You feel safe knowing that someone around you may carry a loaded weapon if you carry one too
Click to vote
36%113 Votes
Strongly Disagree
21%66 Votes
Disagree
15%46 Votes
Undecided
19%59 Votes
Agree
10%33 Votes
Strongly Agree
36%113 Votes
Strongly Disagree
21%66 Votes
Disagree
15%46 Votes
Undecided
19%59 Votes
Agree
10%33 Votes
Strongly Agree
Male
Female
0%0 Votes
Strongly Disagree
100%1 Votes
Disagree
0%0 Votes
Undecided
0%0 Votes
Agree
0%0 Votes
Strongly Agree
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
I don't know if I'd feel "safe" if I could carry the a weapon if someone else was carrying one. But I would feel "unsafe" if gun permits were handed out only to a select few, and I were not allowed, by law, to also apply for and received a gun permit if I wished.
Yeah, there are drivers out there who are a good argument for making Cracker Jack a controlled substance.
On point, I always feel unsafe if my government is armed and I am not. This includes cops, National Guard, armed services, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, BATF (they have a new name these days, ATF, I think), Air Marshals, U.S. Marshals, and any other of the plethora of armed personnel our government uses to protect itself from citizens. And I think there should be a *parity* of armament. If they have automatic weapons, so should I. If they have missiles, so should I . IF they have flak jackets, so should I. Makes for a polite government, if nothing else.
[2 points]4 years ago by dauguyReplyEdited 4 years ago by dauguy
Hey, you know all these studies that show that an unarmed populace has a lower murder rate? And then somebody counters with Switzerland--100% armed, almost no murders? I wonder if there is a positive correlation between murder rate and the disparity of armament between government--all-levels-- and populace?
I can ask it in the forum, but am interested if anyone out there knows of any studies looking at this specific side of the issue?
[1 point]4 years ago by dauguyReplyEdited 4 years ago by dauguy
How can I feel safe if I know any loaded weapon near of me. If the guy with the other loaded weapon starting some crazy stuff and will shot at me then my weapon is not stopping the other bullets.
I think, this question is kind of stupid and represents the american thinking about weapons. The question means for example, that any country in the world should have atomic weapons to feel safe, because Amercia, Russia, China and some other countries have one. So, if some one trops a atomic bomb, my country can start another bomb to make it even. But this doesn't make me feel safe, does it?
If twenty ex-marines were in the room and all have permits to carry a concealed weapon, have extensive firearms training, are packing .357 magnums, and one ex-con walks in with a firearm in hand pointing it menacingly at all in a crazy wanton manner like addicts in need of a fix might do, wouldn't it make you happy there were 20 people in the room that could quickly dispatch the fool?
They'd save your life and not even get in any trouble for it because witnesses could all attest to the fact the ex-con was armed and dangerous (and inded a threat to poor little defenseless you who didn't even have a gun.) =]
[1 point]4 years ago by ChipmonkReplyEdited 4 years ago by Chipmonk
In Switzerland, principally every man is required to attend military service. Most get their own gun including ammunition to keep at home (although ammunition will not be stored at home anymore from 2009 onwards). I do so myself. But I don't feel safe in Switzerland because of the high density of guns, but because we don't have much social tensions compared to other developed countries and therefore crime and murder rates are very low. The equations more guns = safe / unsafe are both wrong, the question is who's carrying them and why.
Greece
I don't know if I'd feel "safe" if I could carry the a weapon if someone else was carrying one. But I would feel "unsafe" if gun permits were handed out only to a select few, and I were not allowed, by law, to also apply for and received a gun permit if I wished.
I'm not even sure that I feel safe that many of the people around me have driver's licenses.
Yeah, there are drivers out there who are a good argument for making Cracker Jack a controlled substance.
On point, I always feel unsafe if my government is armed and I am not. This includes cops, National Guard, armed services, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, BATF (they have a new name these days, ATF, I think), Air Marshals, U.S. Marshals, and any other of the plethora of armed personnel our government uses to protect itself from citizens. And I think there should be a *parity* of armament. If they have automatic weapons, so should I. If they have missiles, so should I . IF they have flak jackets, so should I. Makes for a polite government, if nothing else.
Hey, you know all these studies that show that an unarmed populace has a lower murder rate? And then somebody counters with Switzerland--100% armed, almost no murders? I wonder if there is a positive correlation between murder rate and the disparity of armament between government--all-levels-- and populace?
I can ask it in the forum, but am interested if anyone out there knows of any studies looking at this specific side of the issue?
How can I feel safe if I know any loaded weapon near of me. If the guy with the other loaded weapon starting some crazy stuff and will shot at me then my weapon is not stopping the other bullets.
I think, this question is kind of stupid and represents the american thinking about weapons. The question means for example, that any country in the world should have atomic weapons to feel safe, because Amercia, Russia, China and some other countries have one. So, if some one trops a atomic bomb, my country can start another bomb to make it even. But this doesn't make me feel safe, does it?
If twenty ex-marines were in the room and all have permits to carry a concealed weapon, have extensive firearms training, are packing .357 magnums, and one ex-con walks in with a firearm in hand pointing it menacingly at all in a crazy wanton manner like addicts in need of a fix might do, wouldn't it make you happy there were 20 people in the room that could quickly dispatch the fool?
They'd save your life and not even get in any trouble for it because witnesses could all attest to the fact the ex-con was armed and dangerous (and inded a threat to poor little defenseless you who didn't even have a gun.) =]
How would an "ex-con" get hold of a gun if it was illegal under all circumstances in the first place?
And btw prison-sentence is meant for rehabilitation, if run right there shouldnt be "ex-cons" commiting crimes.
What's scary about your scenario is if one or more of the ex-marines is an addict themself.
Don´t know. If I am quicker than the other guys.
In Switzerland, principally every man is required to attend military service. Most get their own gun including ammunition to keep at home (although ammunition will not be stored at home anymore from 2009 onwards). I do so myself. But I don't feel safe in Switzerland because of the high density of guns, but because we don't have much social tensions compared to other developed countries and therefore crime and murder rates are very low. The equations more guns = safe / unsafe are both wrong, the question is who's carrying them and why.