Originally posted by WMCoolmon
I remember a fun scenario.
Example A: Strict gun control
A guy with a gun, which he purchased on the black market, walks into a bar, points it at the bartender, and demands all the money in the cash register. Everyone else is armed with nothing more dangerous than a pocketknife.
Example B: Citizens are required to wear guns
The same guy walks into the same bar with the same gun, points it at the same bartender. Before he can so much as start to demand cash, three of the other patrons have pulled out their own handguns and are pointing them at the would-be aggressor.
Which situation do you think the criminal would rather be in?
Example B (continued): The now highly dangerous situation is compounded by the fact that one of the three patrons decides to take matters into his own hands and opens fire. The original gunman is hit, and shoots the barman as he twitches from the pain. His friend/partner in crime sees this, and opens fire with his own weapon in the direction of the intervening patrons. A firefight breaks out, leaving several people dead and many others injured.
On another night, two drunk patrons get into an argument. It escalates, and the two men pull their guns. One (or possibly both) of the men is killed, and other customers are injured by stray shots - given that none of them try to intervene with their own weapons, causing more casualties.
I'm sorry - if you have a gun, then the chances are you'll use it. If you don't have a gun, you can't use it, so people don't get their brains blown out for no good reason. Your argument simply isn't sound. In example B, you could end up with tens of people dead or injured (if these guns are average "handguns" ie semi-automatics with 10-20 round magazines, that's a lot of bullets getting fired very quickly). In example A, the barman loses a night's takings. Boo-frickety-hoo. I know which I'd rather be in...
