Maybe, but what do you reckon's the demography for all folk who own guns?

Don't know. Too speculative.

Its personal liberty. As long as you don't commit a crime with one, its your choice if you want to invite that level of danger into your life.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

Site is not working for me, but I think this had something about fire extinguishers.

Fact is guns have saved more lives than ended.

Often, they work as a leverage point between criminal and civilian.

They turn a civilian into a vigilante if others are threatened.

It takes 5 minutes for cops to come but 5 seconds to have the weapon ready

Fact is guns have saved more lives than ended.

First of all, it's not a "fact". Second, probably it's the opposite. Mutually assured wrecking is not a thing, it just ends in delayed great bloodshed. Fire extinguishers and some kevlar armour, now those I'm almost sure have saved more lives than killed (how do you kill someone with armour? Not my weapon of choice). I mean, you can even by some normal-looking shirts that can deflect some of the lower-speed bullets. They're popular amongst those who can afford them in Middle and South America (which have the highest murder rates in the world; higher than America). I own a gun, just a medium-sized revolver, but I also own a fire extinguisher, some of those clothes that can stop low-speed bullets, and some hazard boots (they're awesome, electricity resistant, force-absorbing, metal-toed).

If mutual assured destruction worked, then mutual assured murder works moreso.

Precisely. One can die, or two can die.

But none will die.

If mutual assured destruction worked, then mutual assured murder works moreso.

With MAD there was no nuclear war.

With MAMurder, there will be no death.

With MAW in the Cold War, there was several times; we narrowly escaped a very great bloodshed.
With MAW in the Pretty Epoque, it started the First World War.

With MAMurder, there will be 2 deaths.

Fact is guns have saved more lives than ended.

Often, they work as a leverage point between criminal and civilian.

They turn a civilian into a vigilante if others are threatened.

It takes 5 minutes for cops to come but 5 seconds to have the weapon ready
as i said in juqs better america thread, a trained criminal with a gun is much more likely to kill a civilian with a gun than the other way around and a civilian with a gun is more likely to get killed than a civilian without a gun as the civilian with a gun is seen as more of a threat, the gun just makess you a target and is almost useless to you if your not trained as most civilians arent

If mutual assured destruction worked, then mutual assured murder works moreso.
this isnt true, because of the simple fact that a nuke doesnt kill the whole country so there is someone stillable to fire a nuke back while with a gun someone immediately dies so the quickest one wont die, in MAD both or none will die in MAW one will die every time

Well statistics don't lie.

http://americangunfacts.com/

firstly without guns there wouldnt be a need for all that self defense and secondly i can also post statistics which say the oposite: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/19/guns-in-america-for-every-criminal-killed-in-self-defense-34-innocent-people-die/
like this one for example

First of all, without guns people would still rob and murder, just with swords.

Secondly, even if you banned guns there would still be guns and gun violence.

Without guns criminals get the guns. There's a lot more people in America across a vaster expanse. There are many cops but they can't be everywhere instantly.

Most gun murders arent premeditated just drunk or angry people, even if criminals still have guns ( which I'm not so sure about) it would still lower the amount of murders
And thieves wouldn't go through all the trouble of getting a gun illegally so if you found a robber in your house instead of a gun ffight the robber would rub away or knock you out which wouldn't kill you so it would also help there

Edited 3/19/2016 07:08:18

How hard is it kill someone with a sword compared to a gun? ( that was rhetorical in case your to dumb to grasp that)