# Does an "armed society" work?



## Cruentus (Feb 24, 2005)

I say that we have an educated and logical discussion on this subject; so please save the cliche's and rants for another time, and lets have a useful dialog regardless of your stance on the issue.

I define an "armed society" as a society in which it is legal for people to be armed, and to carry arms.

First off, I believe in an armed society because I believe that the right to self-defense and defense of the weak is inalienable. As human beings, we have the right to defend ourselves, and others, from potential threats. If self-defense is an inalienable right, then we must be allowed to carry whatever weapons we might need that will equalize the attackers weapons, and stop a threat. So, if criminals have access to firearms (which they do), then we must have access to the same (and legally). Therefore, any government that would hinder the right to own and carry arms is a government that is infringing on the inalienable right to self-defense.

So, regardless of where this conversation goes, I most likely will not be convinced that we shouldn't live in an armed society because of my beliefs regarding self-defense.

However, my beliefs don't prove either way that an armed society is a "better" society then an unarmed one. That is what I would like to discuss.

Practically speaking, does an armed society work better then an unarmed one? 

What do you think?

Paul


----------



## Jerry (Feb 24, 2005)

I believe the answer is "yes". I believe that, among warrior casts throughout the world, behavior and crime has been lower than among the more randomly armes peasent classes. 

More specifically, I'm cogniscient of Kennesaw, GA. (http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/crime_rate_plummets.htm)

The introduction of a law *requiring* the head-of-household to keep at least one firearm in their homes resulted in an immdeiate 74% drop in crimes against persons, and the next year in a 45% drop from that. 

"You can't argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country," - http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm


----------



## TonyM. (Feb 27, 2005)

It must. when we used to be able to own firearms we used to produce a lot of products here. How that we don't, every thing is made elsewhere. Leaves a lot of time to watch wrestling and NASCAR.


----------



## dearnis.com (Feb 27, 2005)

Well, while in open-carry-legal Arizona I met some of the nicest people I have encountered in a long while.  Very polite too.


----------



## Andrew Green (Feb 28, 2005)

I believe that trusting people to the point where I feel the need to own and carry a weapon in self-defence works better 

 But, if it does work then it should be fairly simple to prove, look at the countries where weapons are carried by the general population and compare the violent crime rates to countries where they are not.


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 28, 2005)

dearnis.com said:
			
		

> Well, while in open-carry-legal Arizona I met some of the nicest people I have encountered in a long while.  *Very polite too*.


Was that a subtle Heinlein reference?


----------



## Jerry (Feb 28, 2005)

> But, if it does work then it should be fairly simple to prove, look at the countries where weapons are carried by the general population and compare the violent crime rates to countries where they are not.


I truely believe that juristictions within a given government are a better comparison. The crime rate in Iraq is much higher than the crime rate in Qatar, but it's not because of different gun laws.

Truely telling are areas where gun laws were enacted (either allowing or disallowing), sich as Kennesaw; where you can look at the change.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Feb 28, 2005)

What's the difference, really, between 'carrying a gun' and 'knowing a martial art'

I men, I know there is a difference between shooting someone or in getting shot, and a hand strike to the throat or foot strike to the knee, as far as damage.  What I mean is that when talking about armed citizens versus unarmed citizens, is there much of a difference conceptually between carrying a gun vs carrying a black belt?


----------



## Jerry (Feb 28, 2005)

Are you asking what the difference between a trained armed opponent and a trained unarmed opponent is? The armed opponent is more powerful; also, the weapon is an equalizer for physical inequitity.


----------



## analyst (Feb 28, 2005)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I say that we have an educated and logical discussion on this subject; so please save the cliche's and rants for another time, and lets have a useful dialog regardless of your stance on the issue.
> 
> I define an "armed society" as a society in which it is legal for people to be armed, and to carry arms.


 I used to think that an armed society worked, but was not preferable.  For instance, I think a society where only law enforcement has guns is always better, there will be fewer murders because murder takes much more effort and is more personal.  But then once a few people (read: criminals) get guns, you have to give them to everybody to prevent inequity in means of causing harm.

