Which Would You Rather Live In? Part 2

[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.

[David S]

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

And why is that?

Because, obviously, poverty creates crime.  The only thing that makes people 'safe' is being physically separated from poverty.

O.J.'s wife was separated from poverty.

[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.

[Gabu]

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

And why is that?

Because, obviously, poverty creates crime.  The only thing that makes people 'safe' is being physically separated from poverty.

Don't you think it would lower the crime rate if the criminal wasn't sure whether owner of the home he's going to rob owns a bazooka or not?

Quite frankly, I'd feign robbing a house if I knew the guy had a bazooka because then I could watch him blow his house up.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I'll take A

[Democratic Hawk]

Society A sounds fine by me

Dave