in the case of a business) and health, for example -- are a "for when it happens" thing, not a "just in case it may happen" thing, because one can be sure that a coverable loss will occur to each of those insurable things.

In short, insurance is nothing more than entities that know far more about probabilities of events than does nearly anyone else offering to wager that "one's next hand will not be four of a kind;" though they are aware that eventually one will be dealt exactly that "hand." Insurance didn't begin that way, but that's what it's become.

It's often wise to hedge one's bets against catastrophic events occurring even when there is a very small probability of the event occurring. Thus, its better for the tiny woman to have and gun and not need one than it is to not have the gun and be raped. Just in case fallacy be damned.

Just in case fallacy be damned.

Fortunately for the insurance industry, there're few people who will be deterred by reason....Of course, the insurance industry isn't the only benefactor of that predilection.