 But there was something I learned in social psychology that made me rethink that.  It's been shown that the mere prescence of weapons in a situation increases the likelihood of violence and aggression (perhaps because weapons can only be used for violence, so awareness of them primes violence as an appropriate situational response).

 For instance, studies have been conducted.  The subject is responsible for administering electric shock to a confederate (someone working with the experimenter) for as punishment for failure to learn something.  Having a gun in the same room as the subject increases both the length of the shock and the voltage used.

 So, an armed society is by definition a more aggressive and violent one.  That's something to consider.


----------



## Gray Phoenix (Mar 1, 2005)

The short answer is yes. However, I dont think that it would work as well in our country as some would like to believe. I am the consumate libertarian, and as such I believe you should be able to holster your Ma Deuce and drag it to the Vons of your choosing, where if they dont allow it they have a nice locker for you to "check your iron".

To use an analogy, communism works great in small communities such as the Israel Kibutz:idunno:. I know that aint spelled right, but I dont wanna look it up just now. That particular governmental system fails when imposed on people who believe differently.

An armed society works on large scale, but looses some of its effect as a populace becomes large, with an uneducted (inducted if you choose) people:erg:.


----------



## Jerry (Mar 1, 2005)

> For instance, studies have been conducted. The subject is responsible for administering electric shock to a confederate (someone working with the experimenter) for as punishment for failure to learn something. Having a gun in the same room as the subject increases both the length of the shock and the voltage used.


Have you considered that there is real emperical data out there on hundreds of localities who have changed their weapons laws over time and had changes in crime rates? You are attempting to extrapolate from an isolated experiment what real-world effects would be, when there are actual real-world effects which can be looked at (again, I refer you to Kennesaw GA).



> So, an armed society is by definition a more aggressive and violent one. That's something to consider.


As a student of logic, that's not an accurate statement. There is nothing defitional about being armed being violent and aggressive.


----------



## Andrew Green (Mar 2, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> What's the difference, really, between 'carrying a gun' and 'knowing a martial art'


 motivation for doing so is one.

 Owning a gun for target shooting or hunting is very different then carrying a pistol on you for "protection"

 and second is how dangerous it is.  Or do you see no Difference between owning a Tiger and a Siamese Kitten?

 How many accidental deaths do you hear about where some one was cleaning their martial arts, or a child was playing with dads martial arts and it just "went off"?

 I think its not to hard to say that the more common guns are the more common gun usage will be...


----------



## FrontKick-Jab-Punch (Mar 16, 2013)

Interesting stuff.  Some thoughts:

1) to make the slippery slope argument, the original claim was that (paraphrasing) we have the right to own an equal amount of protection/defense against what the bad guys have, so if they own guns, we get to, also.  This is an escalating problem, however: some bad guys own rifles so we should get those, too, right?  And some have automatic rifles!  So we should have those, too.  Now, if we really created a world in which many citizens were highly and openly armed (like, say, Israel or Palestine), the bad guys would want to make sure they had something to their advantage, right?  Maybe grenades, or shrapnel bombs?  So we should make sure we can counteract those.  We'll get kevlar, they'll get kevlar, so we get hollow-point bullets and so do they and maybe someone saves up for Xmas and gets Grandma a bazooka because who knows?  A bit of an exaggeration, perhaps, but I ask you this: if no one was allowed to carry a gun, wouldn't that make it much harder to kill one another?  How would the school shootings have gone down with a bow and arrow?  Or a hunting knife?  Or a rock?  Hard to murder-suicide with a rock, man.  Think about it.

2) The study being referred to DOES seem to indicate that the presence of a gun makes people more aggressive.  That's the point of the study.  It had a control group (people who delivered shocks WITHOUT the gun present), so we can say with causality that the presence of the gun (and not something else) increased aggression in the case of delivering electric shock (no one picked up the gun and used it instead, please note, however).  There are lots of studies that indicate that providing people with an opportunity to be aggressive increases rather than decreases their aggressiveness, and if you don't like to believe in science and research, there's not much I can do for you there.  Except to tell you that you're wrong.  Science and research may not be explanatory of all human nature, but they represent our best efforts to reach such an explanation, and shouldn't be dismissed in exchange for nothing or for intuition (that is, you can't replace a good hypothesis with your untested personal opinion.  Sorry).

