Sfdebris.net

So, this happened https://www.denverpost.com/2013/05/24/n ... ownership/

Apparently the town of Nucla Colorado passed a law requiring residents to have guns.

In Alaska, anyone traveling to polar bear areas are required to carry a gun.

They aren't the first to actually do that, though. There was another place back east that passed a similar law back in the '80s because a neighboring town banned handgun ownership. I can't remember where exactly, though, but I remember it being talked about with the same kind of doom and gloom anti-gun types who swore blood would run in the streets and that there'd be old west style duels, and naturally it didn't actually happen. Of course, as I recall, they didn't really enforce the law, and I doubt that this place will either. Just as with the "individual mandate" of the ACA, mandating someone purchase something is not something that's going to go over well in this country.

In a perfect world sense, I believe if everyone is allowed to own guns, no real restrictions and the word out on the street to all criminals that anybody, man, woman or old people can be armed and are willing to defend themselves, there might be less petty crime because criminals are afraid of getting shot as much as anyone else. Criminals want to take the least amount of risk possible, that's why there's so much petty crime in the world. The thugs out there think they can just rob or attack people without any danger to themselves. Let them known everyone that they see as a potential target is armed, they might think twice. Of course, I encourage anyone who owns a gun to get proper training and practice good safety.

Excalibur, the problem with your scenario is that it assumes everyone places a high value on their own life. Plenty of mass shootings where the shooter turned the gun on themselves proves this is not a reliable assumption.

Mass shooters are a minority among criminals, so his point still stands. Plus, if more people were armed, maybe any would-be mass shooters would off themselves or get killed before they could kill as many people.

Admiral X, there were plenty of people with guns at the Country Music Festival. That didn't help at all.

After the first mandatory gun law, crime went down in the town it was passed in. Of course, crime went down in the entire state too, so some statisticians claim that one town's statistics didn't prove anything.
These statisticians lack imagination. One town passed a mandatory gun law, and crime went down practically nationwide. The way I figure it, this means that if all the towns went the same way, we'd probably cure cancer.

Or, you could do what the UK did and abolish the use of guns outside of registered gun clubs.

The use of these places would allow much better regulations on firearms, and would allow the wording "a well regulated militia" to actually mean that the use of these arms were...well...regulated!

Obviously that's NEVER going to happen, as I think any person who suggested it (Democrat, Republican or Independent) would be lynched.

you do know there is a crime called unlawful discharge of a firearm right?