Which Would You Rather Live In? Part 2

[minionofmidas]

The two are clearly the same society, just different sides of the class barrier.
There is no other way that the "armed safe" scenario could possibly be in existence.

[minionofmidas]

There is no other way that the "armed safe" scenario could possibly be in existence.

And why is that?

Well, no restrictions whatsoever includes no safety regulations, no nothing, Machine Guns included. There'd be vast amounts of stolen guns and no way to track them. Just for one thing. (no other possible way is too harsh though. no other at all realistic way is more like it.)

As to Opebo, actually poverty doesn't necessarily create crime, but a large income gap does, as does an uprooted society. Murder for economic gain is always going to be far more common if you hardly know your neighbors.

[minionofmidas]

there would without a sliver of a doubt be companies that don't keep records. There'd be people willing to pay a couple bucks extra for it, not all of them with any criminal intention whatsoever.

As to the "gun in house" fallacy ... ridiculous. Just be better armed. Of course this logic creates 90-odd% of fatalities in robberies (mostly robberies of stores, not homes, o/c.) I don't need a fatal weapon to rob a store in Germany, unless we're talking a jewelry store or something like that. A cosh will do.

[minionofmidas]

No, the area she lived in was not as posh as most areas around it.



Bottom line of this argument:
The idea that banning guns reduces crime is grotesquely naive. But the idea that having a gun in every house does that is even more so.