3)  There is a huge difference between carrying a gun and having a black belt.  a) Martial artists spend years mastering their skills.  Anyone can pick up a gun and kill someone.  b) Many people take martial arts for reasons that have nothing to do with harming others (e.g., fitness, confidence, the beauty of the art, etc).  There is nothing you can do with a gun that isn't harm-causing (except, perhaps, shoot targets - but that's certainly not what we're talking about using guns for here).  c) not only is a gun harm-causing, but it is ultimately so.  What I mean is that you couldn't walk into a University wielding your martial arts and kill 17 people, wound 11 others, and kill yourself before the police got to you.  Don't fool yourself - you're no Sho Kosugi.  I'd much rather our school shooters were all martial artists instead of gunmen, which leads to d) we teach our martial artists, specifically, their skills are to be used for defense and not aggression.  There is a philosophy behind the martial arts that is lacking in someone going to a pawn shop and picking up a gun.  One must be deliberate and thoughtful about their art - there is no such requirement for a gun owner.  Hence, again, if our school shooters (and criminals) were all martial artists, there's a chance some of them wouldn't choose the aggressive path in the first place.  I have an e) and an f), too, but I think you get the picture.  

This is a fascinating topic and I'm enjoying reading your comments.  I don't necessarily agree with them all (as I'm sure many of you don't agree with me), but I think it's still a worthwhile discussion.

FKJP


----------



## arnisador (Mar 16, 2013)

Everyone believes in some limits--no guns for felons or the dangerously mentally ill or the very young, for example--so we are talking about where to draw the line. A good question here is what makes us safest--widespread guns, in the hands of the ill-intentioned and the well-intentioned, or trying to control guns to reduce the numbers in both groups.

The whole issue of an "armed society" also simply doesn't take into account that guns are used nearly twice as often in suicides as in homicides in the U.S. That's mostly unrelated to an armed society but definitely related to the presence of arms.


----------



## jezr74 (Mar 16, 2013)

Israelis have something like 12 guns per 100 citizens compared to the U.S being around 89.

Israel is a safe country, of course there are parts in conflict, but not like in America.

You have more chance of being shot in the presence of a firearm, the same way you have more chance of being burnt around fire.

The behavioral slant this post took is interesting, I've heard similar reports. Not sure if there is anything conclusive.

But can be tricky with correlation vs causation.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Drasken (Mar 16, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The whole issue of an "armed society" also simply doesn't take into account that guns are used nearly twice as often in suicides as in homicides in the U.S. That's mostly unrelated to an armed society but definitely related to the presence of arms.



Still the issue isn't really about guns. I mean, they make it about guns, but it solves none of the core issues.
If you want to kill someone, for any reason, you'll do it or at least attempt it. If you can't use a gun, you'll use something else.

Same with suicide. If you are going to kill yourself you will find a way. My father's friend recently killed himself with a gun. But if he didn't have that available he likely would have found another way.
My father a few years back also committed suicide. He had no access to a gun, so they found him with several prescription drugs in his system and a handle of whiskey used to wash it down.
What is funny is that the cases such as my father's generally don't cause an outrage in government about the danger of prescription drugs and alcohol.
The thing I DO agree with is more education. There are a LOT of accidents involving guns that is the result of stupidity in handling the firearm. The problem I see is lack of education and respect for the weapon itself.

The rest of it, well there are deeper issues here than guns. What in society... In the minds of these citizens that commit horrible acts of violence, what causes them to do these things? THAT is the real issue we should be focusing on. The gun is just a tool. The person has to have the motivation and desire to pull that trigger or that gun is just as dangerous as a kitchen knife sitting on a counter or a lamp on a table


----------



## jezr74 (Mar 16, 2013)

It's about guns though right? People being shot and killed by them. Its the person behind it, shooting the gun as well. That's why "they" make it about guns.

