• Agree that it will reduce crime

    Morally speaking, there is nothing stopping anyone from committing a crime as it is. Knowing that the home you want to intrude is armed And you run the risk of injury or death negates the purpose
    Of the intrusion. In public areas, innocents will be able to stop a criminal if properly trained as opposed to be a victim. Not allowing those with a criminal past to be legally armed in conjunction with this idea, I feel, would eventually see the decline of crimes committed overall.

  • It's a fact where gun ownership is Mandatory

    Forget opinion, just work with facts from places with mandatory ownership. Why aren't figure of mandatory gun ownership vs crime rates published more often? Take emotion out, we need to use the best available techniques to reduce all crime in the world, don't bother just reducing gun crime, mandatory ownership reduces, robbery, assault, rape, etc. You'd hope the flow on effect would be a reduction in all crimes.

  • as said below Kennesaw, Georgia and Switzerland

    Both these places have a high rate of gun ownership and very low homicide rates. There has been 9 homicides in the past two decades since the law requiring a gun in every home (exempting religious objectors) was passed and only three of those were with firearms. Switzerland which has a high gun ownership rate also has lower crime about .7 homicide in a 100,000 people a year. These places are both evidence that having widespread gun ownership does not cause crime. In fact, it shows the opposite.

  • Gun ownership is mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia and the crime rate has plummeted.

    New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

    The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982.

  • Yes, it will.

    If it were required that all people have guns, I think that the vast majority of crime would sharply decrease. There would be no more robberies, because people would realize that every person who they tried to steal from would be armed with a weapon. That keeps criminals away I think.

  • Some people should not have guns.

    Giving everyone a gun and forcing it on them would not reduce crime because some people should not have guns because they are not ready or able to operate a gun. There is also the matter of cost of owning and operating a gun. Perhaps it would increase crime, trying to buy a gun.

  • No, I think the opposite would happen.

    Right now, America has a very high rate of gun ownership and that correlates with a very high rate of gun violence. Requiring everyone to own a gun would not help the situation, and would only serve to make it worse. There are some people in society who just should not own firearms.

  • Just the opposite.

    Mandatory gun ownership would not reduce the crime rate, instead it would increase it. More people would have access to guns and the safety precautions set in place for gun ownership would disappear. People who are not stable enough to own a gun, would then have access and would go shooting anyone who crosses them the wrong way. Murder rates would increase across the nation.

  • No It Would Not

    Making it mandatory for people to own guns would not change anything or reduce the crime rate. If anything, it would raise the crime rate. I think people would start robbing stores and shooting each other in a lot of areas. This idea is not good or safe in my opinion.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.