Amazon.com Widgets

Would training and arming citizens lower crime rates?

Asked by: Shines
  • The threat of violence is always a deterrent.

    If the threat of violence and force were not a deterrent why do we arm the police with guns and billy clubs? Violence has always been a most effective way to curb criminality. Violence and the threat of violence, in the hands of good people, is an objective good for society.

  • If all citizens had guns, then no one would be a victim.

    Murderers always pick people who are defenseless, like no gun zones (schools, for example, have been common targets). If all citizens were trained and armed, then the criminal could be taken down before many innocent lives are lost. Has the "No Gun Zone" sign really done well at stopping a murderer? Also, throwing books at a thug aiming at school kids and teachers wont do much to stop him. Think of how many lives could have been saved at sandy hook if the teachers could have taken down the murderer.

  • There will always be wolves in the world. Transforming ourselves into sheep won't make the wolves go away, only provide them with an easier meal.

    God forbid, if there is a war someday and you as the adult or guardian do not teach your loved ones, no will know how to fight.
    Most criminals are weak and prey on the weaker. So a "show of presence" or "show of force" will deter them, just simple knowledge.
    When people handle firing weaponry and they become cognizant of how fleeting and precious life can be. "Children who are familiar with safety arms & trained in basic safety rules are less likely to play with them inappropriately." Richard Poe
    Better to know and not need it rather than not know and need it.

  • Just Like Nuclear Weapons

    If everyone has guns and is trained to use them, this will deter everyone from using guns in the first place. If every country has a nuclear weapon capable of destroying millions of people, that will act as a deterrent from using such means to kill enemies. That system worked in the Cold War and it will work in regards to gun control laws in the United States.

  • It will lower

    Criminologists have stated that in US citizens have used guns 2.5 million times every year to prevent a crime from taking place.
    Not letting citizens have guns will let the criminal to murder or rob more easily.
    Citzens will feel more confident with a gun in their hand to protect themselves.

  • To say no is being in favor of gun control.

    Some people shouldn't get guns according to the severity of their mental health I agree, but I do believe a well armed population would leave people less likely to commit crimes. Yes! I actually believe it would help promote peace. Why? Well, why as a criminal would I want to mess with a society where everyone has guns around me? They wouldn't! They'd be too scared! Let's face it they get their guns illegally no matter what so we as people should use our 2nd amendment right wisely.

  • Criminals fear guns.

    Contrary to what Anthony would have you believe, according to the Brady campaign, the states with "lower gun control" (a number of which actually are in the South) actually have less gun death. Go figure. There have been multiple studies of felons in prison and the majority say their number one fear is that their intended victim is armed. Citizens arming themselves have only cause gun deaths to go down.

    Http://www.Breitbart.Com/Big-Government/2013/12/03/Congressional-Research-Service-More-Guns-Less-Crime

  • Yes it would be a deterrent.

    Yes, training and arming citizens would lower crimes rates, because a person would think twice before breaking into a house if they knew that the people living in the house had guns that the knew how to use. Citizens would also be able to fight back when are attacked, for example in mall and movie theater shootings.

  • The exact opposite

    By training people to use lethal weapons, it would be provoking misconduct. If people were freely armed with a handhelled weapon, it would increase the chances of fights occuring. In the 17/1800s, when people brought guns with them to their day-to-day lives, many people began finding a way to "settle problems" in a duel. Crime rates would increase greatly and if people were trained to use the guns, it would lower the power of the police enforcement.

  • Statistics prove otherwise.

    I doubt it would. If someone held you up at gunpoint and demanded for your wallet, I doubt you'd have enough time you pull our gun out and shoot. The South has a higher rate of gun ownership and crime levels are much higher than any other region of the U.S.

  • Many countries have lower crime rates and no armed citizens

    If you look outside the United States, you will see that many countries, taking European countries as an example, forbid the possession of weapons. And actually, it doesn't make people feel like they are deprived of their freedom, but rather that they live in a safer world, where it is less likely that a gunman will show up in a school or another place and slaughter innocent victims.

    Training and arming people would only reinforce insecurity, not lessen it, as more people would have the ability to kill or wound others voluntarily.
    Surrounded with armed people, I personally do NOT feel safe.

  • I believe it would be worse

    When i get annoyed at someone i very rarely lash out, it take s a lot for me to get pissed off but the thought of shooting someone that has done wrong is a nice thought. But if people was carrying around guns then the temptation is there, another problem is that people who don't want to cary guns would be at a disadvantage. If one person shot someone in self defense then other people believe they can resolve it because they have guns, and it will start a chain of events and everyone will die... Our society is not ready for that yet, a psychological test would be vital to siv out the liabilitys from the people who would actually use it in self defense.

  • Arming citizens will make army and police for inefficient.

    I don't really feel there is any need to arm and train citizens to use it. Instead of self defence people would use it for their domniance.They may use to take revenge, to loot someone, to make slave someone etc. People may easily break the rules and laws.The police force will become inefficient and will not be able to maintain law and order.Army will be needed at this situations.

  • Create Vigil Antes

    I do not believe training and arming citizens would lower crime rates. I believe this would empower people who may not need further empowerment. It could lead to a plethora of problems in society, where an armed citizen may enforce unnecessary power over another individual without any checks or balances.

  • Training and arming citizens sould not lower crime rates.

    Normal citizens should not have to undergo military training. Also, putting more guns into society is likely to cause more crimes. If more people have access to weapons and they know how to use them effectively, it is likely that more people will use them either out of anger or by accident.

  • No, it would not.

    Training and arming citizens would lead to increased violence. Many citizens are unworthy of the right to bear arms. There is a reason why it is so hard to become a cop. A petty criminal should not be enforcing laws just because they haven't been caught committing a felony yet.

  • It wouldnt lower at all

    Here is the thing about crime, people do it regardless of knowing about the consequences. Arming and training citizens might make them more hesitant but they will take risks, just like they do already, in order to do the bad things that they do because they see it worth it to them. There is always a chance that they feel that they will get away with it and that is what lets them still continue to do it. If anything, arming citizens will just cause more problems.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Haroush says2014-02-20T13:33:06.983
There have been more people lives saved by ordinary citizens with guns than police with guns so this is a great case where the majority is wrong.