No one seems to be as concerned about baseball bats or knives. Otherwise they would be addressing the core issue your talking about in reference to all weapons right?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Big Don (Mar 16, 2013)

FearlessFreep said:


> What's the difference, really, between 'carrying a gun' and 'knowing a martial art'


Effective range


----------



## arnisador (Mar 16, 2013)

Drasken said:


> Still the issue isn't really about guns. I mean, they make it about guns, but it solves none of the core issues.
> If you want to kill someone, for any reason, you'll do it or at least attempt it. If you can't use a gun, you'll use something else.
> 
> Same with suicide. If you are going to kill yourself you will find a way. My father's friend recently killed himself with a gun. But if he didn't have that available he likely would have found another way.



No, that's all false. The data is absolutely clear. Many murders are impulse murders. Domestic violence is a good example. No gun, much lower chance of death. It's similar with suicide when a gun is in the house. They may well find another way but the success rate of non-gun suicides is much, much lower, and by far most people who attempt suicide unsuccessfully do not try again. It's true that if you really want to kill yourself you'll find another way, but most other ways will involve a plan that will result in some people not completing the act and then being of a different frame of mind later--but the gun enables an impulsive act. Unequivocally, for many of the same reasons a gun improves the odds for self-defense, it increases the chance of fatalities in suicides. Take a look at the statistics on this.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 17, 2013)

When we have talked about this (a lot ) over the past few months, I have argued against *Arni*'s point on the use of firearms in suicide.  I was (and to an extent still am) uncertain as to the rigour and veracity of the statistics used but I have become convinced that the ability to irrevocably act on a sudden impulse does mean that suicide with a firearm, where available, does increase the risk of successfully taking your own life.

I still maintain that that fact does not justify fundamental changes to the founding legislation of America, which is what has been on the governmental table.  For me, the whole farrago almost smells a little of a political smokescreen laid down to get everyone hot and bothered about something other than the bad state the country (and indeed the whole world) is in.  Keep an eye out for other legislation being sneaked in under the radar.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 17, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> When we have talked about this (a lot ) over the past few months, I have argued against *Arni*'s point on the use of firearms in suicide.  I was (and to an extent still am) uncertain as to the rigour and veracity of the statistics used but I have become convinced that the ability to irrevocably act on a sudden impulse does mean that suicide with a firearm, where available, does increase the risk of successfully taking your own life.


 He has been wrong about so many other facets of this debate, I just naturally assume him to be wrong on that too.





> I still maintain that that fact does not justify fundamental changes to the founding legislation of America, which is what has been on the governmental table.  For me, the whole farrago almost smells a little of a political smokescreen laid down to get everyone hot and bothered about something other than the bad state the country (and indeed the whole world) is in.  Keep an eye out for other legislation being sneaked in under the radar.


Oh, you mean like how much Obamacare is going to hurt the people? How no survivor of Benghazi has spoken publicly 6 MONTHS after the attack, stuff like that?


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 17, 2013)

:chuckles:  You know that I am as suspicious of the motives of all political 'houses', Don, not just the current American one .  They are all damned equally in my eyes - as the saying goes, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

I like your signature by the way - where is the quote from?


----------



## Big Don (Mar 17, 2013)

C.S. Lewis
Not all of it would fit. stupid word limit...
The full quote:


> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its  victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under  robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's  cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be  satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us  without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.


I have to think it is more relevant now than when he stated it.


----------



## Drasken (Mar 17, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> When we have talked about this (a lot ) over the past few months, I have argued against *Arni*'s point on the use of firearms in suicide.  I was (and to an extent still am) uncertain as to the rigour and veracity of the statistics used but I have become convinced that the ability to irrevocably act on a sudden impulse does mean that suicide with a firearm, where available, does increase the risk of successfully taking your own life.
> 
> I still maintain that that fact does not justify fundamental changes to the founding legislation of America, which is what has been on the governmental table.  For me, the whole farrago almost smells a little of a political smokescreen laid down to get everyone hot and bothered about something other than the bad state the country (and indeed the whole world) is in.  Keep an eye out for other legislation being sneaked in under the radar.



Oh I fully believe they have no real intention of taking our guns. If they wanted to hurt us they wouldn't need us to be unarmed, they'd just turn off the water.
It's all a smokescreen, focus on the left hand instead of the right one. And the media is part of it. The news doesn't report on the other murders, just the gun related ones. Because we have to focus on the guns, not how violent things have become all across the board.

