Which Would You Rather Live In? Part 2

[CheeseWhiz]

A saner version of David's poll.

[MODU]

HAHAHA . . . darn you.  We both posted new topics about his poll at the same time.  hahaha

[MasterJedi]

Society A

[KillerPollo]

An armed society is a safe society.

[MODU]

Option 3

[David S]

A saner version of David's poll.

I don't mean to be defensive here Cheeze but why is my poll more insane that yours? In your poll you've pre-ordained the crime rate, which makes the gun ownership issue somewhat irrelevant.

In my poll I said nothing about crime rates. I leave it to the reader to determine whether crime rates will be higher among honest folks with guns or crooks without guns.

Of course there are no societies where everyone is honest and everyone is a gunowner, but there are many communities in the US where gunownership rates are high, most folks are honest and crime rates are low.

Society B where everyone is a criminal and no one has a gun is not to tough to find. Just look in the prisons. Around 1980 the murder rate in prisons was about 50 /100,000. Thats very high and that's in a tightly controlled environment. Since that time the rates have fallen greatly as the prisons have taken steps to isolate the most violent offenders. But I suspect the rate of rape and assault is still very high in prisons.

In any event I would feel far safer in a community where folks were mostly law-abiding and armed to the teeth, than in a community where everyone was criminally inclined even though they have no guns.

[CheeseWhiz]

I'm sorry Dave, I didn't mean any to offend you, (or do whatever I did,) but some people were getting upset with yours, so I made another, more moderate, version of your poll.

[MaC]

so which is the real part 2, and which is part 3?

[CheeseWhiz]

so which is the real part 2, and which is part 3?

I posted mine first, so MODU's is part 3, I guess...

[MODU]

so which is the real part 2, and which is part 3?

I posted mine first, so MODU's is part 3, I guess...

hahaha . . . fixed it to clear up any confusion. 

[David S]

I'm sorry Dave, I didn't mean any to offend you,

No Offense taken.

[Speed of Sound]

Society A

[Hatman 🍁]

This is about as unlikely as the other poll, and my vote is less obvious. Since such a real world situation like this would never occur (nor would any similar Libertarian wet deam) it is not something I have to waste time over.

[CheeseWhiz]

Earl, this definitely could happen in real life, and, no offense David, is much more possible than everyone being a criminal.  The real question is, would you rather have a higher chance of facing a criminal who doesn't have a gun (if he didn't acquire one illegally) without owning a weapon or having less a chance of facing one with a gun and having one, too?

[Dr. Cynic]

Society A, because the only theory behind gun control is to lower crime. It would just defeat the purpose.

[AkSaber]

Is this going to be like a new trend for polls?

[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.

[opebo]

The two are clearly the same society, just different sides of the class barrier.

Great point, Lewis Trondheim.

I would also like to point out, if no one has already, that the proper formulation would be 'In which wouldyou rather live?'

[CheeseWhiz]

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

And why is that?

[opebo]

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.

[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.

[CheeseWhiz]

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?

Lewis:  No Federal restrictions, that doesn't mean that the gun company owners can't keep a log of who bought what.

[opebo]

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?

No, he'll just bazooka the house first.   What a dumb system you imagine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why on earth would they do that?!  They would do exactly as their customers demanded, and sell without any recordkeeping, or lose the sale to their competitors.

[CheeseWhiz]

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?

No, he'll just bazooka the house first.   What a dumb system you imagine.

And alarm all the surrounding homes?  What a dumb criminal you imagine.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why on earth would they do that?!  They would do exactly as their customers demanded, and sell without any recordkeeping, or lose the sale to their competitors.
[/quote]

You may be right, but I think they would probably keep some kind of record.

[opebo]

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?

No, he'll just bazooka the house first.   What a dumb system you imagine.

And alarm all the surrounding homes?  What a dumb criminal you imagine.

At any rate, if all the homes had bazookas, you would still have to rob them or starve, so they would just come better armed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why on earth would they do that?!  They would do exactly as their customers demanded, and sell without any recordkeeping, or lose the sale to their competitors.
[/quote]

You may be right, but I think they would probably keep some kind of record.
[/quote]

Yes, of the number of guns sold, but nothing about the customer, since the customer wouldn't want that.  He'd just pay cash and go off to kill people.