Personally I grow tired of trying to bring up points about "gun control" and how the idea is fundamentally flawed. The argument is as pointless as the concept. It's all smoke and mirrors anyway.


----------



## chinto (Mar 18, 2013)

analyst said:


> I used to think that an armed society worked, but was not preferable.  For instance, I think a society where only law enforcement has guns is always better, there will be fewer murders because murder takes much more effort and is more personal.  But then once a few people (read: criminals) get guns, you have to give them to everybody to prevent inequity in means of causing harm.
> 
> But there was something I learned in social psychology that made me rethink that.  It's been shown that the mere prescence of weapons in a situation increases the likelihood of violence and aggression (perhaps because weapons can only be used for violence, so awareness of them primes violence as an appropriate situational response).
> 
> ...



ya sure, we have seen what happens when only the cops and military have fire arms... yes  Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Cambodia under the Camar Rouge ... yes again and again we have seen what happens when the populace is disarmed!


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 19, 2013)

"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his actions with his life." ~ Robert A Heinlein


----------



## DennisBreene (Mar 19, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his actions with his life." ~ Robert A Heinlein



It's a great quote and philosophically attractive. However, it's from a work of fiction and suffers from the constraints of fiction. The author controls the situation, the action and the outcome.  Real life is a bit more messy.   I'm also concerned about the continual use of the singular "society" in the discussion.  We live in a country of multiple societies; all with differing variables.  The outcome of arming a small rural town populated by a large percentage of people who are familiar with guns and each other may not equate to a very crowded suburban or urban population where factors may affect the general population differently.  There is ample evidence in studies that an increasingly dense (per capita, not IQ) population is more prone to acting out in situations that increase irritability.  Hence issues of road rage etc.  We probably don't know enough about these variable populations to make wholesale judgments as to the effects of arming large groups of citizens.  It is an interesting question.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 19, 2013)

Very true, *DB*.  It is also true that historically the mores and codes of conduct that we consider to be polite arose out of the fact that impolite people kept putting holes of one sort or another in each other.

It's a quote I have used many times when discussing weapon laws on these fora and, whilst I acknowledge the points that you make as being valid, it is still a concept that I philosophically support.

As you say, it is population density and anonymity that seems to cause a lot of our problems with violence in the so called First World countries - in the end it boils down to a general sensation of 'threat' because of crowding and a feeling of frustration at not being able to communicate properly when something annoys us - the posters here who have a favourable impression of my manner and mode of speech would be surprised at how irate I can get in traffic ..


----------



## DennisBreene (Mar 21, 2013)

I've witnessed the traffic in parts of the UK.  You have every right to your ire.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 21, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> I've witnessed the traffic in parts of the UK. You have every right to your ire.



I rather enjoy driving in the UK (excluding places like downtown London...). The M is pretty much the same as our interstate system, but the backroads are a ton of fun, and the scenery is some of the loveliest anywhere. And I will say that, on average, drivers in Europe seem more competent and nicer than those in the US.

While it's true that the quote about armed societies is from a work of fiction, there is at least some truth to it. While studies can show an increase in things like road rage, what they do not (and cannot) show is if this is actually caused by increased population densities, or a lack of consequences to the behaviour.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 21, 2013)

If History is any indicator, I'd have to say an armed society is preferable to the alternative.


----------



## chinto (Mar 21, 2013)

celtic_crippler said:


> If History is any indicator, I'd have to say an armed society is preferable to the alternative.



I agree, History Proves that armed sociaties are by their nature polite and peaceable.  When you may have to back up your loud or nasty mouth with your life its self, you tend to be polite, this was true in the 900's and again in the 15 and 1600's (AD)  and again in the 1890's and the 1920's.  most men had a pocket pistol on them in the 1920's and would if provoked enough use it! true in Chicago or San Francisco at that time..  now that few are armed in most cities except the Criminals the thugs and Criminals are who set the tone. so vulgar slurs and impolite actions are tolerated. 80 years or so ago they would not have been.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 21, 2013)

The Wild West? Armed samurai roaming Japan? Polite and peaceable?


----------



## Blindside (Mar 21, 2013)

It seems to me that your Japanese example should be an example of a largely disarmed society living at the whims of the armed rulers (the 5% of society that represented the warrior class).  And you are damned right it was generally polite in the interactions between members of the armed castes, with fairly elaborate rituals.  Japan went through long periods of relative peace in international relations both internally and externally for a period of over 200 years during the Togukawa Shogunate.


----------



## Blindside (Mar 22, 2013)

Oh, and the "Wild West" has a bit of an overblown reputation.  Try reading this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Gunfighters-Highwaymen-Vigilantes-Violence-Frontier/dp/0520060261


----------



## DennisBreene (Mar 22, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> I rather enjoy driving in the UK (excluding places like downtown London...). The M is pretty much the same as our interstate system, but the backroads are a ton of fun, and the scenery is some of the loveliest anywhere. And I will say that, on average, drivers in Europe seem more competent and nicer than those in the US.
> 
> While it's true that the quote about armed societies is from a work of fiction, there is at least some truth to it. While studies can show an increase in things like road rage, what they do not (and cannot) show is if this is actually caused by increased population densities, or a lack of consequences to the behaviour.


Point taken.  There are the oft quoted studies in Psych 101 referring to the increasing  aggression in rat populations but I don't know if that in itself is adequate to extrapolate to human society (except possibly in houses of legislature).  As to traffic. My forays into Scotland afforded some very nice walks down country roads to quite nice little communities. On the other hand a single car trip in Sigonella Sicilly was enough to cause PTSD.  All in all not much differant from life in the US.


----------



## DennisBreene (Mar 22, 2013)

Blindside said:


> Oh, and the "Wild West" has a bit of an overblown reputation.  Try reading this book:
> http://www.amazon.com/Gunfighters-Highwaymen-Vigilantes-Violence-Frontier/dp/0520060261


I will say this; my activity on this site has expanded my reading list at a pace that is challenging.  I'll try to follow up on the reference. Thank you.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Mar 22, 2013)

DennisBreene said:


> Point taken.  There are the oft quoted studies in Psych 101 referring to the increasing  aggression in rat populations but I don't know if that in itself is adequate to extrapolate to human society (except possibly in houses of legislature).  As to traffic. My forays into Scotland afforded some very nice walks down country roads to quite nice little communities. On the other hand a single car trip in Sigonella Sicilly was enough to cause PTSD.  All in all not much differant from life in the US.



While I am we'll aware of the physiological similarities between rats and humans, I think it is a rather large stretch to decide that there is much similarity between their psychologies. Rats (and, it could be argued, those politicians you mentioned) are not intelligent. I'd sooner grant the possibility of similarities between humans and dolphins. 

Don't ever drive in Madrid. I'm just sayin...


----------



## celtic_crippler (Mar 22, 2013)

It occurs to me that many get their ideas on history from Hollywood...


----------



## billc (Jul 28, 2013)

> Domestic violence is a good example.



The problem with the studies that look at domestic violence and guns is that in the homes studied there is already an increased violent tendency that has no bearing on the presence of a firearm.  Interactions with police and any number of other problems predate any incidents involving firearms.  A violent death is going to occur in these homes with or without the presence of a gun.  Ask o.j. and Nicole simpson...



> For instance, I think a society where only law enforcement has guns is always better, there will be fewer murders because murder takes much more effort and is more personal.



Except this isn't shown throughout the world...there are a lot more countries that have absolute bans on firearm ownership that have higher rates of murder than the United States...there is a map that shows this on one of the other threads.  The U.K. for example is seeing more and more crimes with guns, even though they are banned for most people.

As to denser populations and gun crime...that might be a chicken and egg argument...as cities grow, you tend to have the small group of elites that work to disarm the population...Chicago, D.C., and any other number of big cities...so is it a denser population that creates gun crime, or the lack of guns that creates the gun crimes...from looking around the country...the stricter the gun control for regular citzens...the more gun crimes you will have from criminals...

Another point mentioned elsewhere, by others...more citizens in the U.S. are buying guns and the murder rate has been dropping...a lot...in the last years...


----------

